The Instigator
carterfreer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jp1999
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gay Adoption of Children

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,052 times Debate No: 30284
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (42)
Votes (0)

 

carterfreer

Pro

Most people of America grow up in a Christian/Catholic Church where anything that has to do with a homosexuals. They are frowned upon in the community because they are different. I believe that they are completely fit as both partners and parents. I will challenge everybody, please feel free to debate this topic.

http://religions.pewforum.org...
jp1999

Con

I would first like to thank my competitor for allowing me to accept this debate.
I would also like to point out that I am in no way homophobic, although my comments may seem like I am.

Same sex marriage

Most people oppose same sex marriage because the family structure created by this kind of relationship, is always depriving a child of either a mother or a father. A Dictionary even highlights the inability of a same sex couple to provide both genders in a normal parental structure. A social science study that took over 30 years, executed by the source I am using (linked at the end of this argument), showed that children do best with a married mother and father.

I wish to point out this quote from the main source of this arguments information Dr. David Popenoe says, “We should disavow the notion that ‘mommies can make good daddies,’ just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that ‘daddies can make good mommies.’ …The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary – culturally and biologically – for the optimal development of a human being.” What he is saying is that despite people saying that a mum can be a great dad, like a dad can be a great mum, they in reality cannot.

Culturally a man teaches things that a mother cannot and likely will not, for example DIY, and biologically a man in a relationship will always make their children more secure in their relationships, simply by teaching them that a bi-gender marriage is normal and when it is right, will last for a long time, teaches them to avoid divorcements, and stops them getting involved with prostitution and the like. This is achieved simply by a man being with their child and setting a responsible example.
Culturally a woman teaches things that a father cannot and likely will not, for example compassion for unfortunate circumstances e.g death, and biologically a woman will teach a child about the correct ways around sex and presentation of themselves.
What I mean to illustrate here, is that a man cannot teach the same things a woman can, nor a woman teaching a man's lessons.

Think of it like this: Imagine there is a maths class and an english class. The maths class is taught by a maths teacher and does very well, likewise does the english class being taught by an english teacher. But next lesson they swap and the maths teacher teaches an english class and an english teacher teaches the maths class. It will not work, because the reason why there are two teachers for their respective subject is because they can teach that subject better than another could.

My source also says this Fathers tend to encourage children to take chances and push limits, and mothers tend to be protective and more cautious, and each approach is essential for a child’s healthy development. When either parenting style is extreme it can have an unhealthy effect on children, but together the different approaches of a mother and father are balanced to nurture the child, expand his experiences and give him confidence. This means that a balance is essential for a child to become a successful and a responsible adult.

I think I have prooven my point that balance is essential to produce a good member of society, but the question is can a gay parent match this? No.

Simply put, the child will just not get the balance of the two. I think my source says it all, here it is:
http://www.citizenlink.com...

Thank you all for your time reading this, and I now hand over to my worthy opponent!
Any questions? Just ask my in the comments!
Debate Round No. 1
carterfreer

Pro

To begin, I would just like to say that this is my very first debate and that i'm very young. I want to thank you though for accepting and look forward to this.

I'm going to begin with the ratio of Gay marriages to straight marriages. 150,000 Gay marriages were reported, and the amount of straight marriages is not possible to calculate completely. I will say that about 50% of straight marriages end in failure. With gay marriage there was only a 31% divorce rate. Obviously more straight couples exist then gay ones but they have less places to get married, and are often frowned upon. You must think about how hard it is to maintain a marriage while people look down on you, and the pressure that you receive from your community.

Also, more gay people get married later in life, which shows maturity and wisdom and most had a college degree. Only about 27% of Americans actually have degrees. My father is 65 years old and i'm 15, all my friends father's are a lot younger and less successful. We have the biggest house, the most money, and we enjoy ourselves very much. I'm not saying my dad is gay, he is married to my 45 year old mother who are planning on splitting up soon, backing up my point for opposite sex marriages not ending well. Now you must know that i'm not using what I have said above for sympathy or anything close to that. I'm only using it to backup my original claim.

Children are obviously very impressionable. With saying this does that mean that the adopted child will be gay? Absolutely not, it is something your born with. And gay people should have the right to experience a child. Now the chances are the child will be embarrassed of them because maybe people at school make comments about it. I think that two fathers will have an even better impact on them because as I said above they are older and more mature. If every parents were like mine, then i'd support straight marriages more then gay marriages. Iv'e seen family's ways of parenting and it's scaring to them, beating and verbally abusing their children will not turn children into better people, it will not shape them into brave men and women. No, it will just hurt them.

Thank you!
jp1999

Con

Child protection laws state that if a Child is at any risk from harm, mental damage or any other means of un-natural change, they should not be subjected to it. Adoption regulates that no same-sex marriages (or partnerships, seeing as most states and countries do not allow gay marriage, but substitute it with a civil partnership) can adopt a child as homosexual marriages/partnerships when caring for a child have been prooven to be less benifical and more harming to a child than a normal bi-gender relationship would. On that point, adoption centres wish that a carer to be must be able to provide as natural environment as possible, so to ensure the natural development of a child continues.

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't understand the correlation between the adoption of children by gay people, and the amount of Americans with degrees. Whether Americans should be forced to take degrees is a different issue, but I personally find that this has nothing to do with gay marriage and the adoption of children within this relationship.

I must point out that the parenting of a non-adopted child by a homosexual couple is not neccesarily wrong, in fact if they choose to have a child through IVF they are the rightful parents of them. But this child will ultimately be deprived of certain qualities or skills the missing gender will teach, as seen in my above argument....----

Enough jibber-jabber. My point is exactly this:
  • Child protection and adoption agencies look for what is best for a child and his/her development and what is natural
  • Child development is best (scientifically proven also!) when it is not a homosexual relationship
  • Homosexual relationships is not a family structure that is natural
  • Homosexual relationships are both un-natural and does not provide the best development for a child
  • The homosexual carer-to-be-s are not adequate, and likely never will be.
Debate Round No. 2
carterfreer

Pro

carterfreer forfeited this round.
jp1999

Con

It is a true shame that carterfreer missed the most important round of the debate: summarising. I follow a tradition of not including anymore arguments or statements when an opposition forfeits a round, however, it is with reluctance that I summarise my arguments, so please read on and allow me to remind you of my points.


http://www.citizenlink.com... provides a very reliable point, for which I base my main argument on.
It says that a same-sex marriage misses out on one gender, and, seeing as each gender plays a different role in the raising of a child, some aspects that are taught will not be. Dr. D Popenoe said this about same sex marriages: “We should disavow the notion that ‘mommies can make good daddies,’ just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that ‘daddies can make good mommies.’ …The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary – culturally and biologically – for the optimal development of a human being.” It is very simple, you need two different genders in a relationship in order to raise a child well.

My source also says this Fathers tend to encourage children to take chances and push limits, and mothers tend to be protective and more cautious, and each approach is essential for a child’s healthy development. When either parenting style is extreme it can have an unhealthy effect on children, but together the different approaches of a mother and father are balanced to nurture the child, expand his experiences and give him confidence. This means that a balance is essential for a child to become a successful and a responsible adult.

-------

So overall, we can be sure that a same sex marriage will not raise a child up as normally and as well as a 'bi-gender' relationship. But lets now see the point of adoption; Child protection laws state that if a Child is at any risk from harm, mental damage or any other means of un-natural change, they should not be subjected to it. Adoption regulates that no same-sex marriages (or partnerships, seeing as most states and countries do not allow gay marriage, but substitute it with a civil partnership) can adopt a child as homosexual marriages/partnerships when caring for a child have been prooven to be less benifical and more harming to a child than a normal bi-gender relationship would.

The desicion is obvious, a same-sex marriage does not provide a normal and natural parental structure, which adoption centres look for. They do this, to provide the best possible environment for a child to be raised up.

-------

So to put it shortly;
  • Child protection and adoption agencies look for what is best for a child and his/her development and what is natural
  • Child development is best (scientifically proven also!) when it is not a homosexual relationship
  • Homosexual relationships is not a family structure that is natural
  • Homosexual relationships are both un-natural and does not provide the best development for a child
  • The homosexual carer-to-be-s are not adequate, and likely never will be.
--------

I thank you for your time reading this whole debate, and before you vote against me for bad conduct (supposing you think I am homophobic). I am in no way homophobic, although my comments may seem like I am, so please do not assume this is hateful towards homosexuals.

My thanks to my gracious opponent, and I wish him/her luck in the voting period.
Debate Round No. 3
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jp1999 3 years ago
jp1999
Arrogance of my religion? I don't see myself arguing still, you in fact are. Yet that makes me, and my religion, arrogant?

Also, why are you calling religion a government hated rampant? Just out of interest, because out of all the atheists I have met, not one of them spoke of religion in such a false way.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Chase200mph
jp1999 6 days ago

I am not saying Christianity is the truth, but all the same I cannot say Atheism is either.

Answer: I see, ironic that you are more of an atheist than either DG or myself are. We simply see no evidence of god, you cannot provide any, and yet you deny the other 37999 Christian versions of the almost same god for less of reason than both of us do".some would say this was even a hypocritical of you.

The difference between the two ideas is the existence of God.

Answer: The difference between the two is we don"t see evidence and you have to make up excuses for the ideas that surround as less than perfect being you"ve chosen.

Now, we may make many theories up to prove or disprove the existence of God, but these are not the truth. They are what we believe to be right.

Answer: No theories disprove god, your God on the other hand is a different story if that is what you meant. Atheist don"t see evidence, you don"t have any to offer, conclusion, theist have no reason to believe and therefore have little persuasive power to convince anybody with rational thought. "as to disproof, Christianity and its 38000 Christian denominations disprove you god just fine, and all by itself.

Theism and Atheism are what their respective followers believe to be right, and in your case to be true, but are not yet proven.

Answer: Complete BS atheist do N OT have followers, it is NOT a religion, it may be a PART of a world view, it is however NOT a world view. Secularism was designed by a Christian, it was designed to unit all the battling sects of Christians if your kind wasn"t so bent on burning the books you should have been reading you would already know this. You are a follower, you follow what others believe so that you can relate to each other"you don"t even know or understand why you believe"this is because of your conditioning.

It is worth remembering that despite the amount of theories you and I state, we never will be sure.

Ans
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
JP1999, quit making atheism more than it is, its Nothing more than the noises people make when unjustified religious beliefs run rampant!

Think about alchemy. Devout alchemist's today are ridiculous, however, if they were as influential as christianity, you would call us A-alchemist, a made up word to define someone who doesnt believe.

What about Leprechauns or unicorn beliefs. If those were as rampant as religion, we would be A-leprechzaunist or A-unicornist.

However, leprechauns, alchemy, and unicorns are Not loud, divisive, destructive and annoying beliefs to our government and schools.

The only troublemaker is religion. So when people who stand up agains these unjustified beliefs they get the label atheist.

So as you can see, it is a irrelevant and childish word, just like the "word of god" in the bible, irrelevant and childish :)

Do you get it, or is the arrogance of religion clouding your judgement?
Posted by jp1999 4 years ago
jp1999
I am not saying Christianity is the truth, but all the same I cannot say Atheism is either. The difference between the two ideas is the existence of God. Now, we may make many theories up to prove or disprove the existence of God, but these are not the truth. They are what we believe to be right. Theism and Atheism are what their respective followers believe to be right, and in your case to be true, but are not yet proven. It is worth remembering that despite the amount of theories you and I state, we never will be sure.

I would like you to at least bear this in mind, if, when you post a rebuttal against this. But the fact of the matter is, THIS is the truth. That we will never know about the true existence of God.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
jp1999, entertaining the crowd and splashing the world with a glass of ice water isnt an exact science.

The pain you are feeling is the sting of the truth. The truth hurts isnt a slogan, its permeating its sting, and rightly so.

You can be "right" or you can know the truth.

If being right is more important than understanding truth, there are plenty of churches that only care about being right, pick a religion and go run from the truth in a quest to be "right" :)
Posted by jp1999 4 years ago
jp1999
Chase200mph, April and devient.genie.

ALL of your comments have nothing to do with this debate. Stop posting them here, and post them in the forums.
Posted by Chase200mph 4 years ago
Chase200mph
: ) I think I am going to like this place....
Posted by April 4 years ago
April
Devient.genie, thank you for all your posts here. It feels amazing knowing there are people like you out there who share same thought. You have no idea the amount of pressure I was under living with merely everyone around wearing their religion cap. The old confused me even tried tagging along to their church/temples, only to realize I dont fit in any of those places. I believe in myself, I believe it is our will power, mind work and lotsa real actions that make things happen, not by praying hard enough..
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
jp1999, there is no crying in baseball. You know that, Walk It Off :)

Believe whatever religious lunacy or superstition you want, just treat it more like ur genitalia and keep it to yourself, dont whip it out in public, dont use it for show and tell or any other time at school, and dont shove it down kids throats :)

If you do treat your lunacy and superstitious "Elvis is alive" or "the reason for the sub atomic world is concerned with my sex life" beliefs private, you will silence the torment you suffer from us pesky thinkin' folk, with all our fancy evidence and stuff :).

Give it a try, convince the christian nation, to stop infesting our government, poisoning our schools, denying human rights, hurting people and telling lies and see how quiet it gets :)

Teach our kids something relevant for today and for the next 100 yrs. :)

Lets teach kids the process on HOW to think, instead of indctrinating WHAT to think. Let kids have free thought and free expression, Do Not Limit their understanding of what mankind has discovered in the 21st Century. Teach them to be good because they want too, and they want to leave a legacy, and they want to be awesome for no other reason than they believe in themselves. That has far more virtue than doing good because you are going to get a reward or avoid punishment after death. More kids might bring donuts to homeroom instead of a gun. :)

Keep confusing our children, and acting like swearing on an old outdated vile book means something, and blame the gun :)

holy book: "Look, I have two daughters, virgins both of them. Let me bring them out to you and you could do what you like with them. But do nothing to these men because they have come under the shelter of my roof."--genesis 19:8.

Lesson learned: Bros before hos

Science book: E=Mc2

Lesson learned for Mankind: The first formula to interpret mass"energy equivalence as a fundamental principle that follows from the relativistic symmetries of space an
Posted by jp1999 4 years ago
jp1999
How inconsiderate, forget the debate. I would never want to debate against you. You would just insult me, and the Religion.

Anything else you say will just be ignored now, too much biased comments coming from you.
Flippin' Atheists.
No votes have been placed for this debate.