The statement that "the biological male is a biological male, biological female is a biological female" is a statement of fact, not a question of notion. It is not a human construct, but rather God's construct. This is a belief held by many individuals, particularly those who adhere to traditional gender roles and religious beliefs.

In India, this belief has been deeply ingrained in the fabric of society for centuries. However, as society evolves, beliefs and attitudes may also change. This is where the role of the court becomes important.

It is the responsibility of the court to interpret the laws and ensure that they are in line with the constitution and uphold the rights of all individuals, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. While it is true that the opinion of the public is important, the court's decision should not be solely based on public opinion. The court's decision should be based on constitutional principles and the best interests of the child.

When it comes to adoption, it is important to recognize that every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation, should have equal opportunities to adopt a child as long as they meet the required criteria and can provide a safe and stable home for the child. The well-being and best interests of the child should be the priority when considering adoption.

The ability to provide a loving and stable home environment is far more important than the sexual orientation of the parents. However, the acceptance of society should not be the determining factor in whether or not a gay couple is allowed to adopt a child. It is the responsibility of the court to ensure that the rights of the child and the adoptive parents are protected.

While it is true that societal attitudes may take time to change, this should not prevent the court from upholding the rights of all individuals. History has shown that change is possible, even in deeply ingrained societal beliefs such as Sati Pratha. It was the efforts of individuals like Raja Ram Mohan Roy who created social awareness against this harmful practice and paved the way for change.

Similarly, the court's decision to uphold the rights of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, can create social awareness and pave the way for change in societal attitudes. It is the responsibility of the court to ensure that the law is not "teethless" and that all individuals are protected under the constitution.

In conclusion, while beliefs about gender and sexuality may be deeply ingrained in society, it is the responsibility of the court to ensure that the rights of all individuals are protected. The court's decision should be based on constitutional principles and the best interests of the child, rather than public opinion or societal attitudes. With time and effort, societal attitudes can change, and the court's decision can pave the way for progress and equality for all individuals.