The Instigator
glowingdisco
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Amazingfeminist1213
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Gay Parenting is Not the Best Child-Rearing Method

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Amazingfeminist1213
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,131 times Debate No: 36997
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

glowingdisco

Pro

Before I start, I would like to say that my opinion on gay marriage is neutral, I am not one of those crazy pro-family people, I just hold to the stance that gay parenting is not the best for child-rearing because of:

1) Evidence that a child needs a mother and a father
2) It doesn't matter whether there are two parents in the home, the balance of parenting needs to be divided amongst a man and a woman for the best child rearing method.

I am not arguing that gay parenting is wrong, just like I am not discriminating against single parent homes or homes split by divorce; all I am arguing is that gay parenting is not the
best child rearing method.
Amazingfeminist1213

Con

I accept this debate.
I will give my arguments after my opponent goes more in depth.
Debate Round No. 1
glowingdisco

Pro

Let me rephrase this.
Gay parenting is one of the worst methods of parenting.

I say this because, gay parenting involves a union of two adults (of the same gender) parenting kids. Let's ignore the facts for a second. Facts are only facts when they're accepted to be facts even if they're facts or not. In a world obsessed with the factual knowledge of facts, I would like to use common sense and personal experience, instead of facts.

But if I may use a statistic I will use this: Fatherless kids tend to do worse than kids without fathers. We all know that.

If you observe a healthy parental establishment of one man and one woman raising kids, you will note this. They
complement each other. A father and mother are like pieces to a puzzle. The gentle nurturing of a mother complements the firm, protective loving bond of a father. And as I can see an argument pooling from this, may I note that in this case, this is a healthy parental establishment, and we know that not all father-mother households are loving and nurturing.

For example, a lesbian couple raising kids: the lesbians are both women. Are not their kids being raised in a fatherless home? I do not care how masculine one of the women may be, it is fatherless, none the less.

Two gay dads raising children: their children may miss out on the warm nurturing a mother may bring; not saying that dads cannot be nurturing, but for the same reason many single dads with girls have a desire for their daughters to grow up with a mother; girls need mothers and boys need their daddies. And girls need their daddies to model what a real man is like and boys need a mother to model what a real woman is like.

In the age of modern parenting, many shapes and forms of parenting occurs: gay parenting, single parenting, divorced parenting and so on. I am not singling out gay parents and saying that they are the worst of all. I would rather see a child being raised by two loving parents (gay or straight) than see them raised in a single parent home. But I firmly believe that a man and a woman raising their children (biological or adopted) make the best pair.

And this debate should have been called: Father-Mother parenting pair is best for kids,

And I apologize for the awkward wording.
Amazingfeminist1213

Con

My opponent says gay parenting is one one of the worst methods of parenting, however studies show other wise.
Before giving my arguments i will address my opponents arguments.


"But if I may use a statistic I will use this: Fatherless kids tend to do worse than kids without fathers. We all know that."

If you are going to use a statistic you need to provide evidence for it. This should be disregarded because my opponent did not give evidence supporting it.

"For example, a lesbian couple raising kids: the lesbians are both women. Are not their kids being raised in a fatherless home? I do not care how masculine one of the women may be, it is fatherless, none the less."

Yes they are being raised fatherless but that's not a bad thing. I have evidence that shows that children of lesbian parents turn out just fine without a father. I'm a not sure if you heard of zach Wahls but he is one of many young boys raised by lesbian parents who grew up to be great men. Wahls has started his own small buiness that offers tutoring services to junior and high school students. Wahls is also an activist who advocates for equality. He is now doing great things to change this world.

"Two gay dads raising children: their children may miss out on the warm nurturing a mother may bring; not saying that dads cannot be nurturing, but for the same reason many single dads with girls have a desire for their daughters to grow up with a mother; girls need mothers and boys need their daddies. And girls need their daddies to model what a real man is like and boys need a mother to model what a real woman is like."

You proved my point. You said they are missing out on a nurturing mother, however you also just stated men can be nurturers as well. What can a nurturing mother do that a nurturing father can't and vice versa? What exactly is a real man and real women? Last time i checked there was no set definition on what a real man acts like and what a real women acts like. People are different. Not all men act masculine and tough and not all women act feminine and girly.

MY ARGUMANTS

1. The scientific research has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

2. All familes are different. Not every heterosexual house hold has a nurturing mother and protective father. Sometimes it's the other way around or 50/50. Since we are speaking from a personal experience point of view i have came across families were the mothers have had the upper hand in the household and the fathers were stay at home dads.

My opponent did not really give much so I can not go any further.

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
glowingdisco

Pro

I've set myself to failure with this debate, and I apologize, but I will come foward with my rubuttals to end this argument.

My evidence that fatherless kids do poorer than their peers with fathers can be found here: http://www.civitas.org.uk...



You used the example of Zach Wahls and he seems to be a very nice young man indeed. But if you misunderstood, I am not saying that same sex parents cannot do what heterosexual parents do. In some cases, they do it better. But in the case of sucessful child rearing, they fall short because of the natural evolution of the family.

Men and women were made to raise children. When was the last time you've seen a pregnant gay couple? Men cannot impregnate men and neither can women impregnate each other. It's just the way the world works.

In a society where gay parenting is a readily accepted thing, I personally believe everyone has the right to children. But we have to realize that when we throw away traditions and morals, we throw away a part of our common sense. Heterosexual parenting may be a thing of tradition, but sometimes tradition are not a bad thing at all.

Of course traditions can be rewritten; that's what we see going on today.

And yes, men can play both roles, but in order to truly parent, you cannot just "play" the role, you have to BE the role. Huge difference.

I believe that we both have a point and that same sex parenting and our opinions on it differ because of our religious and progressive views.

Thank you
Amazingfeminist1213

Con

REBUTTAL

"You used the example of Zach Wahls and he seems to be a very nice young man indeed. But if you misunderstood, I am not saying that same sex parents cannot do what heterosexual parents do. In some cases, they do it better. But in the case of sucessful child rearing, they fall short because of the natural evolution of the family."

I already gave evidence that shows homosexual parents can successfully raise a child.

"Men and women were made to raise children. When was the last time you've seen a pregnant gay couple? Men cannot impregnate men and neither can women impregnate each other. It's just the way the world works."

It's funny you mention that men and women are made for raising children but what about sterile couples huh? Heterosexuals who can't have children or women and men who have medical conditions that prohibit them from having children. they are no diffrent from homosexuals in my opinion. Who cares if a man can't get a man pregnant or if a women can't get a women pregnant. Sexual intercourse is not the only way of having a child. For lesbians you have artificial insemination and adoption and for gay men you have surrogacy and adoption.

"In a society where gay parenting is a readily accepted thing, I personally believe everyone has the right to children. But we have to realize that when we throw away traditions and morals, we throw away a part of our common sense. Heterosexual parenting may be a thing of tradition, but sometimes tradition are not a bad thing at all."

No its not a bad thing, However its 2013 and not everyone believes in traditions and morals like you do. It's a personal decision.

"And yes, men can play both roles, but in order to truly parent, you cannot just "play" the role, you have to BE the role. Huge difference."

That's not always the case. I've in countered men who play the roll better than most women and vice versa. Just because your born to be that role doesn't mean you're automatically going to be good at it.


When going into this debate you need to provide evidence supporting your opinion otherwise it makes it untrue but my opponent failed to do so.

Gender and sexual orientation does not determine whether a child will grow up to be just fine. Love and the commitment of two parents determine that. You don't automatically become a great parent because you are in a heterosexual relationship with traditions and morals because from personal experiences I've seen those type of familes fail aswell.

I thank my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate. I hope to win.

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Masonh928 3 years ago
Masonh928
I'd personally hate being children of a gay couple! Eh" Not rudely...
Posted by TryingAtLogic 3 years ago
TryingAtLogic
P.S. Fatherless children and children without fathers are the same thing.
Posted by TryingAtLogic 3 years ago
TryingAtLogic
"Let's ignore the facts for a second. Facts are only facts when they're accepted to be facts even if they're facts or not. In a world obsessed with the factual knowledge of facts, I would like to use common sense and personal experience, instead of facts."

I have a few things to say . . .

One: does anyone else think it's incredibly infantile to say, "Let's ignore the facts."? I mean, if we did that, someone can leap around merrily, stabbing other ruthlessly, screaming, "Murder's not a law, because they're no facts!"

Two: you obviously don't understand factuality. Factuality is the consistent correctness of something (i.e. gravity is real, and it will pull you down), no matter what others believe. "Facts are only facts when they're accepted to be facts even if they're facts or not." No, this is not how factuality works. By your standards, the flat earth theory was a fact--a fact!--because it was the general consensus of the population. Yet Earth is round!

Three: how can you have personal experience on this matter? That would require, I trust you realize, you'd been raised by a man and man, a man and a woman, and a woman and woman . . . at the same time, without the others influencing each other! And since common sense is a basis on experience, and you can no experience on this matter, that argument is moot.

Four: is it not strikingly possible that the world is obsessed with facts because facts *work*?

Five: please, please, never ignore the truth--A.K.A. facts--again. It is a dangerous idiotic decision.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I would reword this because it would almost be impossible for Con. Because if they oppose this , they would be saying it is the best method. Which no one who supports gay marriage believes. Most just believe it is no different than hetero sexual parenting.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by HenryGBR 3 years ago
HenryGBR
glowingdiscoAmazingfeminist1213Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments where completely stupid. He/she uses stereotypes every other word, it's terribly annoying. Con most certainly has this one.
Vote Placed by davidjohn1994 3 years ago
davidjohn1994
glowingdiscoAmazingfeminist1213Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really gave up this argument. The entire point Pro was trying to make, was completely rebutted by Pro herself. "I am not saying that same sex parents cannot do what heterosexual parents do. In some cases, they do it better." Con really dominated this debate, with the help of Pro. While Con did use Wikipedia, Pro didn't use any stats or facts to support her claim. So I gave Con the points for sources.
Vote Placed by mubaracus 3 years ago
mubaracus
glowingdiscoAmazingfeminist1213Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a nice argument however I still side with Pro based on one point he made during the argument but did not utilize effectively which is that playing a role is not the same as being a role. For example, a girl with two dads will have difficulty dealing with her teenage years because of menstruation. Those two men will surely have a lot of trouble "playing" the role of a person who can understand and handle the situation carefully because they can't experience it themselves.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
glowingdiscoAmazingfeminist1213Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was far more extensive in her analysis of the topic. She cited more credible sources, and exposed the fallacies in Pro's points. Good job by both.