From: wagley@screaming.net   
      
   "i"  wrote in message   
   news:XtpvupAaWMaFFw$V@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...   
   > In message <45688e00$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, John Brockbank   
   >  writes   
   >>   
   >>"i"  wrote in message   
   >>news:u00x4SCgB1ZFFwRy@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...   
   >>> In message , Evelyn   
   >>> Ruut   
   >>>  writes   
   >>>   
   >>> ralph writes   
   >>>   
   >>>>> There are doubrless examples of same-sex couples doing a magnificent   
   >>>>> job   
   >>>>> of rearing children, but they will only illustrate the richness of   
   >>>>> human   
   >>>>> kind: they will not change the odds materially.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Anyone out there agree, or even disagree?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>I don't think there is enough evidence in the way of real studies about   
   >>>>how children of same sex relationships fare in the world.   When there   
   >>>>is,   
   >>>>there may be something more to discuss.   Personally I think it is as   
   >>>>individual as the people themselves may be.   
   >>>   
   >>> Firstly, the information about these influences comes from the British   
   >>> cohort studies.   
   >>>   
   >>> These started in 1946 to coincide with the start of the National Health   
   >>> Service. A sample of all the children born on one day was chosen (about   
   >>> 8,000) and they have been followed through their lives, and then the   
   >>> lives   
   >>> of their children, and now grandchildren. The original sample has been   
   >>> supplemented from time to time.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is these studies which show the advantage obtained from two-parent,   
   >>> two-sex families over all others.   
   >>>   
   >>> Now, in most cases the others will not include two males or two females;   
   >>> such families were rare, certainly at the beginning.   
   >>>   
   >>> Some such groups may do a great job (as I originally acknowledged), but   
   >>> to   
   >>> risk the others strikes me as playing with vulnerable lives in a way   
   >>> which   
   >>> is not for their benefit.   
   >>>   
   >>> --   
   >>> ralph   
   >>   
   >>So you think that orphans and other children without parents to look after   
   >>them should be put in care homes?   That will guarantee them misery and   
   >>prison.   
   >>   
   >>   
   > That's a different issue. Children in care homes have mostly been rescued   
   > from abusive or incompetent parents - often single parents. There is a   
   > shortage of children for adoption, at least in the UK, so there is no need   
   > to involve unconventional adoptive parents.   
   >   
   > --   
   > ralph   
      
   There is certainly a larger number of people wanting to adopt babies than   
   there are babies available for adoption;  there are huge numbers of children   
   who would benefit enormously from being adopted or otherwise properly looked   
   after by a man, a woman, a man and a woman, two men, or two women.  Why it   
   is that religious people want to spoil other peoples' lives, I do not know.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)