adoption by gay couples?

[iheartscience]

Date: 6/29/2010 5:08:02 PM
Author: Steal
I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father; ideally their own.

There are exceptions; death, divorce, incapacity etc.

I would not support gay adoption.

Divorce is not an exception because half of all marriages end in divorce. So about half of all children will end up with divorced parents. I''d say it''s the exception to actually have 2 parents living together for your childhood. And to have 2 parents living together happily is even more of an exception.

Do you actually think children are better off in orphanages and foster care than in homes (most likely loving, stable homes) with gay couples? What''s your reasoning?

 

[Steel]

Date: 6/29/2010 6:33:22 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 5:08:02 PM
Author: Steal
I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father; ideally their own.

There are exceptions; death, divorce, incapacity etc.

I would not support gay adoption.

Divorce is not an exception because half of all marriages end in divorce. So about half of all children will end up with divorced parents. I''d say it''s the exception to actually have 2 parents living together for your childhood. And to have 2 parents living together happily is even more of an exception.

Do you actually think children are better off in orphanages and foster care than in homes (most likely loving, stable homes) with gay couples? What''s your reasoning?

Hi Thing,

I don''t agree with your logic as to the qualification of an exception.

As for your last statement, it is a reach from my comments but I''ll run with you. Yes, I do. I have already said why "I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father". Anything less is not ideal and does not form a natural family unit. Children are not released from care to be placed in any environment; ideals are sought.

Go on go crazy....

 

[ericad]

Lots of children grow up in families under circumstances that make their lives more challenging than some other kids have it. Doesn''t mean these families shouldn''t be raising kids, does it? Some kids grow up with parents of mixed race, some kids grow up in low income situations, some kids have single parents raising them, some kids have same sex parents, and other kids grow up under myriad other minority conditions (religion, neighborhood, adoption, etc.) Just because these situations MAY predispose these kids to added hardships doesn''t mean they aren''t wonderful and loving homes. Diversity is part of life!

We have been very diligent about teaching our daughter (age 5) about different kinds of families. She wants to marry her best friend, Maddie. A kid at school told her she can''t marry a girl because then they can''t have babies and that it''s wrong. I explained to her that it''s ok to tell this other kid that that''s not what we believe in our family - this led into a conversation about what it means to be a family, kids in need of adoption, etc. We then watched a great HBO documentary together, all about different kinds of families - same sex, single parents, adopted kids, kids being raised by grandparents, mixed race/ethnicity, mixed religion, etc.

My brother is gay and is married and she adores them both but became very worried about whether it''s ok for them to be married to each other (she''s a very sensitive kiddo). Us teaching her that their love is every bit as precious and valid as everyone else''s has really helped her to gain the tools she needs to assert herself when other kids say confusing things to her. We''ve also taught her to respect other people''s beliefs, though they may be different from ours, but to still speak up for what she thinks is right. Slowly, and generation by generation, perceptions will change. I have to believe that.

 

[ericad]

Date: 6/29/2010 6:50:10 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 6/29/2010 6:33:22 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 5:08:02 PM

Author: Steal

I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father; ideally their own.


There are exceptions; death, divorce, incapacity etc.


I would not support gay adoption.

Divorce is not an exception because half of all marriages end in divorce. So about half of all children will end up with divorced parents. I'd say it's the exception to actually have 2 parents living together for your childhood. And to have 2 parents living together happily is even more of an exception.


Do you actually think children are better off in orphanages and foster care than in homes (most likely loving, stable homes) with gay couples? What's your reasoning?

Hi Thing,


I don't agree with your logic as to the qualification of an exception.


As for your last statement, it is a reach from my comments but I'll run with you. Yes, I do. I have already said why 'I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father'. Anything less is not ideal and does not form a natural family unit. Children are not released from care to be placed in any environment; ideals are sought.


Go on go crazy....

And many children are left in horrific situations with their natural parents in part due to the lack of quality foster homes and adopting families. Arbitrary ideals are sought, and when they cannot be found our nation's children are left to rot.

Too many people have children who don't deserve to, yet so many deserving couples (and singles) are prevented from raising children because they have the same genitalia. It's madness.

 

[E B]

Steal-

Out of genuine curiosity, why is it ideal, to you, that one parent have a penis and the other a vagina?

Date: 6/29/2010 7:15:14 PM
Author: ericad

We then watched a great HBO documentary together, all about different kinds of families - same sex, single parents, adopted kids, kids being raised by grandparents, mixed race/ethnicity, mixed religion, etc.

Did you watch A Family is a Family is a Family? LOVE that one. We have it practically perma-TiVoed over here.

 

[Steel]

Date: 6/29/2010 7:21:12 PM
Author: ericad

Date: 6/29/2010 6:50:10 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 6/29/2010 6:33:22 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 5:08:02 PM

Author: Steal

I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father; ideally their own.


There are exceptions; death, divorce, incapacity etc.


I would not support gay adoption.

Divorce is not an exception because half of all marriages end in divorce. So about half of all children will end up with divorced parents. I''d say it''s the exception to actually have 2 parents living together for your childhood. And to have 2 parents living together happily is even more of an exception.


Do you actually think children are better off in orphanages and foster care than in homes (most likely loving, stable homes) with gay couples? What''s your reasoning?

Hi Thing,


I don''t agree with your logic as to the qualification of an exception.


As for your last statement, it is a reach from my comments but I''ll run with you. Yes, I do. I have already said why ''I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father''. Anything less is not ideal and does not form a natural family unit. Children are not released from care to be placed in any environment; ideals are sought.


Go on go crazy....

And many children are left in horrific situations with their natural parents in part due to the lack of quality foster homes and adopting families. Arbitrary ideals are sought, and when they cannot be found our nation''s children are left to rot.

Too many people have children who don''t deserve to, yet so many deserving couples (and singles) are prevented from raising children because they have the same genitalia. It''s madness.

I''ll reply, but only as you have quoted me.

I disagree but I don''t expect that my view is accepted. I don''t really care. I don''t think it is natural; because it isn''t.

Little is served in referencing a worst case scenario to me. Worst or best I don''t agree.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 6/29/2010 7:29:26 PM
Author: E B
Steal-

Out of genuine curiosity, why is it ideal, to you, that one parent have a penis and the other a vagina?

Yes, this is what I''m wondering.

And Steal-I''m not going to go crazy. I just think you''re a bigot. You can couch it in whatever language you want, but that''s what it boils down to-good old fashioned bigotry.

 

[Steel]

Date: 6/29/2010 7:29:26 PM
Author: E B
Steal-

Out of genuine curiosity, why is it ideal, to you, that one parent have a penis and the other a vagina?

Hi EB,

I believe that a child is an innocent; created. Natural creation requires a man and a woman. Whether the later actions of that couple negate their parenting abilities and rights, those rights are inherently vested in one of each sex. It has been naturally provided that parents will be a man and a woman. If that is the natural order who are we to place that innocent in a less than predetermined ideal.

 

[Steel]

Date: 6/29/2010 7:42:46 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 7:29:26 PM
Author: E B
Steal-

Out of genuine curiosity, why is it ideal, to you, that one parent have a penis and the other a vagina?

Yes, this is what I''m wondering.

And Steal-I''m not going to go crazy. I just think you''re a bigot. You can couch it in whatever language you want, but that''s what it boils down to-good old fashioned bigotry.

Goodness!

But I suppose those opposing my view are not also bigots? Nope, just me. Because my view is politically incorrect. So has much changed at all?

Thing, try to keep comments more civil or they will close the thread

 

[ericad]

Steal, I accept that people will not always agree with me. I find the debate interesting - this conversation stimulating.

So I gather that you consider anything other than a mother/father home unsuitable? So kids being raised by single parents or grandparents, for example - not ok? What about step-parents? Adoptive parents? Where do these fall on your continuum?

As for worst case scenarios, sadly there are so many kids who live in unimaginable conditions, from which they should be removed. It's not a scenario - it's reality. Just the other day a natural father in my state was arrested for slitting the throat of his 3 year old daughter. She died. I don't know anything of the case, but let's say Child Services intervened and could have removed her from her natural parents and placed her with my brother and his partner - nice home, loved, clothed, fed, educated. Biggest danger is she may be licked to death by Rosie, their Chi-weenie puppy. Bio-parents still preferable?

 

[ericad]

EB, I haven''t seen that one - thanks for the tip! Will TiVo it tonight!

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 6/29/2010 7:54:05 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 6/29/2010 7:42:46 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 7:29:26 PM

Author: E B

Steal-

Out of genuine curiosity, why is it ideal, to you, that one parent have a penis and the other a vagina?

Yes, this is what I''m wondering.

And Steal-I''m not going to go crazy. I just think you''re a bigot. You can couch it in whatever language you want, but that''s what it boils down to-good old fashioned bigotry.

Goodness!

But I suppose those opposing my view are not also bigots? Nope, just me. Because my view is politically incorrect. So has much changed at all?

Thing, try to keep comments more civil or they will close the thread

Nope, I just think bigots are bigoted. But to be fair, you ARE edgy, what with your non-PC views and your clever signature!

 

[Imdanny]

Here's a short answer to the original question: Yes. But not for me. Yikes. My cat is enough for me. I don't know how anyone raises children. It's so much responsibility. Some people straight or gay aren't cut out for it.

 

[ericad]

PS - who here loves the show Modern Family? DH and I just adore it!

 

[Steel]

Date: 6/29/2010 7:57:21 PM
Author: ericad
So I gather that you consider anything other than a mother/father home unsuitable? So kids being raised by single parents or grandparents, for example - not ok? What about step-parents? Adoptive parents? Where do these fall on your continuum?

You gather incorrectly.

My issue is that the family consists of a gay couple. And before you ask, I would still take issue if one of the couple were the biological parent. But not if that parent were to single parent.

As for worst case scenarios, sadly there are so many kids who live in unimaginable conditions, from which they should be removed. It''s not a scenario - it''s reality. Just the other day a natural father in my state was arrested for slitting the throat of his 3 year old daughter. She died. I don''t know anything of the case, but let''s say DCS intervened and could have removed her from her natural parents and placed her with my brother and his partner - nice home, loved, clothed, fed, educated. Biggest danger is she may be licked to death by Rosie, their Chi-weenie puppy. Bio-parents still preferable?

That is a terrible story

.

Bio-parents are always preferable, save for exclusions as stated above including incapacity which clearly this father was. Then the system comes into play, a system which relies on ideals.

 

[cara]

Date: 6/29/2010 6:50:10 PM
Author: Steal
I have already said why 'I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father'. Anything less is not ideal and does not form a natural family unit. Children are not released from care to be placed in any environment; ideals are sought.

Leaving aside for a moment the idea that a gay couple is less then ideal, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Especially when 'perfect' is impossible to find. Even if you get a nice hetero couple, they have imperfections if they are human. Everyone does, every couple does. Much harm would be done if one were to let children languish in orphanages/foster care/abusive 'natural born' families until an 'ideal' couple came along if 'ideal' is too stringently defined. What exactly you would consider sufficient qualifications for a couple to be labeled 'ideal'? And shouldn't your cutoff for ideal have *some* consideration for the conditions the child is currently in? Is starving or neglected really a better arrangement than being placed in with a loving, capable same-sex couple?

The focus on a 'natural family unit' is strange for a discussion about adoption. The natural (ie biological) parents of the child in question are presumably dead/missing/not fit/not available/not interested in raising the child in question. And while a man and a woman are presumably the natural biological parents of a child, they are not necessarily the 'natural family unit' for raising that child. Social organizations of people are inherently human, influenced by human culture and religion and biology (nature). But even nature doesn't dictate that heterosexual couples are the 'natural family unit' - such an idea is a human construct. Some humans (and some other animals) don't form long-term monogamous pairings for childrearing. Some humans (and some animals) rely on networks of relatives or social group-members, that may or may not include the biological parents.

Anyway, the idea that having gay parents somehow harms children or gay parents are less than ideal just by virtue of their sexual orientation is not supported by the evidence. Many many studies have shown that gay parents do just as well by their children as straight parents (or better). You'd think that would be relevant to people supposedly concerned about children's wellbeing.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Date: 6/29/2010 7:15:14 PM
Author: ericad
Lots of children grow up in families under circumstances that make their lives more challenging than some other kids have it. Doesn''t mean these families shouldn''t be raising kids, does it? Some kids grow up with parents of mixed race, some kids grow up in low income situations, some kids have single parents raising them, some kids have same sex parents, and other kids grow up under myriad other minority conditions (religion, neighborhood, adoption, etc.) Just because these situations MAY predispose these kids to added hardships doesn''t mean they aren''t wonderful and loving homes. Diversity is part of life!


We have been very diligent about teaching our daughter (age 5) about different kinds of families. She wants to marry her best friend, Maddie. A kid at school told her she can''t marry a girl because then they can''t have babies and that it''s wrong. I explained to her that it''s ok to tell this other kid that that''s not what we believe in our family - this led into a conversation about what it means to be a family, kids in need of adoption, etc. We then watched a great HBO documentary together, all about different kinds of families - same sex, single parents, adopted kids, kids being raised by grandparents, mixed race/ethnicity, mixed religion, etc.


My brother is gay and is married and she adores them both but became very worried about whether it''s ok for them to be married to each other (she''s a very sensitive kiddo). Us teaching her that their love is every bit as precious and valid as everyone else''s has really helped her to gain the tools she needs to assert herself when other kids say confusing things to her. We''ve also taught her to respect other people''s beliefs, though they may be different from ours, but to still speak up for what she thinks is right. Slowly, and generation by generation, perceptions will change. I have to believe that.

This is a great post. Thank you for sharing your views and story with us Erica

 

[Steel]

Date: 6/29/2010 8:11:54 PM
Author: cara

Date: 6/29/2010 6:50:10 PM
Author: Steal
I have already said why ''I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father''. Anything less is not ideal and does not form a natural family unit. Children are not released from care to be placed in any environment; ideals are sought.

Leaving aside for a moment the idea that a gay couple is less then ideal, don''t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Especially when ''perfect'' is impossible to find. Even if you get a nice hetero couple, they have imperfections if they are human. Everyone does, every couple does. Much harm would be done if one were to let children languish in orphanages/foster care/abusive ''natural born'' families until an ''ideal'' couple came along if ''ideal'' is too stringently defined. What exactly you would consider sufficient qualifications for a couple to be labeled ''ideal''? And shouldn''t your cutoff for ideal have *some* consideration for the conditions the child is currently in? Is starving or neglected really a better arrangement than being placed in with a loving, capable same-sex couple?

The focus on a ''natural family unit'' is strange for a discussion about adoption. The natural (ie biological) parents of the child in question are presumably dead/missing/not fit/not available/not interested in raising the child in question. And while a man and a woman are presumably the natural biological parents of a child, they are not necessarily the ''natural family unit'' for raising that child. Social organizations of people are inherently human, influenced by human culture and religion and biology (nature). But even nature doesn''t dictate that heterosexual couples are the ''natural family unit'' - such an idea is a human construct. Some humans (and some other animals) don''t form long-term monogamous pairings for childrearing. Some humans (and some animals) rely on networks of relatives or social group-members, that may or may not include the biological parents.
about children''s wellbeing.

Doesn''t it? Where would we be without egg + sperm?

Anyway, the idea that having gay parents somehow harms children or are less than ideal just by virtue of their sexual orientation is not supported by the evidence. Many many studies have shown that gay parents do just as well by their children as straight parents (or better). You''d think that would be relevant to people supposedly concerned about children''s wellbeing.

Ideal by my definition is self evident.

The concept of wellbeing is relative and this is the search for ideals. Here is an example, to move a child from an environment of extreme violence to that of woeful neglect is somewhat of a lateral move. I am certainly not making a comparison to the issue at hand, merely stating that ideals form just that, an ideal. Anything less is just that, less.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 6/29/2010 8:06:37 PM
Author: ericad
PS - who here loves the show Modern Family? DH and I just adore it!

Same for me and my husband-that show is fantastic! I''m laughing just thinking about some of them!

 

[cara]

Date: 6/29/2010 8:08:53 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 6/29/2010 7:57:21 PM

Author: ericad

So I gather that you consider anything other than a mother/father home unsuitable? So kids being raised by single parents or grandparents, for example - not ok? What about step-parents? Adoptive parents? Where do these fall on your continuum?

You gather incorrectly.

My issue is that the family consists of a gay couple. And before you ask, I would still take issue if one of the couple were the biological parent. But not if that parent were to single parent.

So bizarre - it would be better for a biological parent to single-parent his/her child than to involve another parent figure in the child-raising if that were to expose the child to a same-sex relationship?? Even if the second parent were a loving and capable parent? You think that same-sex relationships are *THAT* harmful? Wow.

Anyway, this is clearly not about same-sex couples being less than ideal, in that case. This is about somehow thinking they are bad in some way and harmful to expose children to. This is about anti-gay bias rather than something more innocuous-sounding, like ''ideally kids should have a male and a female role model as parents.'' If not anti-gay bias, what is the motivation for saying a single parent is preferable to a gay couple parenting?

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 6/29/2010 8:08:53 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 6/29/2010 7:57:21 PM

Author: ericad

So I gather that you consider anything other than a mother/father home unsuitable? So kids being raised by single parents or grandparents, for example - not ok? What about step-parents? Adoptive parents? Where do these fall on your continuum?

You gather incorrectly.

My issue is that the family consists of a gay couple. And before you ask, I would still take issue if one of the couple were the biological parent. But not if that parent were to single parent.

As for worst case scenarios, sadly there are so many kids who live in unimaginable conditions, from which they should be removed. It's not a scenario - it's reality. Just the other day a natural father in my state was arrested for slitting the throat of his 3 year old daughter. She died. I don't know anything of the case, but let's say DCS intervened and could have removed her from her natural parents and placed her with my brother and his partner - nice home, loved, clothed, fed, educated. Biggest danger is she may be licked to death by Rosie, their Chi-weenie puppy. Bio-parents still preferable?

That is a terrible story

.


Bio-parents are always preferable, save for exclusions as stated above including incapacity which clearly this father was. Then the system comes into play, a system which relies on ideals.

Your language about placing an "innocent" [with a gay couple] really is bigotry. Your language about a "natural family" is bigotry as well.

We understand that children have two biological parents. There are other (emphasis added) realities at issue in this discussion (e.g. some children need to be adopted).

Your 'anything but' reasoning letting gay couples adopt, you say, has to do with 'ideals'. IMHO, it, instead, has to do with values, and you don't seem to value gay people because they don't fit your 'ideal' scenario, in other words you don't seem to think gay people are "ideal" or "natural".

I strongly suspect that adoption by same sex couples is not the only subject which would provoke insulting comments about gay people from you. You seem to want to use the excuse that you're "not being PC". Maybe it's not politically correct to be bigoted against gay people. I don't think it should be, personally.

You wrote, "My issue is that the family consists of a gay couple."

Obviously.

"And before you ask, I would still take issue if one of the couple were the biological parent."

People certainly have the right to raise their own children. You are far out of line in "taking issue" with anyone doing that.

It wouldn't do any good for me to call you a bigot, but I hope one day you'll consider the "issue" you have with gay people.

 

[packrat]

Kids don''t have a say in the matter of who brings them into this world, and they don''t have a say in the matter of where they end up if they are born into a bad situation or something happens. How many kids, if someone *asked* them, would say "Oh heaven''s no, I''d much rather stay in this orphanage with 50 other kids where I''m just one of many and I can''t wait to be kicked out of the system at 18 and have to fend for myself with no real familial ties. Please oh please don''t put me in a home of two gay men or women-I couldn''t stand to have someone kiss me good bye in the morning before school or tuck me into bed or teach me how to ride a bike and tell me they love me and encourage me to get good grades and go on to college and be proud of my accomplishments. I refuse to have 2 moms or 2 dads. I will only accept one of each"

I''m not saying all foster homes/orphanages are bad-I''m just saying that given the choice of being adopted, most of those kids wouldn''t care if the prospective parents had 7 eyes and 4 arms, just so long as those 7 eyes were watching them at school plays and sports events, and those 4 arms were hugging them good night.

 

[missy]

Date: 6/29/2010 8:26:06 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 8:06:37 PM

Author: ericad

PS - who here loves the show Modern Family? DH and I just adore it!

Same for me and my husband-that show is fantastic! I''m laughing just thinking about some of them!

It''s our new favorite show of this season. My dh and I watch and laugh and laugh. It''s hysterical and the characters are so lovable. They truly are the new modern family...which basically consists of any warm loving family unit. Whether they are heterosexual, same sex, May December relationship etc. This show certainly illustrates how a family can be made up of many different and good options.

 

[missy]

Duplicate post...

 

[Steel]

Many thanks to cara & imdanny for their rants.

Here it is for the cheap seats: I will not vote for gay adoption rightsand do not support it because the placement of children must be based on ideals. I don''t see how a gay unit is a natural family unit based on biology. I''m sure I said this already...

Random anti-gay views are not to be welcome in this thread, if you have issues there do not project them on me.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 6/29/2010 8:47:23 PM
Author: Steal
Many thanks to cara & imdanny for their rants.

Here it is for the cheap seats: I will not vote for gay adoption rightsand do not support it because the placement of children must be based on ideals. I don''t see how a gay unit is a natural family unit based on biology. I''m sure I said this already...

Random anti-gay views are not to be welcome in this thread, if you have issues there do not project them on me.

Now you''re not even making sense. As soon as someone disagrees with you it''s a rant? Yet you pride yourself on not being PC? You can dish it out but you can''t take it, I suppose. A tale as old as time!

Also, the only anti-gay views I heard were from you. And last I checked you aren''t a moderator, so I''ll feel free to say whatever I want. I guess I''m just not PC!

 

[packrat]

But the thing of it is tho, we don''t live in an ideal world. If we did, we wouldn''t have a need for foster care, orphanages, adoption to the extreme that we do b/c people would step up and take care of their kids, and they wouldn''t pop them out like pez dispensers for welfare checks, and they wouldn''t discard them at the hospital like yesterdays newspaper. Kids wouldn''t have to be taken away from POS parents b/c ideally there wouldn''t BE POS parents. But there are, so they do. If "Adam and Eve" don''t/won''t/can''t take care of their *own* children, but "Adam and Steve" will, then I''m all for it. Being hetero doesn''t automatically make you the ultimate parent as far as I''m concerned.

 

[ericad]

Off topic, but Steal, are you against infertility treatments such as IVF and surrogate mothers - pregnancy achieved via medical intervention? Let''s assume the receiving parental unit will be a hetero couple. Curious where you stand on this, given your emphasis on nature and biology.

 

[missy]

Date: 6/29/2010 8:47:23 PM
Author: Steal
I will not vote for gay adoption rightsand do not support it because the placement of children must be based on ideals. I don't see how a gay unit is a natural family unit based on biology.

And anyway, who says a man and a woman raising a child is ideal anyway? IMO 2 men or 2 women can be ideal if they are loving and emotionally healthy etc. It's crazy to label heterosexual as the only ideal...IMO.

 

[cara]

Date: 6/29/2010 8:21:03 PM
Author: Steal

Date: 6/29/2010 8:11:54 PM
Author: cara

Date: 6/29/2010 6:50:10 PM
Author: Steal
I have already said why 'I believe that it is natural for children to be raised by a mother & father'. Anything less is not ideal and does not form a natural family unit. Children are not released from care to be placed in any environment; ideals are sought.

...The focus on a 'natural family unit' is strange for a discussion about adoption. The natural (ie biological) parents of the child in question are presumably dead/missing/not fit/not available/not interested in raising the child in question. And while a man and a woman are presumably the natural biological parents of a child, they are not necessarily the 'natural family unit' for raising that child. Social organizations of people are inherently human, influenced by human culture and religion and biology (nature). But even nature doesn't dictate that heterosexual couples are the 'natural family unit' - such an idea is a human construct. Some humans (and some other animals) don't form long-term monogamous pairings for childrearing. Some humans (and some animals) rely on networks of relatives or social group-members, that may or may not include the biological parents.

Doesn't it? Where would we be without egg + sperm?

Sperm + egg is necessary for conception, but not rearing of offspring. There are many other *natural* ways of raising offspring. Most animals reproduce sexually (ie, sperm + egg needed for starting the reproduction process) but there are many other family and social structures out there besides male-female pairs that form long-term family units for raising offspring.

Lion cubs are conceived with sperm + egg just like human babies, yet they are not usually raised exclusively by a male-female pair. There is generally a group of (often related) female adult lionesses and one lion that fathers all the babies for a time period. Is that arrangement 'unnatural'? What about all the creatures out there that are conceived with sperm and egg, but the biological father plays no helpful role in childraising after conception? Should we use those critters to say that single-parenthood is 'natural'? Heck, you can look to primates - most do not form monogamous pairs. They also reproduce using sperm + egg.

You are using the word natural to mean what you think is the right way. But 'nature' doesn't give us explicit instructions on what is the 'right' and 'wrong' way, though it gives us clues. Human babies are born quite helpless and have a long many years to grow before reaching maturity, and both require and benefit from the love and support of adult caregivers. Why not loving and able gay couples?

ETA: Just saw the 'thanks' for my rant. LOL. Anyway, I'm not ranting, just questioning, but maybe the distinction is not being made?