Your cherry picking scenario's to suit your argument. There is no doubt the couple looking after that poor lad are doing a great job. However would they be able to do as good a job as a stable and loving mother and father.

My answer is no they can't it's not biologically possible even you must be able to see that.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

I do agree yes, but only to a point. I suppose what I'm saying is that as an alternative to a s***ty life, with even s***tier parents then same sex couples who offer the child a better environment are obviously better for that child.

My question is are they better than a stable loving mother and father. My opinion is no they are not, and nature (not just humans but pretty much all life on the planet) backs me up on that point.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Would the kid need adopting if they had a stable loving mother and father. The priority in care is to get kids into adoption.

Of course this doesn't apply to children of surrogates and normal instance (many gay men have children anyhow).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Interesting, it seems you think same sex couples automatically are sh*tty parents. My point is that they may start out with some disadvantage but in my experience they compensate for that in a very active and thoughtful way, to the point they are probably better parents than the majority. Especially if they are supported by grandparents who frequently are the prime carer in any case where there are mixed sex parents.

See this is the thing. There's a very true saying in life. What you don't have you don't miss. Your girls had their mum , you all remember her . You are also a male raising two girls. Much the same for a woman raising boys who have had their father present.

My case as you know is I have never met or known the identity of my father. Growing up I didn't bat an eyelid. To me I had a mum. Didn't give any thought to my father. As I say what you don't have you don't miss. It's bothered me immensely as I grew older and learnt the details behind my entry into the world. But as a kid. Nope. Made no difference to me at all. However I realise this may be because I am a female and it's a male figure. I wonder therefore what difference or impact it has if it's the opposite gender to the child who is absent for whatever reason.

When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC

I don't think that gay parents should be the first in line in terms of adoption and that the priority of adoption agencies should be to place children in families that suit the ideal basis for that child wherever possible.

However, there is, and always has been a shortage of adoptive parents. Gay couples are a solution to that that is better than the alternative (staying in care and bouncing around foster families until you're kicked out into the world). Hell, even single adoptive parents are often better than a life in care or in the foster system - Even if it means being the kid with two dads at school (because before that you were the kid with no parents at school and getting bullied for that).

Plus of course, some kids are gay and might actually benefit from being brought up or placed with parents who actually understand what they're going through (a lot of people who are gay, report knowing from a young age).

So is it the ideal placement for a kid, no. But its better than no placement, and its probably the second best option.

Problem with finding a male female couple who want to adopt is that they're the least likely group - as they'll usually have to be infertile and unresponsive to IVF and treatments (which could take upwards of 5-10 years to come to a conclusion over).

Clouding the issue of best interests for the kid in care with ideals runs the danger of missing the point - that kids in care and in foster care, are already in a high risk environment.

Child Protective Services as well would likely find it much easier to remove kids from risky environments, if they had better options that care and foster care.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]