It's discriminatory to refuse to allow homosexuals to adopt.
(But of course, it's not discriminatory to force all the Catholic adoption agencies in Britain to close because they disagreed with the above.)
It's discriminatory to refuse to allow unmarried, cohabiting couples to adopt, even though it is statistically provable (and freaking obvious!) that they tend to break up and that it's proven that such break-ups are bad for the kids.
Now because it's discriminatory to refuse to allow homosexuals (whose "relationships" have...ah...a somewhat higher rate of "break-down", but never mind that) and unmarried cohabiting couples to adopt children, even though it harms kids,
now we have to allow convicted sex offenders to adopt.
Because avoiding discrimination is more important than children.
Did I get it?
What do I win?