Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a slippery slope to homosexual parenting as a right gained in principle of human equality, as two fathers or two mothers cannot provide for fundamental, opposite-sex relationships of the parent-child variety.

Homosexual parenting should be opposed as ideologically odds with the right of the child to be formed in the personal love of both a mother and a father. Laws that sanction the preclusion of opposite-sex familial relationships of the parent-child variety are in direct violation of fundamental, human rights.

Looking at the definition of ‘foster’, one finds the objective that those who pertain to care for children should embrace. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, to foster means to ‘encourage or promote the development of…a child who is not one’s own by birth.’ Adoption encourages prospective foster parents to consider that child as their own rather than as one under their care. As a child is formed of the gametes of a male and female, however, every child has a mother and a father of their own who is for one reason or another, absent.

Laws governing the care of children must reflect that reality. No one can replace a child’s natural parents but can only try to compensate for that loss. That loss should be acknowledged and honoured at least by an attempt to do so otherwise the question needs to be asked, whose rights are being served. But a homosexual couple cannot compensate for the loss of both a father and a mother within the context of family.

It follows that the main objection to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is legally sanctioned, homosexual parenting, which precludes opposite-sex relationships of the parent-child variety. It is a pathway to the violation of fundamental human rights.