Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples
I'll let my opponent expand his argument before posting mine.
I expect a fair and fun debate. Good luck!
Thanks for your response. I’ll make this quick and simple.
It seems that my opponent’s R1 argument was solely based on weak assumptions, appealing to religion and his irrational personal belief of what the outcome may be (which is flawed).
One of CON’s claim is his belief that (the Judeo-Christian) God created people to be with the opposite gender, to keep up with traditional family values. Fact is, it’s not simple nor is it fair. If we would be using the obsolete teachings of the Bible as an argument, there is no verse which prohibits LGBT adoption, and isn’t it God’s and Jesus’ teaching to forgive and love your neighbor? But of course, religious Scripture is irrelevant and futile to this debate and it should be disregarded.
CON then argued that having a father & mother creates an impact since it serves different purposes or influences to a kid’s life, meaning that heterosexual parents have better parenting skills than same-sex parents. So what? We live in a society where children need love, compassion and care first. Parents are role models of the children, regardless of sexual orientation.
CON’s next argument is that children are more likely to be gay when they have gay parents. My opponent did not cite a source to adequately support this claim, but it doesn’t matter, because LGBT parents have absolutely no effect on influencing or changing the sexual orientation of the child, there is no scientifical evidence to support it, and this is according to the American Psychological Association. They further stated that the development and well-being of children of same sex couples have no relation whatsoever to the parents (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://debatepedia.idebate.org...).
Next issue is that the child of an LGBT couple may result to being bullied and depressed because of their parents’ sexual orientation. This is not a valid argument. I will argue that the solution to solving this problem is to enforce more laws against hate crime and bullying. The parents are not to blame if the child’s the victim. It should be the school’s fault and the responsibility of the state and the system to improve enforcing anti-Bullying laws.
This is obviously a matter of having equal opportunity and promoting LGBT rights. Certain countries have allowed adoption because it’s becoming recognized and acceptable by society. Progress is happening, and the traditional family structure is no longer the only acceptable structure. And I agree, it should be more liberalized for society’s sake. Not allowing gay couples to adopt is like a form of discrimination, a hate towards sexual orientation, it is homophobia, it is bigotry. It has to stop.
According to psychologist Abbie Goldberg, gays are likely to become better parents than the average heterosexual couple, because they are more motivated and committed on the role because they chose to become parents. LGBT couples rarely become parents by accident, unlike the high unwanted pregnancy rate among straights (http://www.livescience.com...).
American gay dads are found to be more fit parents than straight dads, according to the opinion of the American Psychological Association (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Compare two loving well-educated homosexual men with an abusive 46 year-old male redneck and a dumb 19 year-old whore. Which couple is more competent?
What makes an LGBT couple less desirable parents than a kid who’s only being raised by a single mom working at the minimum wage? Or being in foster care or raised by incompetent relatives?
Sociologist Brian Powell argued that the parents’ gender has got nothing to do on the disadvantage of kids raised by LGBT parents (http://www.livescience.com...). Which means, and as I said, if the child is depressed and being bullied, it shouldn’t be the parents’ fault. We need to fix society and their poor reaction to LGBTs. Schools need to be more liberal on issues like this and the government should protect the children being victimized by the hatred.
That’s all for now, I’ll expand some contentions later on.
You're so obvious
Lets start it off with the definition of irrational. Not logical or reasonable. I do not recall anything in my argument that illustrated neither. Being that is your opinion I guess it does not hold any value does it.
You proclaimed there is no claim in the bible, which states gays can not adopt. However it states Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination". Therefore the bible forbids homosexual activity. Therefore if the bible was followed there would be no place in society for children to be raised by a homosexually couple. You say we should disregard the bible however the bible is one of the oldest texts that is still relevant today, so how is that possible. You say "thy shall love your there neighbor and it also states you shall not lie with a man as you will with a female". So which one is right? What God has set up is what is right -- not what sinful man sets up. Which is gay adoption and by the way you say also "thy shall forgive" if I'm correct and not assuming like you say don't you forgive when someone has done wrong?
Question when did I state a heterosexual couple has better parenting skills then a homosexually couple or did I state they have an option to consult their mom or dad? I'm pretty sure a female has a different point view opposed to a male. That's all I was saying yes they need love and compassion along with someone they can look up to. As a child you learn a lot from your parents therefore the child may be way more open to the same sex opposed to if he had a heterosexually family.
Here is your link http://authorfbradshaw.hubpages.com... which shows gay parents do have some affect on their kid's sexual preference.
Not only did my opponent cite Wikipedia which we all know is not a legitimate reference, anyone can write on Wikipedia. But he somehow got that "LGBT parents have absolutely no effect on influencing or changing the sexual orientation of the child, there is no scientific evidence to support it, and this is according to the American Psychological Association." I find that to be impossible being there is billions of people in this world and I cited a source that states otherwise.
Next issue is that the child of an LGBT couple may result to being bullied and depressed because of their parents' sexual orientation. You say they should make laws and the parents should not be faulted, however if we think proactively it can be stopped by not allowing homosexually couples to adopt kids. Question why can't two females or two males have a child of their own? Is it because they were not made to, to my understanding only a male and a female can produce life? And if not mistaken you never answered what to do if the child is depressed because he or she is different in regards to there parents.
Once again I have nothing against homosexuality
And please no references from Wikipedia because all it is an opinion.
Thanks for responding.
Addressing my opponent's remark on religion, I'll say it again, it is irrelevant and futile in this debate because the United States has a seperation of Church and State that is protected under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net...). But then agaoin, my opponent made no reasonable rebuttal to refute my argument which states that gay adopion is against the Bible. The Bible only prohibits gay sex. Again, please disregard any religious arguments.
Next, my opponent tries to rebut my argument that LGBT parents have no influence on children, which is true. My opponent's reponse is by sending a link to an opinion article of an unpolular website and not even care to argue what's being said there. You need to elaborate what you cite in an online debate. Bottomline, there's nothing to refute if there's no official argument, please extend.
Oh, and since my opponent is being to mean and wants Wikipedia articles disregarded, I'll back up my argument by showing genuine and official documents published by the APA:
In here, the APA officially states that, "There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed."
This basically trashes the ludicrous claim that having gay parents can make you gay.
APA stated that "there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children"
Finally, my opponent never really convincingly rebutted my argument on preventing bullying and depression and continues to claim that we ban LGBT adoption because it's the only way. He didn't explain why thoroughly enough. CON also argues that homosexuals cannot produce offspring naturally and therefore shouldn't have children. Weak arguments needs improvements.
Once again, I ask the readers to please extend my previous arguments since they weren't adequately refuted by CON.
According to psychologist Abbie Goldberg, gays are likely to become better parents than the average heterosexual couple, because they are more motivated and committed on the role because they chose to become parents.
the key word is here is likely who knows they can be the worst parenting figures or the best there is no evidence supporting that they are actually better parents then heterosexual couples that actually lay down and have there own kids.
American gay dads are found to be more fit parents than straight dads, according to the opinion of the American Psychological Association (http://en.wikipedia.org......).
this is once again an opinion and should be disregarded it holds no value or fact.
parents gender has got nothing to do on the disadvantage of kids raised by LGBT parents (http://www.livescience.com......). Which means, and as I said, if the child is depressed and being bullied, it shouldn't be the parents' fault. We need to fix society and their poor reaction to LGBTs.
social transformation does not happen over night therefore your idea may be a long term goal. however we need a solution now which can be them not being able to adopt, to protect the mental state of the children
jm_notguilty forfeited this round.
I already hit on the points of religion, the child may suffer from depression, the child may be influenced to be gay and may be bullied hopefully these factors will be considered when judging this debate
I apologize for the forfeit. I loss track of time.
Ladies and gentlemen, there's not much to rebut here;
In CON's response to my equality, he stated that there is community interest and society interest, and that he thinks that same sex adoption is NOT best for society. What does he know about society's interest? This is obviously a flawed rebuttal and it's too weak since it didn't elaborate accurately on refuting my contention.
Next, regarding my contention that homosexuals make good parents, my opponent's only refutation here is the use of the word, 'more likely'. CON used semantics instead of providing counter statistics/testimony to rebut my case. My opponent says that's there's no evidence that homos are better than heteros. It's obvious he didn't read my statistics I cited. Please extend.
My opponent attacks the APA's documented opinion on gay dads as non factual because it's an opinion. We're engaged in a debate, and we've got to consider all possible evidences. This testimony is an official document that holds the opinion of a prestigious medical organisation. It must be considered accurate and concrete evidence.
Next, he stated that changing society is long term. If that's what it takes, then so be it. Equality is more important. There are educational institutions that promote and liberalize respecting LGBTs, which is a good sign of progress. It's possible, within time, to achieve the goal on changing society
I thank my opponent for issuing the debate. Again, to the voters, please be impartial with voting (regardless of idology bias). Please extend my previous arguments since it wasn't accurately rebutted and since my arguments stand supreme. Vote PRO.