Completely agree with Marion from Cheltenham.

Jasmine, Leamington,

I'm not sure that being raised exclusively by women is a bad thing, I was brought up by my mother, auntie and grandma and was very happy. But I did miss having a male influence. I think not having that constant male presence in my life hindered the relationships I had later on in life. And being raised by two gay men, I'm sure, would have been a disaster for me.

I do think that within reason any person can raise a child well given that they are good people but as Eve from London said, to go out on your way to make a baby that hasn't got a mother or a father is pretty evil. Being biologically connected to two parents of both sexes is vital even if being raised by those same parents isn't.

I also take umbrage, along with Eve, that none of these people who intend to dump all over nature's delicate balance like this have asked us what we think.

Pamela, Dudley,

Having been brought up in a single parent family by my Mother and by a majority of female relatives, I am well educated and well adjusted and did not suffer from not having a male influence in my upbringing.

Better to have parents of the same sex that love and care for you than to grow up not being wanted, or neglected or abused by parents of different sexes!!

Don't judge everyone by your standards - parents or prospective parents deserve better!!

BS, London,

This following statement by the author, effectively puts a caveat emptor on everything written in the article: "Well, quite so, [here the author is dismissing the evidence from observation] but most of us would instinctively feel – from a combination of common sense, biology and tradition – that a parent of each sex is precisely what is in the child’s best interests." We don't base our opinions nowadays on hearsay or on armchair philosophy. That is mediaeval. Opinions need to be evidence based. This type of thinking is what lead to Galileo being locked in a room. Common sense does not equate to observational reality. Our "common sense" is, more often than not, quite wrong.

evan, london, uk

My mother divorced when I was very young and I was later formally adopted by the person she married and who brought me up and I call my father. I strongly believe that a wonderful upbringing, and resultant absolute lack of curiosity about my genetic father, is a product of the flexible situation under the status quo which rests responsibility with the legal parents. Under the proposed changes I would almost certainly have been confronted with complex issues surrounding my own identity way before I would have been capable forming a detached and rational opinion. Imagine if I had that card to play everytime my teenage self did not agree with something Dad said?

The nature versus nurture debate is centuries old and there is no definitive answer and that is why you cannot legislate around it. More to the point what motivates anyone to think they have a moral veto that should be enshrined in law? Pehaps that is the underlying issue here.

Jonathan, Sydney, Australia

I am so shocked to read comments from judgmental homophobes that apparently still lurke around ALL corners of the earth. How sad. I suppose that those who have commented accordingly deem people of different ethnicity from your own incapable too of being good parents. For those of you have somehow managed to evolve with technology such as the net so that you could post ludicrous and backward comments yet have not had quite the same intellectual progression, I bring you news " people of black origin & Jews have equal rights, not all Muslims are terrorists and same sex couples are entitled to demonstrate their love as parents!!! Come on GET A GRIP. Its bigots like yourselves who keep Hitler and bad history alive. This world just needs love & unionship if it has ANY chance of surviving the catostrophe's that lie ahead. My " female mother" & " male father" couldn't have done a better job of abusing me physically & mentally as a child.. but thats ok I suppose because they are heterosexual!

chloe, london, england

Most of the people criticising this article seem convinced that recent moves towards legal and moral acceptance of homosexuality are irreversible and acceptable to mainstream opinion. I don't think this is true. Current attitudes could easily and rapidly be reversed if, for example, Islam continued to strengthen its influence in Europe. In Afghanistan, the Taleban proved just how quickly Western style women's rights could be rescinded and in many other countries there is similar evidence that the vast majority of people in the world (Western liberals are not the vast majority - quite the reverse) just do not accept the mores of our "progressive" society. Even if we in this country maintain a tolerant attitude towards homosexuality it is perfectly possible that once again people will feel able to express their distaste for such a lifestyle without having to fear that they will be hounded as at present. It's far too premature to reflect current sexual attitudes in family law.

Marion Morrison, Cheltenham,

Good god, what is all the fuss about. Isn't the important thing here that a child is raised in a happy and stable environment with two (preferably) loving parents. So what if the 'parents' are the same sex. And surely friends and family of the opposite sex to the parents can provide additional and complimentary support.

Karen, Gladstone, New Zealand

The "Brave New World" of Aldous Huxley (written in 1931), looks to be only wrong in its time frame - in the "distant future" - or perhaps he considered a mere hundred years to be "distant"?

Peter Davis, Mijas / Malaga, España

"most of us would instinctively feel – from a combination of common sense, biology and tradition – that a parent of each sex is precisely what is in the child’s best interests"
Many times, what most of us instinctively feel (that the Sun goes round the Earth for instance, or that the Earth is flat) turns out not to be true. Do you know of any scientific evidence for what you are asserting?

F. Calder-Smith, Twickenham,

“Surely a family is a birth right for everyone, regardless of their sexual orienatation” No, Petra. Children are a gift not a right.

Should single people have a right to have a child – after all, what’s so precious about couples? Persue this line of thought to its logical conclusion and you’ll end up with children who, legally, have either no father or no mother. It’s one thing to have unusual family arrangements where, for whatever reason, the natural parents are no longer around; it’s something else to deliberately bring children into the world without a mother or father. Such situations would have nothing to do with what’s good for the children and would be only about the wants of the parents: children as just another consumer product.

Cary, London,

All children deserve a mother and a father. Fair enough if that doesn't go to plan but for people to go out of their way to create a child without one or the other - shame on them.

Aren't we going to have some sort of vote on this? This could change everything and yet it seems that despite the vast majority of the British public having a problem with this whole issue we haven't even been consulted.

Eve McIlwrath, London,

My friends and I all regard fatherhood as an imposition to be absolutely avoided at all costs. Basically, having kids to us seems a chavy thing to do - how sad is that. Being a Dad would invoke feelings akin to being conscripted - please let it happen to somebody else...

Thats not to suggest that there aren't great, responsible parents out there, but it seems a rather unlikely scenario for us to consider. Kicked out, financially ruined, without access to any children and full of bitter, hostile emotions seems far more likely.

No marriage, no co-habitation, no children, no donor sperm, no IVF - not even a consideration.

Dan, London,

Well, as long as the government is determining whether a child must have a mother and father and whether it should be a adoptive or biological one, we should also let the government tell us whether a child should have brothers and sisters as well.

I hear China has a leg up on you folks on that.

It would also be nice if you were actually able to present some factual research to support your opinions. It's sad what passes for journalism these days - as if repeating something often enough makes it fact.

Tarrant Miller, Boston, MA

"from a combination of common sense, biology and tradition"

aka "cant"

oliver, London,

I always remember Melanie McDonut writing a piece in which she visits Soho in London's West End - and is amazed by all the homosexuals. I've come to the conclusion she really doesn't get out much.

RC, London, UK

Since 23% of fourth children aren't the child of the father they think they are, rising from 7% of first children, I won't consider anything this "Ethics" committee does, until it provides men with the right to know their children.

It's noted that a child has the right to know its own parent. Why isn't a father allowed to have the right to know his own children?

Answers on a postcard please.

Charles, London,

The 'mother and father' argument is over simplistic here. Naturally that is the ideal and always should be, but the fact of a male and female cohabiting at time of conception is not a magic wand. As a single woman with good education, financial independence and good childcare skills, my guilt as a donor mother was overcome by seeing just how many of the children I work with are having appalling life and parenting experiences resulting from their 'ideal' conception. Yes, my child will need my help to come to terms with a father who won't be present, but who wanted him to be born, but unlike many others in his peer group he will never have to deal with his father having left the family, mum moving through a rapid turn over of men and a houseful of her children, his children and their children, poor or abusive parenting, or the appalling trials of children trying to settle into adoptive families after their own have irretrievably broken down. 'Not ideal' does not equate with 'bad'.

Donor mother , Northants,

Melanie McDonagh attempts to make a case against same sex parents based on little more than her "instinctive feelings", and her perception of "common sense, biology and tradition". Similar arguments were no doubt used against mixed race marriages and the production of offspring therefrom in the not so distant past.

Current and future developments in IVF simply allow alternatives to adoption for same sex couples. The evidence of numerous studies is there is no disbenefit to children of being raised by same sex parents.

I can see the advantage of having male and female influences on children, and this is not precluded by having same sex parents. Arguing against them but not against single parents shows Ms McDonagh's argument for the simple homophobia that it is.

Those "hell bent on becoming parents" are simply pursuing the desire of many humans. Homosexuals are likely to have given much more consideration to the child than the 17 year old girl who fails to use contraception.

Richard, London,

Hmmm...

Speculation and hearsay used as justification and explanation for your personal opinion. Sometimes it beggars belief what the "Thunderer" allows to pass as serious comment within its pages these days.

Must do better.

matty, London, England

Well, I was raised by two mothers - my father died and my mother has been living with another woman for over two decades now. I have a PhD from Harvard and work as a consultant in one of the Big Four. Obviously this must be nothing short of a miracle, given that I was rasied by a same-sex couple.

John, London, UK

I am always suspicious when people say "research has shown..."; there is always the temptation to chose the parameters and select one's data, placing the goalposts so as to make one's enquiry work out to whatever sort of [im]moral conclusion one intends. That, to grab a phrase from Bacon, would be to offer the God of Truth the unclean sacrifice of a lie. This applies equally to those who prefer the chimpanzee or the bonobo lifestyle.

Robert H. Olley, Reading, Berks, UK

I'm sorry - I seem to have missed the part where you explain WHY a child is better off with two parents of different sexes.

Hannah, Leamington, UK

This article really says nothing more than, "this is common sense, because it is how we have always done things, which is because it is really common sense."

Let's try similar logic: "Of course, it's in the best interest of the child to live in an all white neighborhood." Maybe only white folks should be allowed to have children at all?

How about poor folks? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have children? After all, white and rich is 'best', isn't it?

Skeptical, Ithaca, NY, USA

No, we can most certainly NOT say that having a father and a mother is better for the child. You can't cite evidence pointing the other way and then overruling that evidence by your "intuitive opinion". I'm sorry, but "intiutive opinions" do not constitute arguments, they just betray your prejudices.

Sophie, Ireland,

My boyfriend was raised by two gay men, his biological father and his biological father's male partner. He calls them both "dad." He's a well-adjusted, happy graduate. And (gasp) he even likes girls.

No one has done much to elucidate this "instinctive feeling" that children raised by same-sex parents are at a disadvantage. I suspect that 'instinctive feeling' often masks prejudice, suspicion about the characters of gay men and women and their fitness to be around children. I suspect it's a hangover of the old homophobic myth about gay men as child abusers. It's sheer bunk, and when brought out into the light clearly has no place in a grown-up debate about child-rearing.

A set of parents who wanted you enough to run the gamut of prejudice, obstacle, expense and interference that gay parenthood currently involves - that kind of love is the start in life any child would be lucky to have.

Hannah, London,

Children are blessings in a marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman not between 2 species!! While most husbands and wives usually have children, it does not mean that they will be good parents. Having children is the most selfless thing to do. Suddenly your needs are put aside and the needs of the child comes first. l am of course talking about a young child not a rebellious teenager. Most have children because it is expected and most have them for the wrong reasons. So we are not even talking about the gender of the person. Most people should not be parents. The child suffers when the mother is unmarried and it is only a matter of time before she wants to go dating and have this strange person near her child. How many children have either been abused or even killed by the mother's partner. Sadly it is very easy to be a parent, just have sex, you dont even need common sense, or even be sober!! Look around, there are so many hurting people and more to come.

Virginia, Brisbane, Australia

All very relative, pardon the pun. Sure, our society privileges a "mother-father-child" structure as the "natural" family, but this is not the case. There are countless instances of societies where children are brought up by the mother and maternal uncles and their wives, for example, or other family structures which would look even more "unnatural" to our western european eyes and yet have just as rigorous a pedigree as our social convention.

The fact is that kids need a stable, loving, family environment free of physical and emotional violence. Anthropology and psychology shows the actual gender of the "nurturers" (for want of a better word) has bugger all to do with how well or badly the kids do.

A loving, stable homosexual relationship vs a dysfunctional, violent heterosexual relationship as choice of ideal parents? No-brainer, really.

Voland, Caen, France

So I suppose this means someday soon children with married parents of both genders who conceived them through sexual intercourse will be in the minority?

Ugh, stop the world I wanna get off.

apm, WIltshire,

Petra

I do not believe a family is a birth right for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. To naturally create a baby requires a man and a woman, a man cannot be a mother and a woman cannot be a father as it is not part of their genetic make up, simple. This is not an out of date or bigoted view but one that respects nature.

Steve, Nottingham,

Quite apart from the point sensibly made by Anne - that there may be insufficient evidence to assess the long-term effects of same sex parenting, the question also arises of how this Committee assessed such evidence as was available. Another reader suggested that they had examined and rejected evidence purporting to show that children fared better with opposite sex parents. The members of the Commitee were selected and appointed to fufil a specific task and the fact that they reached a certain conclusion may reflect the dynamics of the workings of the Committee. We tend to assume that a Committee report must, in some sense, represent a distillation of current wisdom, but there are enough instances of Commitee recommendations having been proved wrong to show that that is not necessarily so.

Marni, London,

Having been raised by a single mother after a messy divorce, I know the reality of kids growing up with the families they have, not the families they ought to have in the fantasies of those crippled by ideals.

Caring, nurturing environments come in all shapes and sizes.

N. A. Cargo, Denver, Colorado, USA

Why stop with two 'parents' of the same sex? What about three men, or a man and two women, or a woman and a dog? How about a limited company or the cast of East Enders?

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Wow. This article was so homophobic in tone I had to check halfway through that it hadn't been written by William Rees-Mogg.

As others' comments have pointed out, in the absence of research you cannot justify saying that children are better off with parents of both genders per se. Most gay and lesbian couples who are considering raising a family give serious consideration to gender-specific role models to their child and indeed give an awful lot of thought to all areas of parenting as we realise that to have a family is a privilege and not an accident of passion or biology. I resent the implication that simply because my partner and I cannot biologically conceive a child that we would somehow make inferior parents.

The next time you want to justify your prejudices with the phrase 'common sense', why not do it in the Daily Mail or a BNP leaflet? They would seem to fit that level of debate.

Sophie, Birmingham,

"a parent of each sex is precisely what is in the child’s best interests."

It takes very much more to raise a child than simply having a parent of either sex. Indeed there are many instances where this simple recipe falls hopelessly short of meeting the child's best interests and many where an alternate one proves no less effective.

"from a combination of common sense, biology and tradition"

What breathtaking arrogance! This combination is hardly a sustitute for actual data. This triumvirate of paradigmatic assumption has dictated many things over time which have subsequently proven to be utterly spurious. Lest we forget, common sense, science and tradition once dictated that the world was flat.

Paul, London,

How come there is no comment on the proposal for compulsory insertion of the word "donor" on the birth certificate. Presumably that will be linked to the identity card data when it comes.

I would be intersted to see what others think here. I do get the feeling that somebody in government is trying to stamp out all gamete donation. They deprived donors of the right of anonymity last year and now this...

LMAS, Sandwich, Kent

All the self-righteous political-correctness in the world can't hide the fact that the children of same-sex relationships are going to be guinea-pigs in a potentially cruel and unnecessary experiment. We simply don't yet know if and how their lives will be affected. Asserting otherwise is to assert a falsehood.
What's really sad to my mind is that this argument is not actually about the children, it's about defending the 'right' of gays to have children while claiming - with no evidence available either way - that the children will be the beneficiaries of the policy. Such pretence should have no place in honest debate, but unfortunately tends entirely to characterise it, as so many of the posts here demonstrate.

Charlie, Bristol, UK

Yes, perhaps the statement that a "child flourishes best when it has a parent of each sex, better than if both parents are the same sex" does require a compelling argument. But the flip-side is true - please present me with an utterly compelling case that a child will not be disadvantaged in any way from same sex "parents". That the child will grow up rounded individual, loved, cared for and not questioning why their family unit is different to (nigh on) everyone else, or subject to the bullying that prevails in schools. Please don't mis-understand me, I'm not homo-phobic, I just can't understand what is wrong with nature - that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. That's genetics, that's life. Why do we seek to marginalise or knock marriage as an ideal?

Chris Needham, Bristol,

Mr Smith in Nagoya, with views like that you shouldn't be allowed to have kids either. as i gay man i support anyone who is able to bring up a happy child - we need children after all and better have ones brought up in happy homes than abusive, destructive (or indeed narrow minded) ones.

that said, the idea of creating babies in artificial wombs and hybrid embryo's (which is no doubt where this is all heading) really unnerves me. It actually makes me feel a bit sick. I'm not in a situation where i've wanted kids and not been able so forgive me if this is out of turn but why do we need this ability to manufacture people? i think people forget that 'babies' grow up and become adults, which will then shape the future. for that reason we need to have some responsibility as to what we make acceptable.

i don't think we can stop this happening but i do think intervention coudl make it much harder.

alex , manchester,

You imply the idea is to award two lesbian parents of a child the respective titles of 'mother' and 'father' thereby giving the idea the biological father of the child will lose all rights. That's wrong.
Rather the idea is that a child can have two 'mothers' by law rather than awarding one mother of the child the title while denying the other mother the title and leaving the slot for 'father' open. It's a matter of awarding both de-facto parents of a child (regardless of whether or not it happens to be a heterosexual couple) the actual title of "parent”, which is currently impossible and puts children of a homosexual couple in the disturbing position where they only have one official parent. There's a whole range of legal problems with that notion, not to mention what might happen when the official parent dies.

As for it being 'better' when children are brought up by a heterosexual couple: there is no scientific evidence or credible social research to support that claim.

Erik, The Hague, Netherlands

"Can’t we just say it: that a child flourishes best when it has a parent of each sex, better than if both parents are the same sex?"

No, you can't, because you have absolutely no idea if it's true or not and you're only going on a gut feeling based on "a combination of common sense, biology and tradition".

A far more important issue than the sex of the parents is their aptitude as parents. Do you really think a child will flourish better under an stupid, uncaring mother and father or two loving dads or mums?

Also I might point out that in the Western World fathers have never traditionally had a significant role in the raising of a child until now, and in the early history of humans (biology), that job was usually left to the mothers and their female relatives, as it is in the great apes now. So that's biology and tradition shot down - I can't see any common sense in there either, so I'll have to conclude that you are talking prejudiced rubbish.

Richard Wood, Cardiff, Wales

"[M]ost of us would feel instinctively that..." ?? Oh, you're right. That's obviously firmer grounds than the wealth of evidence, testimony and research that this committee has just had at its disposal to consider.

Laura Morley, Cambridge,

"Can’t we just say it: that a child flourishes best when it has a parent of each sex, better than if both parents are the same sex?"

You can say it, it's a shame that you do nothing to prove it.

Loz, London,

Gays and lesbians shouldnt have kids end of story.

John Smith, Nagoya, Japan

Surely love and a postive environment for a child to grow up in are more important than the gender of the parents. Old fashioned, out dated and bigoted are the best words to describe what is really a dressed up attack on gay couples. Surely a family is a birth right for everyone, regardless of their sexual orienatation. It is a shame that people like Mcdonagh choose to judge and condem people who want children, and want to provide a stable home. There are so many hetrosexual couples that have children wimsically and without any real intention or desire to offer them all that they can. Surely you should be judging them?

Petra, London, England

I'd like to see some kind of citation for the assertion that a child flourishes best with opposite sex parents, and if so, if this factor is stronger than the myriad other factors which contribute to the quality of a child's life.

Biology is important when it comes to assessing the risk of genetic diseases, but I would question the assertion that it is 'fundamental to our sense of who we are'. Your father may have been curious about his biological parents - who wouldn't be? - but this is a poor proof of such a strong statement.

Pav, London,

I think we should try to replicate what nature does as exactly as we can because the natural way is what we have evolved to cope with. Which means a mother and a father to make the child and some kind of role models of both sexes for the child. within the child's family context. This doesn't have to mean a traditional nuclear family, it might mean living in a large group with a chance to observer other childrens' parents at close quarters during childhood. It can mean a grandparent living with you of the right sex. But there has to be something, I feel - or at least, it has always seemed to me that those who do not have experience of both male and female role models in family life tend to have more problems than other people. The more role models the better of course as some people also live in unhappy nuclear homes.. But I think they need SOMEONE.

Ja, London, London

"Can’t we just say it: that a child flourishes best when it has a parent of each sex, better than if both parents are the same sex?"

No, not really. We can't say that when there is no evidence to back it up. A mere belief or wish that was the case does not make it true. Research has shown (in studies such as those carried out at the University of Virginia and other places) that it doesn't make a difference to the welfare of the child whether the parents are a same sex couple or not. As ever, it is down to the quality of the relationship between the parents, not the orientation.

But I can understand why you'd want to ignore any evidence to the contrary, as people much prefer to believer their own prejudices are correct rather than confront them.

A Richards, London,

I can't see how there can have been much evidence on the long term consequences for the child for the committee to review. How many children have been brought up up a same sex couple and are now old enough to see whether they are capable of forming strong stable relationships with the opposite sex and able to raise children who also are? Not enough surely to get any statistically valid findings. This is really a huge social experiment. Absence of evidence is not the same as no evidence of harm. Would we take the same approach to drug research? Of course not.

Anne, Hertford,

Gays and lesbians shouldnt have kids end of story.

John Smith, Nagoya, Japan

You say "a child flourishes best when it has a parent of each sex, better than if both parents are the same sex?" as if it is a simple fact that all reasonable people can agree on. Well, I am a perfectly reasonable person and I don't accept that statement in the absence of thorough research into the matter or at the very least some sort of compelling argument.

You may well be shown to be right in time but it is not fair to simply assume that without providing any sort of justification. This article does not really explore anything in any depth and is utterly disappointing.

James, Adelaide, Australia

Well said. Equally worrying, in my view, is the evolution of the word " parent " from neutral noun to verb. I am proud to say that my children have been fathered and mothered not " parented ". The former implies a whole different emotional environment. John Mortimer wrote the heavily autobiographical story " Voyage round my Father ".

" Voyage round my parent " dosen't have quite the same ring, does it?

James , Canberra, Australia.

I feel a bit ill. Whatever happened to a man and a woman making a baby just by, y'know, having sex?

This can all go only one way - chaos.

Paul, Leamington Spa,

There certainly is something in Melanie McDonagh's suggestion that the same sex partner of the mother of a child should be seen as the adoptive parent. that simply represents the reality of the situation. She then makes an entirely unsupported leap and declares that a child flourishes best with opposite sex parents, something the Committee specifically took evidence on and rejected. The last paragraph really is pretty nasty in tone speaking of people "hell bent on becoming parents at whatever cost to the child": what an unfair way to describe the sincere desire of many same sex couples to have and raise a child. The evidence given to the Committee specifically showed that being raised by a same sex couple does not damage children's development. Moreover where a same sex couple raise a child conceived through sperm donation they are not depriving him/her of a father as without the couple's noble desire to bring the child into the world the child would never exist at all.

Ronan, London,

That is not a doubt in the world that God created man and woman to have a child. Otherwise we can reproduce without the opposite sex. I hate to think what the world would become if this will become a common practice. lsn't the world bad enough and crazy enough then to think of this absolute nonsense. GET A LIFE

Virginia, Brisbane, Australia