Not only would this legislation be another step towards unification of government and religion (imposing the State's religion) it is another political move to force a redefinition of sexual identity/orientation as having an acceptible "sliding scale" which all citizens will be forced to submit to. As such it is an attack on those who maintain traditional family values, whether faith based or cultural. In such a case, it is the children who stand to suffer most, being placed in homes without a male and female parent to model their own identities upon. By norming sexual deviance, this law would implicitly be telling citizens they must agree to the homosexual (LGBT) agenda as healthy for children of any age to be indoctrinated with, raising a further gender-identity-confused generation.

There are plenty of studies showing decline of traditional attitudes about sexuality and family since the 60s has been matched by a severe rise (in some cases over 400%) of societal ills like STDs, unplanned pregnancies, abortions, domestic violence, divorce, teen suicides, and gender disordered people.

While I affirm the rights of normal intelligence, mentally stable, consenting adults to experience homosexual, transgendered, swinger, or public expressions of sexuality - I cannot tolerate such persons as role models for the next generation. It comes down again to "what is best for the child"?

Of necessity, this must be a moral discussion, even in psychology, because there IS NO empirical proof that homosexuals and other deviant sexual people are biologically wired that way, or that they are "healthy" as a result of engaging in those behaviors. Each side wants to "convert" the other to their belief system. It's a matter of who THINKS they are right, based on a faith position about the issue. Faith in irreligion or in a God-fearing spiritual tradition.

Certainly we must agree that human sexuality is complex. Professionals on both sides of the debate on norming LGBT behavior cite a variety of means whereby they believe (not "can prove") LGBT orientation happens to someone. So, we don't know for sure. It's complicated,

Thus, no legislative authority should take a position supporting LGBT adoption, which is a belief, versus a scientific position. Such unfounded belief would clearly impose irreligion over religion and over the professional judgment of child placement personnel. This is only a clear advantage to a LGBT potential adoptee - not the child. and the child, being in formative years, is in no position to decide who is going to raise them best.

"Sexual orientation" is also broad. Where must a line be drawn to protect children's mental and physical health? With homosexuals? With rapists? With pornography makers?

Finally, it is also inappropriate to force adoption workers to abstain from discrimination based on religion or disability. there need to be exceptions allowing such discrimination. Consider: Muslim extremist factions would be suspect if adopting American children due to patterns of child martyrdom in the past. also please consider the breadth of "disability". Would it be healthy to place a child with someone on a mental disability? What about a chronic illness that prevents participation by a prospective parent in many childhood activities?