So we agree here. There are valid criteria that should be considered when adopting.
But to wholesale prohibit an entire part of the population because the situation would be less than ideal is ludicrous.
Not at all, as Far has proven, a homosexual environment is dangerous. To prohibit a dangerous sector of the population from adopting is common sense.
Virtually any family-style situation is superior to warehousing. Prohibition should be on a case-by-case basis.
Whoops, you should be careful about generalizing. I know many family-style situations that should not EVER be allowed to contain children. Just look at the meth families that supply much of my school's population.
And as for case by case, what's wrong with excluding members of a group? I can name two groups right off hand that should be excluded:
Sex offenders
Dangerous Felons
Regardless of how nice, financially stable, or personable the members of these groups might be, you would agree that it is a bad idea to place a child with them, yes? So why not exclude the members of a group of people known for abnormal psychology and a dangerous lifestyle?
It's perfectly logical.
That's why I said 'virtually.' Glad we're virtually parallel here. [smilie=8,3,2]
