Where do I begin?
Well, I disagree totally. As good a place as any to start I guess.
The heart of Raphael's argument is The reason I oppose gay adoption is that it does not suit the needs of the child to grow up in a family representative of one man and one woman. For a child to grow up in a socially cohesive manner, that child should be provided paternal role models of both genders.
The best counter-argument is this, or this, or this. parenting by same-sex families is just as good -- if not slightly advantageous -- for children when compared to heterosexual families, a Justice Department study has concluded.
I agree that children benefit when raised by two parents. But both parents have to be well-adjusted individuals that take their duties as parents responsibly.
The idea that the traditional nuclear family is best is based on the false premise that heterosexual couples are naturally better parents. It is the individual that makes the parent, not the sex or sexual orientation of the individual. As an extreme case, would you rather a child be adopted by Paul Bernardo and Karla Holmolka or by Rick Mercer and Gerald Lunz?
Which illustrates the main issue surrounding who is allowed to adopt. It is about children needing a home that provides a loving and nurturing environment. Couples that wish to adopt are put through an extensive process to prove their fitness as parents. If the only requirement were to be in heterosexual relationship, you'd be able to pick up a new kid at the Quickie Mart on the way home from work.
If a same-sex couple "passes" the tests and meets the requirements, let 'em adopt. That child will do a lot better than if they were left to languish without a home.