[Usually Lurkin]

your analogy is crude because it ignores an interaction between parents' race and children's race. Legitimately, I'd say that in so far as African american children report greater stress and identity issues when raised by whites, then yes. It's a bad idea to place blacks in white homes or whites in black homes when placement involves children already at risk. If you can prove beyond doubt that a child will grow up homosexual, and that they would probably experience less stress in a homosexual household than heterosexual household, then you've got a legitimate analogy. The goal should always be: given what we know, where do we place this child to absolutely maximize the stability of their environment.

More to the point, we can look at risk levels, and ask society, "what risk is acceptable for your children? " I'd be willing to bet that most texans (if asked honestly) would say there is high risk involved in placing children into homosexual households, and that it's better not to do that until the environments are proven safe. Other risks that I personally would say are unacceptable (like crossing ethnic lines, or placing these at-risk children into single parent families), society would probably say are acceptable risks. I'd like to emphasize that the debate would be entirely different if we were talking about birth adoption, or other children that aren't already primed for developmental problems.

I have a reasearch list somewhere, and will post it after I have a chance to look for it.