Yes, you are. Regardless of whether the law will say the other man is part of the family, he will be part of the child's family for all intensive purposes. All that will change are the legal aspects. The child will still be raised by both men, and both men will consider eachother the parents. The point of the exercise is what environment would you rather place the child in, not whether one or both of the men will have legal custody.
The grandparents are the parental units in that case - they raise you. The physical relation may be 'grandparents' but they are still the ones who teach you and raise you. Let met put it to you in a different way - a man who abandons his pregnant wife is the sire of the resulting child, but he ain't the father. A father raises you, takes care of you, teaches you - he doesn't abandon you.
Obviously we disagree on something fundamental - I don't view family by who's blood runs in your veins. If someone takes you in as a baby and raises you, loves you unconditionally, cares for you, as far as I'm concerned that person is a parent to you. You argue that two men can not be parents, and I disagree - I don't see why two men can't take in a child and raise it as equal partners. I've yet to see any reason from you as to why they are unable to do so other than the fact that they can't breed with eacother naturally.
Finally, I am still saying you are missing the point entirely - you are arguing petty semantics of what family and parents are. Regardless of whether you think that only one of them should be able to adopt the child, it won't change the situation - both of them will act as parents to the child, both will consider eachother parents to the child, and both will be part of the child rearing process. Even if only one technically has custody, the child will still be raised by both men. ENVIRONMENT is the key here, not whether one or gets custody.
If two men, or two women, were supposed to raise kids, they'd be able to have kids with each other.
Your argument doesn't make sense considering you would allow for one man to adopt - one man can't produce a child alone just as two can't. One woman can't and two women can't. None of these combinations can produce a child, yet you are fine with a singular person adopting.
An extremely simple exention of your logic: "If one man or one woman alone was supposed to raise kids, he/she would be able to have kids asexually." Logical consistency is something you might want to consider.
Poll
