First round is for acceptance. Good luck.
I accept. But due to Con's lack of Round 1 rules/definitions I expect this debate to be about why homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt because of their sexuality - not some extrenious circumstances that could apply to heterosexual couplings as well.
Do not stray from the topic. I ask you do not add on to the topic when it is not needed. Arigatou-gusaimasu!
Point 1: Homosexual Parenting Is Worse For Kids
""There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
"Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
"Have lower educational attainment
"Report less safety and security in their family of origin
"Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
"Are more likely to suffer from depression
"Have been arrested more often
"If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers:
"Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
"Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
"Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
"Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
"Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
"Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
"Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
"Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
"Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
"Use marijuana more frequently
"Smoke more frequently
"Watch TV for long periods more frequently
"Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense" (1)
This is astonishing. There are so many downsides to having LGBT parents for these poor children. Another study shows more subjects in which children raised by homosexuals fare worse. Here are screenshots of two subjects. (2)
More subjects include but are not limited to:
Women’s female partners
Women’s male partners
Men’s male partners
In Conclusion to Point 1:
Children of homosexual parents fare a lot worse than children raised by intact heterosexual famlies.
Children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to participate in criminal activity.
Children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to have bad sexual experiences. (Rape, etc)
I will post another argument next round.
My opponent has not presented an argument, merely a copy and paste without context. The wall of blue text may seem like linked sources but it is not accessible. Only the 2 links at the bottom are his (flawed) sources. He has provided no context, no structure, nor any semblance of organization other than quotation for me to refute. All I need to do is show how the study by Mark Regnerus, the man who created the images Con uses and the Family Research Council are without merit.
I have 3 points:
Lack of Organization/Plagiarism:
I can’t find a single word of Con’s argument that isn’t in quotation. With no argument behind this word spam, I have nothing to refute but the study itself. Con just uses words out of context, a list of words and pictures without bearing on the issue.
Refuting Mark Regnerus Study:
This refers to the images by Con showing how supposedly straight parents are better than gay ones; but what is clearly shown by the graphic is that 2 parents are better than one. The study only compares the ability of a 2 hetero parent household against 1 single gay parent. Such a comparison is hardly scientific. And if we remember in round one I said I wanted to see evidence that applied only to homosexuals – 2 parents are always better than 1 regardless of sexuality .
Not only that if you actually look at the number of subjects in the study you’ll find it’s hardly a representative sample.
And the man behind the study, Mark Regnrus, has been has already been discredited, his study was used as ‘evidence’ in the Michigan Supreme Court against same-sex marriage, it was dismissed as nonsense  even his own colleagues don’t find his study credible .
Pro Adoption Argument:
In the U.S. there are roughly over 100,000 children in need of adoption each year  by allowing married gay couples the same access to adoption services as straight parents they can provide the same quality of household and positive outcomes . It would also provide an alternative to gay couples instead of going through a surrogate – contributing to global over population – they could adopt and improve the life of a child who’d otherwise suffer in the system.
My opponent as yet to show a coherent argument againt gay parentage. He cites flawed and discredited studies and nothing more. There are children in need of good house holds, by barring gay parents you reduce the number of qualified households that could care for them. My opponent has no care for the happiness of orphans, merely typical bigoted homophobia - no form or structure or care for others - just hate for the sake of it.
In response to plagarism:
I value my debates on having a very logical esscence to them. This means that I mainly quote from evidence. You see, I mainly like to appeal to voters' who value solid studies that can not be refuted. I can say you did a good job trying to attack my claims, but missed the mark. By the way, maybe if you would read better, you'd see some paragraphs that are not in quotations. One example would be my conclusion which is bolded and underlined. :)
Mark Regerus Study:
Even if you discount Mark's study, other studies mentioned here say other disadvantages. Here I quote:
" Is it healthy for children to be adopted by adults whose lifestyle is characterized by promiscuity and the medical hazards of multiple sex partners? A homosexual newsmagazine columnist in Detroit last month [February 2002] wrote regarding his partner: "This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships. ... A study I once read suggested that nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers" [emphasis added]. The Centers for Disease Control warns that men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases." Risk-Taking Adults How will being adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior affect the behavior of children themselves? Associated Press reported last June  that a "new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents ... are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves ... (and) grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations." [emphasis added] A major Australian newspaper reported February 4  on a British sociologist's review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting: "Children raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a study into parenting has found. The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe claims children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and be confused about their sexuality." [emphasis added] Which means children adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior face not only secondhand exposure to the risks of such behavior by their "parents," but are more likely to suffer firsthand by engaging in the same high-risk behavior themselves. Young people who model the homosexual behavior of their adopted "parents" face other risks: The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published a study of 4,000 high school students by Harvard Medical School, which found that "gay-lesbian-bisexual youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors ... [from] engag[ing] in twice the mean number of risk behaviors as did the overall population." (Garofalo, Robert, et al, " (1)
This is backed up by studies other than Mark's. In fact, Mark's study isn't even used in this.
"Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.
The Spanish Association of Pediatrics firmly backs up the findings of the report, stating that a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child”." (3)As you can see, there are other studies that confirm what I am saying.
At what cost? We need to think of the childs' well being. My studies clealy show that homosexual parenting is not a wise option. I implore voters to look at the table on source 4. It shows international adoption rates. Around 250,351 international children have been sdopted between 1999 and 2013. There are other things we can do to get a child adopted besides giving them to homosexual parents.
The report contests that the majority of the studies carried out which have concluded in favour of same-sex parenthood betray an egregious lack of scientific rigour. Most of the studies show a strong bias to one side.
To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption."
There are proven downsides to homosexual parenting.
It is morally unethical to give children up to un-fit parents.
Con's argument is based on faulty data about homosexual parenting.
I implore you to vote Con!
2. "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," posted in the Family Research Council's online publication Insight (accessed July 8, 2005)
I’m disappointed after being called out for copy and pasting my opponent repeats it.
Lack of Organization/Plagiarism:
I do my diligence when it comes to proper citation and organizing my arguments in a manner that is easier to read. Con prefers to copy/paste block quotes from sources even he himself can’t verify. The biggest problem is by doing these block quotes with little to no input from him his sources now need proper citation – looking at his Round 2 sources and argument in general Con uses 2 ‘studies’ both provided by the FRC, one from Loren Marks, and Mark Regnerus. What Con doesn't nor the FRC tell us is that Marks cites Regnerus in her study – so essentially my opponent has tried to pass of one debunked source as evidence under multiple links. His Round 3 source (2) is the same thing, quoting the FRC quoting a debunked source as if they have any interest in science.
It should also be noted that when my opponent cites the FRC he cites a group that openly admits they are not interested in science, but advancing a Christian world view .
Another problem this creates is there are many unsubstantiated and irrelevant claims made that are passed off as creditable within the block quote when in fact they are just random quotes strung together to lead the reader into thinking they are related. For example in Round 3 Con quotes a source that quotes a homosexual news columnist - then separately makes the unverified claim 9 in 10 gay men cheat in an attempt to compare singles w/no intent to adopt against couples in a committed relationship. A news columnist is not representative and it’s clear there’s more anti-gay propaganda than actual science in his sources.
The block quote by Timothy Dailey is the same as above, quoting a source that itself does not use sources, those are just normative claims made about gays - the bias is extreme as is ther est of my opponents sources.
Debunked and Out of Context Sources:
As mentioned before Con cites sources that cite Regernus, thus they are invalid. I do not dismiss Regnerus out of laziness or inability to talk about his data. But I have limited characters, and if the arguments of Regnerus are presented and dismissed by the Supreme Courts of Michigan and the US Government I have no reason to take these studies seriously either.
Now to talk about his Round 3 source (1) – this is a PDF document talking about Rosie O’Donald, and it features a Gish Gallop of quoted statistics w/o context. It references high HIV and depression/suicide rates among gays yet attempts to imply that this is a matter of parenting – it ignores the fact that they are symptoms of cultural homophobia – the stigma against homosexuality itself causes these problems. As I said before it also uses many quotes from experts but like my opponent it doesn’t put them into a cohesive argument – it’s just a list of negative statistics to make gays look like diseased, irresponsible and sex crazed. One could easily use this technique to argue against interracial marriage/adoption. Just bring up a bunch of anti-black stats involving STDs and crime and say they represent all of that culture and future interactions with others. It’s hogwash and none or the arguments are directed at how homosexuals make unqualified parents – they merely look at symptoms of societal oppression like drug use and claim that’s what gays ‘are’ and thus should not be allowed to adopt.
Source (3) mentions a study, but provides no links to the study itself. The article seems to suggest not much actual study was done – merely an examination of the people who write pro gay adoption studies, not the studies themselves.
Source (4) actually helps my case – more later.
In reading my opponents sources I saw something very interesting: “.. to date, there is only one other gay parenting study that draws from a large, random sample, that of Michael Rosenfeld of Stanford University ..” I found the mentioned study, and it concludes that children raised by gay parents are nearly identical to those raised by heterosexual parents .
There is more evidence to suggest gays make equal parents, “Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. … adolescents with same-sex parents reported feeling more connected at school. Another study reported that children in gay and lesbian households are more likely to talk about emotionally difficult topics, and they are often more resilient, compassionate and tolerant.”  And as I mentioned before, the root cause of many aspects of the homosexual lifestyle, drug use, depression, suicide, are all symptoms of homophobia and are not reflective on the parenting of individuals – “Some differences [in parenting] may include adapting to different types of family forms, the impact of social stigma on the family, and dealing with extended family members who may not be supportive of same-sex parenting. One of the biggest challenges facing same-sex parented families is that they must live in a culture that supports heterosexist and homophobic attitudes and beliefs, which can affect these families in a variety of ways” 
A quote from the abstract of another study: “Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. … Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.”  Again as I said in Round One, we should evaluate the issue based on how the sexuality of the parent influences the child.
Furthermore there is reason to think gay parents may be better than straight ones – I don’t make a hard claim to this but hear out the logic. Gay parents are incapable of accidentally getting pregnant, if they want children they must plan for it – meaning they are prepared and have put thought into providing a good home. Among straight couples many are accidental, meaning that unprepared usually young people are forced to care for a life they did not expect. They could give their baby up for adoption to go to a household that actually wants them.
Finally I will bring up Con’s source (4) this is merely international adoption stats. This makes my previous argument in round one stronger, this goes to show just how many hundreds of thousands of kids need good homes – by denying gays the right to adopt you are forcing children to wait or never be adopted at all. Clearly my opponent does not have the well being of orphans in mind.
In short my opponent uses pseudo science  and contextless block quotes to cover it up. In academia, the part that hasn’t been discredited as fundamentalists  pretending to conduct science, the consensus is that gay parents are just as qualified to rear children . The point is simple, orphans around the world need good homes and global overcrowding is real especially in the 3rd word; to limit the number of qualified adoptive parents is an attack on the children for unscientific religiously motivated reasons, not about the issue of weather homosexuals can make decent parents.
At this point, I would normally say it was a good debate. However, I can't say this. Pro has made this so un-enjoyable that I didn't even feel like responding to this argument. However, Ikizo! (pardon my spelling)
"Family Research Council's mission is to advance faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview."
They're interested in science. However, they mainly want to promote a Christian view of the world. Thus, the studies they post will likely be studies they find valid that support their position.
What He Admits:
"As I said before it also uses many quotes from experts but like my opponent it doesn’t put them into a cohesive argument – it’s just a list of negative statistics to make gays look like diseased, irresponsible and sex crazed."
He admits my study is backed up by experts and that those statistics are correct. Instead of trying to refute said statistics, he just claims that I could do the same if I was against interracial adoption, I could do the same with black people. However, all races are factored into the study. That's also not what the study was aiming for. It said that children raised by homosexual parents were more likely to become confused about their sexuality which would lead to said statisitcs. However, he neglects to read the study.
""The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write the editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders"—including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse
Associated Press reported last June  that a "new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents ... are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves ... (and) grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations." [emphasis added] A major Australian newspaper reported February 4  on a British sociologist's review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting: "Children raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a study into parenting has found. The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe claims children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and be confused about their sexuality." [emphasis added] Which means children adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior face not only secondhand exposure to the risks of such behavior by their "parents," but are more likely to suffer firsthand by engaging in the same high-risk behavior themselves. Young people who model the homosexual behavior of their adopted "parents" face other risks: The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published a study of 4,000 high school students by Harvard Medical School, which found that "gay-lesbian-bisexual youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors ... [from] engag[ing] in twice the mean number of risk behaviors as did the overall population."
What my opponent fails to see or just simply doesn't want to see is their train of thought.
!. It's proven that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to become homosexuals themselves.
2. Homosexuals have many risk factors including what I put above.It is also proven they are more likely to be violent and have mental probelms.
3. Thus, it opens the child up to said risk factors.
More Evidence Supporting My Claim:
W. Bradford Wilcox, University of Virginia William J. Doherty, University of Minnesota Helen Fisher, Rutgers University William A. Galston, University of Maryland Norval D. Glenn, University of Texas at Austin John Gottman, University of Washington (Emeritus) Robert Lerman, American University Annette Mahoney, Bowling Green State University Barbara Markey, Creighton University Howard J. Markman, University of Denver Steven Nock, University of Virginia David Popenoe, Rutgers University Gloria G. Rodriguez, AVANCE, Inc. Scott M. Stanley, University of Denver Linda J. Waite, University of Chicago Judith Wallerstein, University of California at Berkeley (Emerita)
What It Claims:
(1) more likely to participate in college,
(2) are physically and emotionally healthier,
(3) are less likely to be sexually or physically abused
(4) not as likely to use illicit drugs,
(5) less likely to be incarcerated for delinquent behaviour and (
(6) less likely to become a parent before they are ready (i.e. in their teenage years). (1)
Download first PDF file to read full study.
"No Difference" Theory:
On the contrary, ‘no difference’ theory has run into trouble with many different experts.
In a review of the APA statement on gay parenting, Sociologist Loren Marks found that 26 of the papers she looked at did not meet the scientific standards required to be research in which the APA could conclude upon: “[the] strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted” .
Another review by Pscyhologist Tray Hansen found that researched produced by Pro-gay authored, addressing ages 14 and above studies all had “methodological flaws… including small, non-representative samples, lack of control groups, and non-longitudinal designs” . Hansen concluded her review by arguing that “the research studies we have to date suggest that non-heterosexuals are far more likely to raise non-heterosexual children than heterosexual children” ."
Moreover, existing research on children reared by homosexuals is not only scientifically flawed and extremely limited (6,7,8) but some of it actually indicates that those children are at increased risk for a variety of negative outcomes.(6) Other studies find that homosexually parented children are more likely to experiment sexually, experience sexual confusion, and engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior themselves.(5,6,9) And for those children who later engage in non-heterosexual behavior, extensive research reveals they are more likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders, abuse alcohol and drugs, (10) attempt suicide,(11) experience domestic violence and sexual assault, (12)and are at increased risk for chronic diseases, AIDS, and shortened life spans.(13,14,15)
It shouldn’t be surprising that studies find children reared by homosexuals are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves (16,9,17) since extensive worldwide research reveals homosexuality is primarily environmentally induced. Specifically, social and/or family factors, as well as permissive environments which affirm homosexuality, play major environmental roles in the development of homosexual behavior.(18,19,20,21) There’s no question that human sexuality is fluid and pliant.(22) Consider ancient Greece and Rome—among many early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. That was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather because sexuality is malleable and socially influenced."
I'm out of characters so I'll just link an article to back up the claims I made about infidelity which he has addressed poorly. (4)
Homosexuals are not fit to be parents.
There are proven downsides to homosexual parenting
It is unethical to let children go to bad parents.
Sayonara! Vote Con!
If Con thinks it’s enjoyable to debate in a dishonest and lazy manner to disparage minorities using unscientific propaganda - then I’m glad I could participate in making it unenjoyable for him.
The FRC and Christian Bias
My opponent quotes the FRC several times – yet claims they are credible despite their frequent sourcing of junk scientists like Mark Regnerus and Loren Marks. He acknowledges their primary interest isn’t science (the word isn’t even hinted at in either mission or vision statements) but forwarding a Christian world view. Con even points out exactly why his own sources are invalid “.. they [FRC] mainly want to promote a Christian view of the world. Thus, the studies they post will likely be studies they find valid that support their position.” This is the text book definition of cherry picking and selection bias. Like my opponent the FRC isn’t interested in the data or the science; they only want what they can use to justify their prejudice.
Speaking of Loren Marks: who is cited by Con a few times (and also cites Regnerus in his own papers): In 2010 Marks admitted “he had considered no research that actually evaluated gay and lesbian parents, and that his bias against same-sex families predated any of his scholarly research.” 
Every one of Con’s sources is filtered through a Christian lens; undoubtedly Con couldn’t find much useful info directly from actual scientific sources.
Use of ‘Experts’
I’ve already pointed out how Con’s use of quotation and ‘experts’ is biased and done in a way to deliver half truths and Christian propaganda. His source 1, the PDF for example is not evidence for his case – That block of author names and list of 6 ‘claims’ is misleading because these experts do not support his claim their Fundamental Conclusions (pg 9) are:
Marriage is an important social good
Marriage is an important public good.
The benefits of marriage extend to poor and minority communities.
The study does not address parental sexuality, merely the importance of having 2 married parents compared to single and cohabitations. The paper is 26 separate studies, thus they each got a credit for the overall work. There is no mention of the sex of the marriage or its assumed heterosexual.
Con is a charlatan using block quotes to mislead and to cover up junk science from being formally sourced in this debate. He also cites sources that are before gay marriage/adoption was legal and when the AID crisis was at its peak (much has changed since then) - all the factors that say kids need married parents couldn’t be applied back then because it was because of Christian fundamentalists that Con represents that made it illegal for gays to marry in the first place.
He does the same thing with Con 3. For example as its 4th source it cites a Swedish study about fatherhood, however that study had nothing to do with gay fathers, they only accounted for fathers and male figures in heterosexual households – again they did not account for the sexual preference of the fathers in question – only their Socio-Economic State . These findings and other misleading conclusions Con purports are irrelevant to the debate.
Con only sources authors who in turn cite authorities like the CDC, Con never directly appeals to their data because he knows it was not written in a way to directly disparage gays. But I’ll briefly address the data the CDC mentions as a 4th party citation. Yes it’s true gays are more prone to depression, suicide and STDs, but as already mentioned before these are common reactions, even among straight people, as a coping mechanism against society – Con is a perfect example of how hate is used. Furthermore the same type of gay couple that is seeking to adopt probably isn’t the same gay guy that wants to party and have anon sex.
Con repeatedly cites that children who grow up with gay parents are more likely to be gay themselves or at least engage in the activity; this is only an argument against adoption if you hold the pre-existing belief that homosexuality is inherently wrong – I do not hold such view. When considering that most if not all homosexuals exist because of heterosexual ‘unions’ – if straight parents are allowed to produce gay kids why can’t gays?
In the US the debate is mostly over, both sides of the argument have been heard at the Supreme Court and it has been decided gays have the right to marry; married couples deserve the right to adopt just as much as other married couples. I’ve already shown why Cons arguments are garbage, and the courts have agreed. And as already noted by me and Con there are hundreds of thousands of kids across the world in need of good homes and gays can provide those homes in equal skill to straight parents .
Con as cited several dated/broken and biased sources, frankly he has no argument. He has no semblance of care for the orphans who are at the heart of this discussion. All he has done it cite bigots or misrepresented sources to his own end. There are thousands of children in need of adoption, stable 2 parent households provide those necessary opportunities to kids, to deny gays the opportunity to adopt denies children those opportunities at a better life.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|