Children as lifestyle ornaments

Was the woman inseminated with Coopers semen, like did Anderson's partner spit in her vagina? I ask because that is not too far from heterosexual couples who have one partner who is not fertile so they use a sub. Kind of like a bowling league, but with babies.

One guarantee, whether it is with an adopted child or having one or both parents not being the biological parents. The moment that child does something incredibly stupid or horrible, the first thought by the non biological parent is "must be bad genetics". heck, that happens to a lesser extent even when you are biologically related, you always blame the child's faults on the other side of the family. It just increases exponentially when you are playing parent to a child that you are not related to and, in theory, could legally marry when they become an adult (i.e., Woody Allen).

Credo is right, and there is much more.  From the American College of Pediatricians 

Homosexual Parenting-A Scientific Analysis

The greater good is, 

1. Don’t get pregnant (since we do now know what causes it)
2. If you ignore biology and get pregnant but don’t want to raise a child, give him or her up for adoption
3. Actions have consequences:  Wanting something doesn’t mean you get to have it.  If your lifestyle choices are such that a child will be harmed, then don’t have a child.  Don’t put your wants ahead of the child’s needs:  That is selfish.

My wife’s cousin, with whom I am good friends, is a married gay man and they have adopted three children (loving in Oregon).

the eldest is 7 so no sexual identification yet, but I oppose them adopting and raising children... but no one asked me.

My opinion is a gay couple adopting is better than foster care indefinitely or a a conventional couple who provide a bad environment. However, it is not as good as a stable conventional couple, for you never get the perspective of the gender not represented.

I put gay couple adoptions on the same footing as single parent adoptions, assuming all other variables are the same. Definitely not the goal.

I agree with your final statement, and I would go further in opposing in principle adoption of children by same-sex couples (married or not) because of the harm of putting a child into a situation where they are subject to confusion about fundamental and healthy sexual roles. I would also oppose adoption by single people--male or female. If a singe person wants a child, then they should get married and conceive a child the way nature (and nature's God) intended.

No one--not even a married man and woman--has an absolute right to a child. They have, of course, the right to their own natural-born children. What I'm saying is that no individual person has some sort of natural or moral right to have a child. If a married couple cannot conceive then they can adopt. So, yes, I am also opposed to any form of artificial conception of a child--even by a married man and woman. We are not the Creator, we are the creation, and we have no moral right to usurp the role of nature and nature's God in creating life.

If Anderson Cooper has such a burning desire to be a father then he should find a woman, marry her, and conceive and raise that child. His desire to be a father, in my opinion, is indicative of a fundamental desire (i.e. human nature) to unite with the other (a woman), despite whatever trauma and experience have otherwise convinced him that what he "wants" is another man. If he's not ready to marry a woman then he's not really ready to be a father--it's that simple. He is physically capable of conceiving a child (like a horny 15-year-old is), but he is not ready to be a father. Fatherhood, as we all know, is abundantly more than about just providing sperm.

As to your first statement, while it is well-intentioned, it is a common sentiment that presents a false alternative: either a loving and stable gay couple or a conventional (i.e., normal) couple with a bad environment. The problem is that this is never a known alternative prior to adoption. No conventional couple with a bad environment would ever be allowed to adopt in the first place. The rigorous vetting of any couple who wishes to adopt is meant to ensure as much as possible that any child they adopt will be placed in a healthy environment. And anyone familiar with the gay "lifestyle" can tell you this is anything but a stable environment. Even gay "marriage" overwhelmingly accepts that the couple (especially men) will be allowed to engage in outside sexual activity. There simply isn't the expectation of exclusivity that goes along with natural marriage. And because of the very nature of the same-sex relationship, such a situation is in principle an unhealthy one for the people involved--let alone a child who is subjected to it.

We simple cannot make vague notions like "stability" or "good environment" some sort of criteria for determining whether a child should be allowed into a relationship. If that were the case, a good portion of "conventional" married couple throughout all human history would be disqualified. Heck, I bet half of our own households growing up might not qualify. And who makes such a decision--some government agency? We already have some places where there are attempts to deny conventional married couples adoptive children if those parents are too firm in their Christian beliefs; where a couple who doesn't approve of homosexuality is seen as "unfit" to adopt a child. 

Am I saying that a "gay" person, that is, a person with same-sex attraction, cannot be a good and loving parent? Absolutely not, since there likely have been untold millions of such people who did so throughout the history of mankind. Except that they exercised this loving relationship as mother or father within a traditional marriage, even as they struggled with their own inner feelings.

Marriage is one man/one woman, and lifelong for the benefit of their children. (Yes, there are exceptional situations of abuse or infidelity or danger to children, wherein people--usually women--may be forced to choose the lesser of two evils in separation or even divorce, but those are almost always unforeseen and never intended at the outset.)

While these views may not find agreement with most (or even many) of you here, they're not my personal opinions per se, but are simply based in the received common wisdom of pretty much all of human history--including every major civilization and religious tradition. No healthy society can thrive or survive long by exchanging these principles for some new man-made fashion. The West, unfortunately, has been trying just this for a few generations now and we can see the results in widespread divorce, the lowest marriage rates in history, 40% of children born out of wedlock, and general unhappiness and confusion among huge numbers of young people.

Totally understood where you were coming from. I think the overwhelming majority of people understand and agree with my sentiments above, but have been so bludgeoned with political correctness that they are loathe to admit it openly for fear of being labeled "bigoted," "homophobic," or some such other made-up shaming device.

For all the happy talk about "it doesn't matter who you love, as long as you're happy," the reality is, no parent would consciously choose or desire that their child would grow up to be gay or lesbian. If that does happen, most parents--as loving parents do--will try to reconcile themselves to the situation. And when I've put that question to people, they almost always fall back on that false dichotomy of "well I'd rather they were gay and happy than straight and unhappy."

When I saw the story about Anderson Cooper last week, it reminded me of something I read about Rosie O'Donnell many years ago.

Rosie and her "partner" had adopted a boy back in the 1990's. In an interview she was asked how she would respond if (that is, when) her son asked, "Mommy, how come I don't have a daddy like other kids?" She responded by saying she would tell her son that "Mommy is the kind of mommy that doesn't want a daddy." I remember thinking, what an awful dilemma for that boy--to feel that his natural desire for a father could potentially come into conflict with the love I'm sure he truly had for his mother.