The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Allow gay couples to adopt

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 74752
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




I am here to discuss why gay couples should be allowed to adopt

Round 1 Acceptance only


I accept this debate. I shall be arguing for that gay couples should not be allowed to vote. Be warned, this is only my second debate so I am not so familiar with the rules.
Debate Round No. 1


Homosexuals are also very loving, capable people who make the upbringing of a child much smoother. There is no CV or form that you need to fill in saying that you took a 3 year university course on parenting, it"s not a job. You just need to be an able, trustworthy and responsible person... None of which single out heterosexuals. There are, at the moment around 270,000 elated children being raised by same-sex couples. It is known that gay fathers in particular, are extremely committed to parenting. This all just goes to show that gay parents are not inferior to straight parents. "Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" American Psychological Association, Lesbian and Gay Parenting: A Resource for Psychologists 8 (1995). In the bird world, for example, two flamingos will "adopt" and raise a baby because male flamingos can make milk in their throat. This happens often within this species. The point is that these birds are more evolved than humans.


However, it is necessary for both sexes to be present in an upbringing of a child. Each sex provides certain aspects of a person's personality. Assuming you are not the adopted child of a homosexual couple, you will notice that you have aspects of your personality from both your parents, in which some aspects can only be absorbed from each sex. Also, let's say a male gay couple adopt a young girl. Since she would be around males most of the time when she is young and doesn't go to school, she would become more masculine in her personality. She wouldn't be like any of the girls, because of her personality traits, and since she will still keep some aspects of femininity that are ingrained within her and because of her feminine looks, she won't be accepted into the male group either. Therefore, she will be an outcast, and because of that, be bullied or be bullied, as little children don't have much sense of right or wrong. Sometimes, little kids don't realize that they are bullying, but yet they are. The bullying could mess with the child's head, and could end up harming the child greatly, either mentally or physically. Thus, children should not be adopted by homosexual couples. In your facts, you stated that 270,000 children are happy while being raised by homosexual couples. However, you didn't mention how many children are unhappy while being raised by homosexual parents. I am not sure of the exact number, but it is very high. If you look in pretty much any religion, it has homosexuality banned. I realize that there is a big difference in law and religion, but if multiple scholars from different parts of the world who haven't ever met are all saying the same thing, what does that tell us all? Thus, if homosexuality should not be allowed, then how should homosexuals allowed to adopt? Also, the people that say that children raised by homosexuals are sorely mistaken. I know that my first example was all hypothetical. However, it has happened multiple times. It may not happen every time, but there is a high chance that something like this shall occur. People have researched about this and have disproved the study that you use as your source. Also, your source is outdated by 20 years. There are many more sources out there that are more updated that disprove you. I shall provide the links for two sources. I suggest you read over both of them. I used the two resources in my argument, but never directly quoted anything.

Debate Round No. 2


In my last speech I would like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate and I would like to say that just because you have same sex parents doesn't mean the opposite-sex ain't around

1. Gender influence
these kids won't be completely deprived of models from the opposite sex to their parents'. They will still have contact with grandparents, teachers, friends, etc. But even if they didn't, why would the opposition just assume that gender roles are a valuable thing to learn? Why would we want to teach children to act and think differently based on being a boy or a girl? Parents should help them develop as individuals, based on their own interests and propensities.

2. Children are not off worse with a same-sex parents then Straight parents

The overwhelming majority of scientific studies on this issue have convincingly shown that children raised by gay couples are certainly not worse off than those raised by straight parents1. Some studies have gone as far as to demand that in the face of this evidence, gay bans be ended2. Based on the robust nature of the evidence available, the courts in Florida were satisfied in 2010 that the issue is beyond dispute and they struck down the ban3. When there isn't any scientific evidence to support the differential treatment of one group, it is only based on prejudice and bigotry, which should have no place in a democratic society.

1. Carey, Benedict. "Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue". New York Times. 29 January 2005.
2. Foster Care 1999 Statistics.

Every child has a right to a family no matter there race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation



"I would like to say that just because you have same sex parents doesn't mean the opposite-sex ain't around." However, even though the opposite sex isn't around, you are mostly getting interactions with your parents. Therefore, you aren't seeing that sex as often, therefore not absorbing as much of the personality as you should. Grandparents, unless they are living with the child, will at average see the child every 1 or 2 weeks. They will not have teachers until they are about 5-6 years old, so by then, they will have most of their personality (I'm assuming about 50-60%). So they wouldn't be as influenced by teachers as much as they would with their parents. Besides, they only see their teacher for a set amount of time, usually 6-7 hours, for only 5 days a week. With their friends, they won't really absorb personality from there. Little kids are really sexist. They don't realize that they are being sexist, but they are. The two sexes don't mix in the younger grades. So if a girl has a more male personality, she won't be accepted in the female group. She won't be accepted in the male group either, as she is a girl. Most studies have not found the adopted children to be happy. In fact, they are quite the opposite. Children adopted by homosexuals are more prone to being alcoholics, suicidal, people who cut themselves, depression, and being homosexuals themselves. I know you think being homosexual isn't bad, but in the long run, an increase in the homosexual population will be bad for the Earth's population as a whole. If there are more homosexuals, then there will be a decrease in the amount of children being born, and in the long run, that will not be good for the Earth.

Now it all comes down to this... If you ever pass away and leave your child parent-less, would you rather have a heterosexual couple adopt your child, or a homosexual couple, in which case your child will be more prone to being alcoholic, suicidal, someone who harms themselves, or depression? Please think about this, voters, and don't let your personal feelings come out when you vote. Vote for whoever you think did better, and what you see the facts support more. Thanks all. And thanks for the great debate, opponent. This debate made me think a lot and do a lot of research as well.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by aghias1 2 years ago
I just realized that wrote in round one that "gay couples should not be allowed to vote". I meant that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt.
Posted by aghias1 2 years ago
Please be unbiased in voting....
Posted by brad1999 2 years ago
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
This is status quo. Are you talking about a country outside the US?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I am personally inclined to side with Pro in this debate, but Con dealt less with hasty generalizations ("Homosexuals are very loving, capable people") and Con generally was more composed and realistic.
Vote Placed by Russia_The_almighty 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one who used sources. I also so a few more spelling and grammar errors on Pro than con. Arguments were pretty equal if you ask me.