The Instigator
sara.anndee
Pro (for)
The Contender
Erin_M
Con (against)

Gay Adoption Should be Legal in All 50 States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Erin_M has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 151 times Debate No: 96844
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

sara.anndee

Pro

The format for this debate will be as follows:

Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Opening Arguments
Round 3 - Rebuttals
Round 4 - Defense
Round 5 - Closing Arguments

Violation of this format will result in forfeiture, the voters will take this into account.
I look forward to debating this topic with my future opponent. Good luck!
Erin_M

Con

I accept your challenge and look forward to debating this topic with you.
Debate Round No. 1
sara.anndee

Pro

Round 2 - Opening Arguments:

What is adoption?
Adoption is the process of legally gaining custody of a child who may or may not be biologically related to the adoptee. This action seems normal to present-day society because it is pretty hard to tell an adoptive family just by sight, but for LGBT couples this is different. LGBT adoption is only currently legal in a few states, but it should be in all 50 of them.

What will my main points prove?
My main points will fully prove many factors false which cause people to be against LGBT adoption as well as facts and reasons why it should be a nationwide right.

Point 1: Does not fit the traditional family label
Let's face it, LGBT couples are different. They are not the norm, but they do exist. This is not just for sexuality and/or gender either, however, considering that there are various other aspects of our world which are also in the minority. Take flowers for example, some types of flowers are more common than others - but is that necessarily a bad thing? Of course not! Nature comes in varieties of shapes and sizes and colors, and so do us humans. What makes one type of family "better" than another because they are more common? There is no evidence to support the fact that straight families are better than LGBT families because they are more common. Diversity is a beautiful thing in nature, or the whole world will be bland. There is absolutely no harm in having diversity within families as well. We already have multiracial families, and no heads are flying off, so why stop willing couples from providing a loving home for a child in need? There is no reason to. Exposing the children in such families to diversity at a young age is key for a child to keep an open mind as they learn more about the real world. In this aspect, this exposure is unique and beneficial to LGBT families and not to heterosexual families.

Point 2: The gender of someone does not automatically make them a good or bad parent
Abuse and neglect are seen in all types of families, from LGBT to straight. The sexuality of a person does not automatically make them more willing to treat children this way. "Many heterosexual couples are raising children in abusive homes and forcing children to live in horrible conditions. It is no more rational to say those parents are good parents because they are heterosexual than it is to say two men or two women raising a child together are bad parents because they are gay" (Ackendorf). Ackendorf brings up a great point, the fear of abuse and terror can be present in any type of family. So what makes LGBT parents worse than straight parents? Nothing. In fact, since LGBT couples experience a lot of discrimination and protest in their lifetime, they are more open-minded and accepting towards their children and their lives than straight couples. "A gay or lesbian couple will be more open minded when it comes to accepting their child"s lifestyle choices, and will teach their child to be accepting of everyone in this world regardless of differences" (Pappas). LGBT couples have a lot to offer for kids who need to be adopted, and their understanding nature can help a child feel more open talking to their parents when they need help and guidance.

Point 3: It is against the Constitution to not allow LGBT parents to adopt, and only straight parents to
"The Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" (U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 2). This means that whatever one state or group of people can receive, the other can too. In this case, heterosexual and homosexual couples both have the same rights BY LAW to adopt if they are able and responsible to be parents, since this is the obvious requirement for straight parents as well.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law" (U.S. Constitution Amendment 14, Section 1). Both Section 1 and 2 of the 14th amendment explain how it is not legal to deny a certain group rights which others have without DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW - of course, or else criminals would be wandering around doing whatever they wish.

Point 4: LGBT couples adopt the unwanted children
50% of LGBT couples adopt children with special needs
60% of LGBT couples adopt across races
At least 40% of all LGBT couples are willing to adopt children
Also, "An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10% of the kids were older than 6 - typically a very difficult age to adopt out" (Pappas).
The facts speak for themselves, all the unwanted children who the straight couples do not adopt are more likely adopted by LGBT couples. If these LGBT couples are not allowed to adopt, then who will care for these children? Who will provide loving homes for the neediest? LGBT couples will, can, and want to.

Point 5: Against The Civil Rights Act of 1964
According to The Civil Rights act of 1964, no state which receives federal funds for adoptive care may: deny a person the right to become an adoptive parent [unless there are criminal records present], or deny a child to go into foster care based on race, color, or national origin of the adoptive parent[s] (Howe). Denying LGBT couples the right to vote is discrimination, and against The Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Constitution as explained before.

Point 6: Some states already have LGBT adoption legalized
"There has also been progress in the area of parent-child relationships, with New Hampshire repealing its ban against adoption by lesbian and gay men and several states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon, explicitly permitting same-sex couples to adopt jointly" (196 Ball).
Why can't the rest of the states follow in the footsteps of the states listed above? It is only a matter of time until the rest of the states get on board, the fact that so many states have legalized it already and willingly helps further prove that LGBT adoption is all but negative, and should be embraced by every state.

Point 7: Legalization of LGBT marriage on June 26th 2015
"just as couple[s] vow to support each other, so does society pledge to support the couple, and faring symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union. Indeed, while the states are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout history made marriage the opinion of the court [for] an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: spousal privilege in the law of evidence, and adoption rights" (Obergefell).
This is a direct quote from the testimony which enabled all 50 states to recognize and allow LGBT marriage. Since the law was obviously passed a little over a year ago, the supreme court has already included the fact that LGBT couples have the privilege to adopt children inside of the passed testimony. Basically, the supreme court has already agreed for LGBT adoption as well, as seen by looking at this quote, but the states NEED to start following through.

Side note: CON will be making their opening arguments in this round as well, but not to combat my points. Round 3 will start the rebuttals against these Opening Arguments, so please keep that in mind CON. Good luck.

Works Cited
Ackendorf, Julie. "What Are the Benefits of Gay Adoption?" Everyday Life. Demand Media, n.d. Web. 10 May 2016.
Ball, Carlos A. From the Closet to the Courtroom: Five LGBT Rights Lawsuits That Have Changed Our Nation. Boston: Beacon, 2010. 63+. Print.
Howe, Ruth-Arlene W. "Adoption, Race, and the Constitution." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. NY, New York: MacMillan Library Reference, 2000. 46. Print.
Obergefell v. Hodges. 16. United States Supreme Court. 26 June 2015. Supremecourt.gov. Supreme Court of the United States, n.d. Web. 10 May 2016.
Pappas, Stephanie. "Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents." LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 15 Jan. 2012. Web. 10 May 2016.
U.S. Constitution. Art. IV/Amend. XIV, Sec. 1; 2
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.