KnifeMissile

Yes, I think that there is a benefit to being raised by a male and female role model because I believe that there is a benefit to diversity. What does a man, gay or not, know about women?
Note that I didn't mention this issue in my post? Please consider some of the other things that you've said, in other posts.

"When you leave the gene pool, you sort of give up that right in my book." What does this mean? There are plenty of heterosexual couples who desire children but have "left the gene pool." Shouldn't they raise children? Homosexual couples can choose to bear their own children so they haven't really left the gene pool, have they? Do you still think they "give up that right?"

When you say things like you wish for the "hierarchy of adoptions was straight > gay," and that you "think the best interest of the child is served having a mother and 8father and that interest is what must be thought of first," and that it is simply "BETTER for children to be in heterosexual homes," you imply that it is so important that all other factors need not be considered, like being raised by heterosexual serial killers. While you do say, as part of a post that the last quote is from, that being in a good homosexual home is better than being a ward of the state (which isn't all bad, really), all these quotes have been unqualified and have not been taken out of context. I'm not Michael Moore, go back and read them, if you like.

"There is some wisdom to be found in religion, otherwise we wouldn't keep them." First of all, there being wisdom is not why they are still around. Obviously (I would hope that this is obvious) not all that is religious is wise. After all, there are a lot of disagreements among the different religions. They can't all be right?
You know, there is wisdom to be found in thought. Otherwise, we wouldn't keep thinking.

You say that you "have all of human recorded history which tends to favor a male/female set up in the family." This may be presumptuous but I suspect that you've never read any piece of history that has even mentioned homosexual couples raising a child. If so, how can it favour heterosexual parents?
Or, do you mean that, because parents in the recorded past have been heterosexual, that this must be what makes the best parents? You're pretty hung up on this "past" thing, aren't you? If you can't see that what was done in the past isn't always a good thing and that things can improve over time, I fear I'm debating this with the wrong person. As it is, I think my words are falling on deaf ears, and I've shown you why, already.

These really sound like rationalizations. Combine this with some of the pious things that you've said or implied and I get the impression that you're really objectioning on religious grounds. Of course, you can't just come out and say this so you try to back up your position with some kind of evidence. The same thing happened when it became legal for women to be topless in public. Many people objected and made up some ridiculous arguments. They were so bad that I can only assume they were objectioning based on reasons they didn't feel would withstand debate, like their religious beliefs (although, to my knowledge, there's nothing in the bible against nudity).