I actually know of a few, who maybe don't "resent" being adopted, but wished they had their actual parents, and blame a lot of their psychological problems on the fact that they weren't raised by their parents.
Only in THIS time, does this scenario hold so much value. When someone is born by an accident, and then is not wanted, and is raised poorly because of the fact. Why are adoption programs established in the first place? Because there are more people having sex that don't want children, there are more people without the means to have children, but want children, and there are more people out there suffering from bad parenting. This hasn't always been the case, see what I've said to Kukla.
The chances of "accidentally" having children, and the chances of not being able to care for the child, have to be higher now than any other time in history, partly due to the fact that there are just more people in general out there at this moment than any other specific time in history. If the failure rate is higher now than ever, and the number of gays raising children are higher than ever too, logically, the percent of failure has to effect the lower number, the gay adopters, more than the people having the children by accident. Also, something to conceder is, why are they failing? If it's because of the income, look at the percent of failure with a mother and father in the same income bracket than the adopter's, you will find that there is a wide gap.
Most accidental births, I'm sure, are well taken care of despite the fact that they weren't planned, more often in a higher income bracket than a lower. The people with a low income will fail, whereas the people in the higher one, even though it's accidental, will be taken care of just as well as ones raised by adopters, because they are given money, and already have the money to do so.
In all of time, there have been more straight couples with money and children than gay couples with money and children... think about it. Statistically speaking, the straight people may have failed more people over the coarse of history, but that doesn't mean that they haven't also raised more children successfully too.
When I said statistically I wasn't insisting there were statistics. There is statistical data in whatever you're looking into wether it already exists as a "statistic" or not.
Just, logically, look at what I'm saying and you shouldn't need a pretty colored chart with numbers all over it. I'm basically saying for every 999,999,999 children born in all of time, into a mother/father environment, how many have really, honestly, failed because they were "accidently" conceived of. less than .05%-.005%, and I would bet money on it. Even at that rate, that's anywhere from 500,000 to 50,000 people effected because of accidental birth, raised in a mother father environment, out of 999,999,999.
How many raised by same sex? Because it hasn't happened in nature, because it can't happen naturally, that number is significantly higher. You have 99999 people raised by gays or same sex, and you have 99 fail, that's still .09%.
Even though 49,999 people is more than 99, statistically speaking, more fail raised by same sex seeing as the the fail rate by the accidental is .005%, and the same sex is .09%.
None of these numbers are taken from anywhere, but they should be adequate enough to demonstrate my point.
While I think that it could bring about a whole new class of social implications, I don't believe that any of them have the inherent ability to hurt anyone.
It's like the prohibition of marijuana on the bases that it's a "gateway drug". It may be true that people that are now on heroin have tried weed, it doesn't mean that it lead these people without control, to heroin. The same as saying people that do drive-by-shootings began their vehicular criminal life by driving to the mall, or at the DMV.
The theoretical implication to marriage between a man and man or a woman and a woman are the same as a man and woman. Then again, maybe you should be so bold as to ask a more correct question "How can marriage, in general, hurt anyone".
