I do not have a belief that homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation. If you read my posts, I clearly stated I have faith in the general statement that says it occurs during lateralization. It is there, psychologically, before birth. My quote of, “It’s just a person’s preference. I prefer tea over hot chocolate, but that doesn’t mean I have a food disorder,” meant that I was implying their philosophy to things outside of orientation. They like the same gender, just as I like tea. It doesn’t make it a disorder. I wasn’t attempting to imply it’s a choice. Also, I said this twice [now three times because I have to tell you twice – pay attention this time], I call homosexuality a preference because as far as I know, there isn’t really a word that scientifically and correctly explains it. It’s not a disorder, illness, or a preference, but it’s dubbed a preference in my book until I know otherwise. Don’t take it too literally.
“it is better for a child to be raised by opposite sex parents, and that they should be given preference over homosexual couples in terms of adoption.”
Why so? I don’t understand how having a male and female raise you would be any better than two men or two women. The only downfall is maybe a bit of pressure and maybe the lack of a father/mother figure. Even so, children will look to others as role models such as teachers, friend’s parents, etc. Children also receive outside pressure from many things due to their parents: lack of wealth, rumors, etc.
You contradict yourself with, “Ultimately, a child is much better off with loving parents in a stable home than in foster care, and it would be a crime to deprive them of that opportunity simply because of the sexual orientation of the parents.”
Why support homosexuals raising children when the sentence before it, you say heterosexuals should be given priority over homosexuals. Even though that implies it ‘is a crime’ to deny a homosexual a child, it is also a crime to ‘give them a child when there are heterosexuals who want children.’ ‘All else being roughly equal’ – that is like saying it is completely fair, but because their orientation is different than what is traditional, it lowers them from deserving children.
‘It would be a crime to deprive them of that opportunity simply because of the sexual orientation of the parents.’ You saying heterosexuals deserve children over homosexuals is depriving them of the opportunity to have a child/the child to have parents because of the parents’ sexual orientation. There are always going to be heterosexuals adopting.
How you reconcile the different things you've said about choice isn't really of interest to me. If you do or do not believe it is choice, that's fine with me. I don't think it matters.
I don't know why you're having trouble with the consistency of my comments.
I don't think homsexual couples should be prohibited from adopting children.
I do think, based on research I have read and my own personal analysis, that it is advantageous to the healthy development of a child for the parents to be of opposite sexes. This doesn't mean that homosexual parents cannot provide for the healthy development of a child, just that there is a better chance of that result if the parents are heterosexual.
I'm sorry, but I look at this issue in terms of the interests of the child, not the would be parents and so if all else is roughly equal concerning the characteristics of the parents, the fact that one is heterosexual should tip the scales in the choice of who gets to adopt the kid.
If there are not enough decent heterosexual parents out there to adopt children, then there will be children for decent homosexual parents to adopt.
If there are more decent heterosexual parents out there than kids who need to be adopted, then yes, under my rule, decent homosexual parents will not be able to adopt.
That isn't the case though.
There may be a "shortage" of healthy white American babies for adoption, but there are plenty of kids out there who need parents