It is an arrangement that is extremely uncommon through most of human history/evolution so it seems reasonable to believe that humans may not be well adapted to brought up by gay couples. You could argue that the lack of genetic relationship to the parents overwhelms any difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. But on balance it is not difficult to see why being reared be both a male and female parent could have advantages.

Additionally to this you could imagine a scenario where the genes that tended to increase heterosexuality also played a part in being a naturally 'good parent'.

Of course all these 'first assumptions' could and should be replaced by actual evidence and I know there is some of that. However I'd argue that studies and statistics to date are likely to be biased by the additional hurdles placed in front of gay couples. Only the very best and most dedicated gay couples are likely to allowed to adopt.

I'm not arguing that this justifies a blanket ban, but a degree of caution seems to make sense.

Luckily, plenty of gay couples have tried raising kids, and they do just fine, thank you very much. :)

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

"Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation."

I have no doubt that many gay couples do quite well at raising children. I would however put those cases were one of the biological parents was present in a different category to what we are talking about (which I suspect is your case).

> "Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation."

As I argued in my post, most studies are likely to effected by selection bias so it is going to be tough to get a solid "empirical foundation" either way.

The real question is who should have the burden of evidence? Should we say that 'until gay couples are proven to be good parents we won't allow adoption' or 'unless it is proven that gay couples are bad parents they should have identical adoption rights'. I don't think either is sensible position and some sort of middle ground would be best as more evidence accumulates.

Why do gay parents need to prove their parenting abilities when no one else does? Where are your empirical studies on straight parents being good parents, or "better" than gay parents? What is your definition of a good parent, anyway? What is your definition of "natural" (as in "naturally good parents")?

We shouldn't do either of those options, they are both total horseshit. It's not a matter of what rule we should adopt, it's a matter of should we adopt a rule at all. And no, we shouldn't.

> Why do gay parents need to prove their parenting abilities when no one else does?

Straight parents are the origin of the our species. Everyone of your biological ancestors forms a direct and unbroken line of 'Straight parents'. It is logical to assume children are well adapted to straight parents and vice versa. In fact we have no other real choice.

When a company develops a new substance and wants to use it as a food additive we naturally ask if it has been tested properly before allowing human consumption. But we do not ask whether commonly eaten foods such as rice and bananas need testing. The have been tested throughout history.

To put it another way,