Sure there are many studies saying children with 2 parents find life easier than with one (not the same as saying one parent families can’t raise great kids) but don’t think anyone has looked into the difference between same sex and different sex parents. Imagine they’d get a prickly reception if they did. I think access to a both a female and male loving influence is important for balance but personally think that can be a granny, aunt etc. Without science it’s all opinion and guess work. The ideal is clearly 2 loving parents in a happy and stable relationship which trumps all the fine print in my book.

Fair enough re. Adoption. My first point around family values still stands.

As for surrogates, it’s not about society allowing it, you’d clearly shut it down for one. It’s simply about choice and equality not imposing limitations based on predjudice on people simply because of their sexual orientation.

And also not because of any unfounded but socially prevelant falsehoods and archetypes that persist around (in this case) gay people - e.g gays are promiscuous/wear skin tight clothes/speak funny.

Essentially check yourself, because it’s a very closed minded, persecutory, groupthink narrative with no basis in fact, other than the usual ‘they’re different to me - Brian, get the pitchforks, we’re going hunting’

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

I was mainly raised by a stepfather.....it isn't something I'd recommend personally but I'm sure there are good ones out there doing a great job.

You had a bit of money involved in your raising while I had Norton house council estate (not your nor my fault)....there are undoubtedly factors involved in every upbringing which explain why A led to B happening.

Genetic disposition, environment...which of course involves the family culture....which is the aspect we are debating.

The question is probably.....by allowing a wider form of families....is the state firstly damaging the traditional.....Plus....in the situations where this form of part adoption goes wrong.....are the state implicated?

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

'Check yourself'?

Your last paragraph is total waffle. The idea that not allowing adoption via surrogates as persecution and pitchfork hunting.....You are just talking hyperbolic nonsense.

Talking for myself, instead of you talking for me. If I had control over how the law was framed I wouldn't totally ban it....gay adoption that is....surrogacy...is a position I'm even more doubtful on as a concept...it is far far from ideal....but lets just stick with the concept of gay adoption in general.

I would instead have it decided in court with a judge charged with ensuring that this child was being brought into a family that involved opposite sex day to day influence.

In many cases I'm sure that would be satisfied....but not all.

This is the state allowing a family type that didn't commonly exist before. The state is implicated if it goes wrong.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Feb 2018 7.43pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I’d agree it’s hyperbolic, mainly because I couldn’t resist it on this occasion. But it’s certianly not nonsense.

You have a prejudiced opinion, and you are making decision on ‘feel’ as you so put it, rather than fact.

Unless you can put forward a credible piece of scientific research that states same sex parenting is bad for society and or children, you’re simply saying you don’t like anything that deviates from the standard model (whatever the hell that is), and by extension, gay couples.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Do you have any that says it isn't?
The trouble with research is that is often suppressed or interpreted in order to pander to current trends of 'morality'. Right now equality is the buzz word and the gay lobby is noisy.
My concern is that the child's welfare is lost in all that politics.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (14 Feb 2018 8.00pm)