|
Would you agree that been adopted by married couple in Australia (I will adhere to the definition of marriage as a union between man and a women) is better then been adopted by gay couple in Australia?
All other things being equal, yes I would agree with that. But in practice, we have no idea whether those other things are equal. I would think that being brought up by a gay couple in a solid, loving relationship would be better than being brought up by a pair turds in a traditional marriage. And vice versa of course.
I should also point out that it's not as though there are a limited number of overseas orphans, and a massive number of willing adoptive parents in Australia. The orphans do not have to be rationed amongst competing couples. There are more than enough to go around. So it doesn't come down to a choice between a gay couple or regular couple as adoptive parents. It comes down to a choice between remaining an orphan or being adopted by a gay couple in Australia.
Would you agree that been adopted by married couple in that poor country may be better then been adopted by gay couple in Australia?
Once again, it depends on the circumstances of the married couple. And, once again, the huge numbers of overseas orphans (think war and AIDS orphans in Africa, for example) suggests that there is a shortage of local adoptive parents in many parts of the world.
Given that child cannot make a decision, we all are very happy to have a legitimate reason to exercise a collective will over individual one
I shudder at virtually all cases of an 'exercise a collective will over individual one'. Such an exercise (assuming that the 'collective will' is being expressed by the government) means, in this case, condemnation of many children to a hard life, possibly an early death, when they could have been brought here to the emotional benefit of the would-be parents (gay or otherwise) and both emotional and physical benefit of the child.
| 
