In the present Supreme Court case of Self-Serving Redefinition versus Actual Biology, the homosexual faction has advanced an argument about the childhood experience of emotional bonding. They say (approximate quote, addressing the opposition): "You have said that only opposite-sex couples can provide bonding to children, but that is not true. Same-sex couples can also provide bonding." This line will be wildly applauded by advocates of "marriage equality" (which is itself an intentionally deceptive term). Knowing themselves to be the ones now in favor with pop culture, they will call persons like me "homophobes" if we dare to contradict their sacred doctrine; but no matter how stridently they deny it, there IS a flaw in their argument. It is a flaw of willful omission.
Infants of _every_ warm-blooded animal species need protection and care if they are to survive to maturity. Because of this, bird and mammal infants have an instinct which _tells_ them that they need to be with a caregiver. Their instinct, however, does not give them detailed information about what is the _best_ possible bonding for them. If newly-hatched baby ducklings see a human being before they see anything else, they will _assume_ this human being to be their Mommy, and they will follow the human around. If the human in question is willing to take care of the ducklings, they obviously are better off than if they were left on their own to be devoured by the first carnivore that found them. But although some bonding is better than no bonding, this doesn't mean that being with an actual mother duck would not have been the optimum situation for the ducklings.
At this point, gays may shriek, "That's hate speech! You're saying that gay parents aren't even the same _species_ as heterosexual parents!" But in this as in so many things, the gays will be mistaken. Most analogies are only partially applicable, used only for illustration. My illustration about animals was only to show that a baby's absolute need for connection is no guarantee that the connection which occurs will be the best of all possible connections. Now to address the issue more directly.
Many of us cultural conservatives have said long before now that we _realize_ that gay caregivers may genuinely love children, and genuinely wish to do them good. But _anyone's_ feelings of love and goodwill for others will be affected by _what_ the person believes IS good for others. And whenever you've got "two mommies" or "two daddies," they _will_ choose to believe that there _cannot_ be anything about homosexuality which is detrimental to the children. So they will close their eyes to a reality which, again, many of us have pointed out.
"Children learn what they live." Liberals themselves will repeat this when it suits them; but they don't want us to consider what it means in _this_ context. If a boy is raised by two lesbians, his very _life_ with them will tend to make him expect that women will have no use for him when he grows up. If a girl is raised by two gay men, her very _life_ with them will tend to make her expect that men will have no use for her when she grows up. If a boy is raised by two gay men, his very _life_ with them will teach him that HE has no use for women. If a girl is raised by two lesbians, her very _life_ with them will teach her that SHE has no use for men.
I just heard about a school in my own state forbidding a child to eat Oreos which had been packed in the child's lunch at home. The mother or maybe father who put in those Oreos WAS NOT intending to injure the child, but the school exercised its _external_ authority to claim that the parental action _was_ harmful nonetheless. This governmental interference is practiced very selectively.
Heterosexual parents like me _don't_ enjoy immunity against "progressive" theorists claiming that something is fundamentally wrong with our manner of parenting. So where do gay couples get the right to have _their_ ideas of parenting be immune to criticism? The answer, of course, is that they have NO moral right to be thus immune to criticism. But they don't really care about the moral right. As long as they can have the governmental _power_ to gag and silence all dissent, they can just _tell_ themselves that all of _their_ actions are "loving" actions. Reflexive self-justification can be remarkably convenient.