How arrogant and self-centered of them to deny children mothers/fathers. We have enough problems with heterosexuals who are bad parents without ADDING to the problems of our most innocent, vulnerable and precious children.
Well, there are a number of reasons why gays want kids, just as there are a number of reasons why heterosexuals want them -- even bad reasons, such as the "trophy kids" phenomenon, which I've seen with high-status (or think they're high-status) males, who have trophy houses, cars, wives, and even dogs (German, of course -- named after some field marshal or Kaiser).
The problem with homosexuals' adopting, other than their motives, which we don't know are distributed like those of other parents and would-be parents, is precisely the one the author laudably sticks to: is this good for the children, and ergo for society?
The author also very laudably puts the onus of proof where it belongs: with the wannabe experimenters, who however in polemic have always, dishonestly, tried to invert the burden, demanding to be shown reasons, from data (which of course don't exist yet -- which is why they ask for them!), why they shouldn't be allowed this or that.
The article overall is a sad but praiseworthy offering from someone into whose pockets the opposition has put all sorts of lead weights, up to and including legal liablility, in an effort to stifle differing opinion.
It is also worth noting that feminists have never returned to the questions they scorned to answer back in the 70's about whether children would be better off in single-parent families (headed by them, of course -- if the head of family were presumed to be male, they might have answered differently </sarcasm>). Just as feminists, having got what they wanted, have shirked their implicit obligation to the truth of consequences, so will homosexuals.
The moment of decision is now, and honest people can and should reject the gay movement and its nominees, allies, apparatchiks, and fellow-travelers, and purge them utterly from public office.