The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
81 Points
The Contender
philosphical
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
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 17 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 108,517 times Debate No: 9449
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (44)
Votes (17)

 

Danielle

Pro

I'll challenge Philosophical to this debate as per his request.

Arguments:

1. Homophobia
2. Parenting Trends
3. Orphans
4. Kids with Gay Parents - Feelings
5. Kids with Gay Parents - Statistics

1. Homosexuals are not depraved individuals; being gay is not a mental disorder. As such, they are considered fully functioning members of society. They go to school, go to work, pay taxes, etc. There are no distinct qualifications for becoming a parent; however, most would suggest that a good parent possess the following characteristics: Responsible; Capable; Loving; Trustworthy; etc -- none of which are exclusive to heterosexuals. So, if we can accept that homosexuals are for all intensive purposes equal to heterosexuals in their personalities and behavior (outside of sexual endeavors), then there is no good reason to deny them the right to have or adopt children. It would seem that whom one sleeps with is a personal choice that should have no bearing on their qualification for parenting. As such, it would be wrong to deny gay couples the same parenting rights as other people in society. To do so would be to exhibit blatant homophobia, or the idea that gay people would somehow make inferior parents. The only way to eradicate this absurd ideal would be exposure; people need to see that gay people are just as competent as straight people in being good parents. Moreover, exposure to the homosexual lifestyle would decrease homophobia and other bigotry in general.

2. Parenting is in no way limited to be between a child's biological mother and father. In fact, 1/3 of children in America are not raised in two-parent households [1]. Plus, the 2000 U. S. Census reports that 33% of lesbian couples, and 22% of gay male couples have at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home [2]. These statistics show us that the norms of society are changing; many children are indeed being raised by single parents or non-biological parents, including gay couples. Con would have the burden of proving that this is detrimental to these children and society at large.

3. There are currently 16.2 million double-orphans in the world today (children who have lost both of their parents) [3]. Rather than provide these millions of children with the opportunity to be raised in presumably loving and stable homes - as adoption agencies have criteria that applicant parents have to meet in order to be able to adopt - Con would rather have these children remain homeless and without families. Again, Con has the burden of proving that this is a better option than allowing gay parents to adopt. Furthermore, even on a CBA (cost benefit analysis), it would be more appropriate for these orphans to be placed into homes, as they currently tax the state in order to care for these unfortunate children.

4. As I've mentioned, over 1/3 of lesbian households (and more than 1/5 of gay households) already have children. How do they feel about this reality? Jessey Levey, a Republican activist, has two gay moms and this is what he has to say:

"I am a well-adjusted heterosexual whose upbringing proves that love, not gender, makes a family... My family had strong family values. I was raised in a loving, caring household that let me be a free thinker... I'm tired of hearing that their family isn't legitimate" [4].

Others like Jesse share similar beliefs. I encourage Con to research children with gay parents online and read their stories; almost all of them contain POSITIVE feedback. The only ones that don't are from children whose parents have come out of the closet later on in life; in other words, they pretended to be straight and married heterosexually until they could no longer live up to that lie. I posit that it would be most beneficial for everyone if people could be open and honest about their sexuality from the beginning. Allowing gays to marry and have (adopt) children are the first steps towards overcoming homophobia and discouraging this type of hurtful dishonesty.

5. So how do kids with gay parents fare in terms of self-esteem and other development? Dr. Ellen Perrin reveals:

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way -- In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures -- They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school [2]." The same source also notes two other large studies finding that same-sex parents also had contact with extended family, social support, and had a more equitable division of labor in the home which led to a better up-bringing for the child.

Another new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents show more empathy for social diversity, and are less confined by gender stereotypes. The study also indicates that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children. Additionally, the same study finds that there are in fact some advantages to an all-female parental team without Dad living in the home; a female couple tends to be more involved in the children's lives and is in greater harmony in terms of parenting approaches. It has also been noted that daughters with lesbian mothers are more likely to reject gender stereotypes and take interest in things typically considered masculine, i.e. sports and the fields of math and science [5].

Conclusion:

Gay tax paying, law abiding citizens have every right to adopt children the same way that heterosexuals enjoy this right. There is nothing that heterosexual parents can offer that homosexuals can't, except for maybe a "traditional" family. However, nowhere is it cited that what is traditional is necessarily better; in some cases, studies show that it is the opposite. Moreover, what is traditional is subject to change, as norms in society are transient and determine tradition. Furthermore, there is nothing prohibiting gay couples to have children of their own (via surrogate mothers, artificial insemination, etc). So, it would be more beneficial to the children - which should be the number one priority - and the state to allow gay couples to ADOPT children and take in those who need good homes. Interviews with children with gay parents and studies alike both conclude that having homosexual parents is NOT detrimental to one's well-being or mental health and stability. In fact, children with gay parents often EXCEL. The resolution has been affirmed.

Sources:

[1] http://www.childstats.gov...
[2] http://www.webmd.com...
[3] http://answers.google.com...
[4] http://www.cnn.com...
[5] http://www.narth.com...

Ps. My opponent's username is spelled wrong :P
philosphical

Con

Thankyou Lwerd for challenging me to this debate. I want to appolagize early, i will most likely not be able to respond each argument quickly, due to my frequent busy schedule, but i will do my best to get my arguments up in the time given.
I will debate this in my usual style, by negating specific quotes from my opponent at a time, which will pose as my arguments.
Lwerd- first point

In essence, there is nothing wrong with a gay couple joining with each other, for it is their personal decision, in whom they "love". However when it infringes upon the innocence of another, that is when a line should be drawn. So i will be arguing on point of gay adoption infringing upon the innocence of the youth being affected. There is no doubt that gays can hold these same qualites (Responsible; Capable; Loving; Trustworthy) however, a male can never possess the same loving, always caring, motherdom that a female can. A father also possesses his same qualities, that only a father can provide, that the mother cannot. Although either of the parents may possess some the others, it would never be the same as it would if the child had a normal set of parents.

Lwerd- second point

I accept your facts representing children not raised in a two-parents household. It is true, that alot of children live without the availability of having two loving parents. However i am not saying that children living in a house with only one parent is a good thing either. I believe that every child deserves one loving mother, and caring father. This is a commonly used arguments when it comes to gay adoption. saadly enough it is true that some children do live like that due to divorce, or death, etc. I do not support or condone, one person parenting, the same as i would not for gay adoption. children who fall under these circumstances, i believe, need the same as any child who is up for adoption do. A father and a mother, not of the same sex. I think there is room for change in this category. In this case, two negative situations don't make a positive one.

Lwerd- third point

Lwerd- "Again, Con has the burden of proving that this is a better option than allowing gay parents to adopt. Furthermore, even on a CBA (cost benefit analysis), it would be more appropriate for these orphans to be placed into homes, as they currently tax the state in order to care for these unfortunate children."

Actually con's burden is to prove the affirrmative wrong. I strongly believe that every child, no matter what, needs one loving, caring, mother, and one responsible, dependent, father. As for the orphans being put into homes, i totally support that. However, It would be best for the child to be adopted by a loving pair of parents, who naturally obtain the qualities essential to raise a child properly.

Lwerd- fourth point

I could easily find just as many stories with negative responses to gay adoption. However, that's not the point here. whether the child has grown up happy or not, that child will always be missing something that they would have normally learned with a regular set parents. Sure the gay couple can teach them things, but do you really think a couple with two dads would be able to take his daughter cloth shopping, talk about the girl things in her life etc? would it really be the same? Or what about two moms. Would it be the same having them teach their son the facts of life, fixing cars, playing catch, etc? Man and women were put on this earth to be together. To raise a Family, and to Love and support each other always. And sure a gay couple can love their children, and grow up happy. But being the child who has not experienced what is it like to have the other gender parent, its all they know to be happy. Happiness can be making the best of what we have, or it can be taking advantage of our full availabilites in life and making life more than whats on the table in front of us. gay adoption is slowly destroying the chain of whats was supposed to be the ultimate plan of happiness, that any married couple who've endured the struggles of life long enough til the end, can tell you.

Lwerd- fifth point

being con, I don't need to have sources, just combatting arguments. But i saw fit to make an example of this and post a source of my own.
here is a qoute from the interview Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association.

"I asked how could so many same-sex couples qualify, given the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological and other problems than married heterosexual couples. She replied that it appeared to her that many of the same-sex couples who adopted had psychological and other problems that would have disqualified a married man and woman from adoption." [1]

the point here is that, There are many conflicting sources in the world, all providing different growth and population rates for these kinds of debate statistics. How would anyone know which one is true? well they research the one they already believe and post the statistics as facts. You see, i could have done the same thing with the previous statistics, but my goal there was to show you the double negatives don't always make a positive, and to show you that the issue being debated is not single child homes, but whether or not gay adoption is right or wrong.
So all in all, if there is different statistics for both sides of an argument, how can one be accepted as fact over the other? Now i am not saying that sources aren't good to have in a debate, because they most definitally are. However in serious debate issues such as this, there are many influenced changes to either side.

However i still did find some interesting points to leach off of your source, that i'd wish to share.

i would first like to point out something that supports con in your source.

source pointer- " They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school"

first problem with that, is that 'discipline' is included in that sentence. Without the normal male and the female, there to balance each other out, it is proven that gay relationships, can be more abusive in most situations. Here, i could use a source, providing information backing this situation [1], however i will not hold that into my argument seeing as we have already proved that sources can be conflicting. Yes, in alot of gay relationships, there is molestation, abuse, and phychological problems. There is this same problem with normal families too. Ah, and that, is where the source battle comes in.

Now onto my arguments.

CHILD RIGHTS
1st- children being adopted by a gay couple, get no option in having a different lifestyle than the others. Just like being orphaned, they are thrust into an abnormal world, into where they don't get to experience the same thing as other children do. See, now if they are at an age where they can personally decide they want this, then there is no reason not to! however, most children are thrust into an enviroment they may not be comfortable with against there free will. Is this fair?

2nd- The child starts to grow and develop an understanding that their parents are different from others parents, and suddenly they are thrust into a world, where they are bullied, and ridiculed for something they have no control over.

Conclusion- Again, i am a strong believer in child choice rights. I don't beleive a child should grow up or live in an enviroment that's abnormal, from what was meant to be. I believe we need to provide them with the proper route, that will lead to the ultimate path of happiness. By keeping gay adoption legal, we are infringing upon rights of the people most important in this world, the people who will one day be the ones who alter the world into something beautiful and great. Our children and youth!
source

http://www.zenit.org...

P.S. yours is too. :p
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

[ Rebuttal to Pro's Arguments ]

1. Con's first assertion is that it is fine to be gay; however, when it "infringes upon the rights of another," that is when it does not become okay. The problem here is that one's sexual endeavors do NOT infringe upon the rights of another, including their children. What if one child's parent chooses to be promiscuous? What they do sexually has no bearing on their child's life, and homosexuality is not illegal or harmful to boot. What matters is how the parents or their parents' partners treat the children... and as you can see, Con has offered no evidence that children with gay parents would be treated negatively at all whatsoever.

2. Con's next point is that only a mother and father can provide certain qualities. This is absurd. What qualities would those be, exactly? Con has cited that a male can never possess the same loving and always caring qualities that a mother can. That's ridiculous. Both males and females are both capable of love and responsibility. Moreover, gender and sex are not the same thing. A male can be extremely effeminate and a woman can be very masculine. In other words, while it is traditionally the father who teaches their son how to play baseball, in no way whatsoever is this limited to the male gender; females can teach their kids the very same thing. Similarly, a gay man might even be MORE willing to do "girly" things with their child, such as cooking and shopping, making my opponent's point that two dads would not be able to do these things just entirely untrue. The point here is that it is insanely ignorant to assume that only males and only females can offer certain qualities and/or life lessons.

3. Con states that he does not believe in children being raised by single parents either. However, that is irrelevant to this discussion, as being a single parent is perfectly legal (whereas gay adoption is not). Moreover, regardless of Con's opinion on what he thinks SHOULD be the norm, the reality is that it's simply not the case in society. People die, and people get divorced. Likewise, people are gay. Why should windows, single parents (often abandoned) or gay people not be allowed to have children when they are perfectly capable of doing so? If this were detrimental to a child's well being, that would be one thing... however, as my many sources have proven, that is simply not the case for children with gay parents.

4. My opponent says that he supports orphans being adopted; however, only by heterosexual parents. My question was whether or not this was beneficial both to the children, to the parents and to the state (tax payers). The reality is that there are 16+ million double orphans in the world who need homes. Even more realistically, these children will NOT all be adopted. So, my points still stand: First, discriminating against gays in terms of adoption is blatant bigotry and discrimination; Second, it is unfair to the children who don't care about the sexuality of their parents - just that they are adopted into good homes; And third, it is unfair to the tax paying citizens who have to continue supporting these orphans instead of allowing them to be raised by willing, capable and loving parents. Con has done absolutely nothing to response to these three topics - he merely stated that he still opposes gay adoption.

5. Con begins by saying, "I could easily find just as many stories with negative responses to gay adoption." Okay then, go ahead! I encouraged Con to look up stories of children with gay parents. He merely stated that he could find these negative stories; however, has not provided any for his argument. Con continues, "Whether the child has grown up happy or not, that child will always be missing something that they would have normally learned with a regular set parents." This is ludicrous. A child's happiness is indeed of utmost importance, as well as their well being. A child with a parent in a wheelchair, or with a mental deficiency, or with a workaholic parent, etc, would all be "missing something" and again these things are perfectly legal. What exactly would a child be missing out on? It can be argued that every child is "missing out" on something. Both of my parents hate sports and I love sports - Am I missing out? Should this be illegal? What Con is doing is playing up the stereotypical gender roles of guys being taught to play sports, fix cars, etc. However - it's the 21st century. Gender roles are no longer (and should no longer) be this rigid and backwards.

6. In terms of sources, Con should absolutely have sources (I don't know where he got the idea that Con doesn't have to provide them; that is simply untrue in any debate). However, these sources should be as accurate and unbiased as possible. Con's sole source is from a writer of the Catholic Medical Association... clearly not an unbiased source! This man is NOT a doctor, not a licensed psychological researcher (doing legitimate studies), etc. Additionally, the sentence directly after the assertion that Con provided (stating that homosexuals tend to suffer from psychological disorders that would disqualify heterosexuals from adopting), the man making the statement notes, "This, of course, is ONLY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, but well-designed studies that compare persons with same-sex attractions with the general public have found that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders."

Note that the latter part of this statement is irrelevant; just because as a whole homosexual individuals tend to suffer from additional psychological burdens than heterosexuals, this is not necessarily true of homosexuals looking to ADOPT. As I've mentioned, there is criteria for which people willing to adopt have to pass, and one of them is being medically sound. Moreover, the reason many homosexuals suffer from these burdens is because they experience things like depression and anxiety due to the circumstances regarding their lifestyle, i.e. being denounced by their own family, being forced to remain closeted, etc.

Furthermore on this issue, I welcome any and all statistics and research that Con wishes to supply (again, assuming that it's from an unbiased non-religious organization, unlike his last source). He states that research in this area conflicts; however, has not proven that this is the case. In fact, most of his argument stems from things that he says and does not back up, such as the notion that a child simply should have a mother and a father. The point of this debate is for him to prove to us WHY this should be the case - not merely assert it to be true.

[ Con's Arguments ]

1. Con argues that there is a greater chance of violence in gay relationships than straight ones. My source disagrees: The rates of domestic violence in same-gender relationships is roughly the same as domestic violence against heterosexual women [1]. Plus, minorities are said to endure greater physical violence in relationships than Caucasians - Should it be illegal for minorities to adopt children as well?

2. "Most children are thrust into an environment they may not be comfortable with against there free will. Is this fair?" Absolutely it's fair. I would have been more comfortable being born into a rich family, but I wasn't. This made me very uncomfortable. Too bad for me! The points that should be considered here are safety, care-taking, love and discipline.

3. Con concludes by saying that he believes in "child choice rights." However, these rights don't exist! We don't have a choice of whether we grow up "abnormally" or not. Not to mention that CON FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE FACT THAT CHILDREN OF GAY PARENTS *EXCELLED* AS OPPOSED TO SUFFERING FROM LACK OF SELF-ESTEEM OR BULLYING; THEY ALSO HAVE LESS PSYCHOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES. This has gone undisputed. All of Con's points are null and void.

Source:
[1] http://www.aardvarc.org...
philosphical

Con

Lwerd- rebuttal #1

okay first of all, it is not advisable at all to be 'promiscuous' at all when being a parent. Alot of people think that they can do anything and there children will be just fine. What alot of people don't know, is that it affects there child more than anything. When a child sees a parent with many other people, how can they be sure love is real, when all they've seen is fake? Many people grow up seeing these same things, and it goes into their lives, because that's all they've learned. Children learn most everything they learn, from there parents. "a mother is god in the eyes of a child" They hear and watch everything you do because they want to be like you. If the parent is setting a bad example, then, the child will see this and think its great for them to do it to. It infringes upon the child's rights because they didn't CHOOSE the lifestyle they live in. They were thrust into a world of difference, and they don't get the same thing that others do. They may never have a mother, or a father depending on the scenario, and they will never know what it is like to have one in their life. And sure the gay couple can still provide for the child well. But is it truly the better option? Against their own will, they are forced into options they may not be comfortable with, or be able to grow comfortable with.

Lwerd- rebuttal #2

Yes, It is possible for a father to be "girly" and a mother to have guy traits. But no matter what, mother is never going to be able to impact a child the same way as a father can, and a father is never going to be able to the way a mother can. Its not about being girly, or tomboyish, its about the bonds that humans share with each other. It's simple science, that girls develop stronger parental bonds with girls. The same goes for father and son. Is a girl more likely to tell all her problems to her dad or her mom? Do you think the father we be as understanding as a mother would be? Of course, pro will probably say yes to that, but the truth is, no he wouldn't be able to relate to her in the same way as a mother and a daughter would. Of course he could supprt her, and care for her, but he couldn't ever offer the same advice, and generally just be as supportive as a mother could be. Same for the mother and son. People tend to understand and feel the same things as those of their same gender do. Why do guys choose, mainly only friends who are guys to hang out with? Because they know they can talk to each other more about things that a female won't understand. The only way for a child to have the full objective of the parenting they need, is to have a mother and a father there. And you could pull up stories about people who have lived there life just fine with gay (or single for that matter) parents. But having grown up with only that in their life, that's all they know 'just fine' to be. For example, you could ask someone who has been enslaved their whole life, how their life has been, and they could tell you its good. But is it really? well they certainly won't know because they've lived there whole life that way. So, dear audience, what is better for adopted children?

Lwerd- "Con states that he does not believe in children being raised by single parents either. However, that is irrelevant to this discussion, as being a single parent is perfectly legal (whereas gay adoption is not)."

I'd like to remind pro how she brought up how 1/3 of our childrens population was raised in a home with single parents, using that as comparison to how many children don't even have homes with two parents. My argument to that was that neither is right, and that every child deserves to have two parents consisting of one mother, and one father.
I'd say that is very relevant to this discussion. Whether it is legal or not is not the issue. It's whether it is right or wrong. Thus the purpose of this debate

Lwerd- "Moreover, regardless of Con's opinion on what he thinks SHOULD be the norm, the reality is that it's simply not the case in society. People die, and people get divorced. Likewise, people are gay"

first of all this is a debate site. Meaning we debate our opinions. Is that not permissable anymore on this site? It is my opinion that gays should not be able to adopt. Your arguing that gays should adopt, ans as of right now that is illegal. So i am confused on how i am not allowed to have an opinion on what should be the norm, but you can?

Lwerd- fourth point

my opponent talk about discriminating gays, by not letting them adopt orphans.
At the beginning of this debate, i thought i made sure to point out that its not about the gay couple, its about the child. thererfore how can that be discriminating? Yes there are plenty of orphan who still need homes. And by a gay couple adopting them, when instead a straight couple can, everything, i said previously still applies.
And as for the children who don't care about the sexuality of their parents, then that is their own choice. However, that is not to say that they won't be affected the same as the rest. and the third point, about it being 'unfair' for orphanges to pay money. That i believe is totally wrong, if money if more important than child development. If that is the case, then something needs to be done seriously.

Lwerd- fifth point

If you didn't understand the whole sources argument, my reasons for not posting a story is because it is pointless seeing as there is stories for both sides, and it would go literally nowhere. I can post some in the comment box if you request, however, puttingt hat same point of veiw where we can easily clash that same argument would be meaningless.
Wheel chair? mental dis-order? The main issue is that the child get proper care. I am not saying all straight parents are perfect. My goal in this debate is to prove that it is better than gay adoption.
And i'm afraid you didn't quite understand the missing out part. again that is what i refer to as bonds that can only be shared with a certain parent. Read above

Lwerd- sixth point

I Did say that sources are important. However in a debate such as this where it is opinionated, sources are unreliable. And the source i did provide was from a professional oppinion. You cannot argue that my source is incalid on an opinionated debate. There is simply no right or wrong fact on this situation, no matter how OFFICIAL, you think your sources are.

Lwerd- "In fact, most of his argument stems from things that he says and does not back up, such as the notion that a child simply should have a mother and a father. The point of this debate is for him to prove to us WHY this should be the case - not merely assert it to be true."

hahahahahah. Yeah this whole time i have just been talking nonsense! Don't mind any of the stuff i wrote above, because non of that is telling you why gay adoption is in-appropriate.

Just for the sake of Lwerd's annoyance at my not posting statistics, (as irrelevant as it is) I will supply a source with all the statistics.

Here is a story regarding one of many cases where gay parents have been abusive

http://www.rpvnetwork.org...

here's another with evidence of a commonly known abuse situation from gay parents and more evidence against gay adoption

http://www.orlandoweekly.com...

Lwerd- "I would have been more comfortable being born into a rich family, but I wasn't. This made me very uncomfortable"

What a poor attempt at the correlation between this and the point i was making. You knew exactly what i meant, but two can play the sarcasm game.

And as to your third response, i do believe a posted a big long paragraph in my last debate concerning that exact point. Re-read maybe? Just a thought.

I am not going to attempt to tell you veiwers to vote con. I already know who popular demand lies with.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

1. Con's first assertion is that children are above all influenced by their parents. On the contrary, "Evidence indicates that parents have little or no long term effect on their children's personality, intelligence, or mental health. The environment definitely has an effect on how children turn out, but it's not the home environment. It's not the nurture they do or don't get from their parents" [1]. In other words, it is one's peers who most influence a child - not their parents.

Regardless of this fact, in no way did I ever promote parental promiscuity. What I did say was that the sexual endeavors of one's parents should have no legal bearing on child custody. Instead, what should be taken into consideration is the care that the child receives. Con responded to this assertion with, "And sure the gay couple can still provide for the child well. But is it truly the better option? Against their own will, they are forced into options they may not be comfortable with, or be able to grow comfortable with." My answer is ABSOLUTELY YES - It is a better option for a child to be raised in a loving and caring home with two gay parents than the alternative (an orphanage).

Again, Con seems to think that this is "unfair" to the child because they may be uncomfortable with their parent's sexuality. However, the child really has no say in their parent's sexuality! This is true of every child, and no different from a presumably straight parent suddenly coming out of the closet. Does this parent lose custody of the child? No. Instead, this is something that the child would have to get over and deal with, the same way parents with homosexual children are often uncomfortable or disappointed with this reality, but likewise there is nothing they can do but get over with it and/or deal with it.

One's sexuality cannot be helped (there is a plethora of scientific and psychological studies indicating this fact). When the child is 18, they have the option of abandoning their parents the same way every parent/child has that same option once that magical age is reached. However, until then, the child will inevitably have to learn to cope with the various obstacles and realities that life throws at you. Additionally, I'd argue that living with two gay parents is much preferable than living in an orphanage. If an orphaned child were of a reasonable age to make this choice, at the very least this should be an option given to them. Of course in that case, gay adoption would have to be legal in general, making my affirmation of the resolution still stand.

2. Next Con talks about parental bonds. First, this is not a matter of "simple science" as my opponent would like you to believe. There are indeed psychological bonds that children have with parents, and those bonds are strained and/or disappear entirely through adolescence depending on the individual(s). That is a scientific fact having to do with ones own maturity, growth and identity among other social implications. However, the idea that parents of two genders are necessary for "optimal" bonding with a child is simply rooted in my opponent's OPINION with absolutely no factual evidence to support it. He says, "Of course (a father) could support (a daughter) and care for her, but he couldn't ever offer the same advice, and generally just be as supportive as a mother could be." If that's not a gross mass generalization rooted in assumptions of gender bias, I don't know what is.

3. In terms of single parents, Con maintains that both being raised by a single parent or living with two gay parents is simply (morally) wrong. He attributes any satisfactory sentiments of someone living in this situation as being an ignorant testimony of one who "doesn't know any better" i.e. not knowing what they're missing. What a hypocritical argument to make. I can very easily turn the tables and ask Con how he knows that HE'S not the one who is missing out, based on the fact that HE doesn't know what it's like to live in a different situation. Again, this is not an issue merely rooted in opinion as Con tries to make it appear. The truth is that there are FACTS - legitimate psychological studies given by doctors - to illustrate otherwise. As I've said, innumerable tests reveal that often kids with two gay parents EXCEL in very many ways! Still, Con has yet to address this reality. The fact is that whether one child has a mom and a dad or two mom's really is irrelevant; every situation is unique and defendant upon the individual love, care and attention in that particular household.

4. I maintain that discriminating against gay adoption is pure bigotry. Con says that it's not about the parents and instead about the child; however, let's look at the facts. When someone gets pregnant, does anybody ask: Is this person a stable individual? Do they have a job? Will the child be raised in a decent home? No. Unfortunately, any idiot can become a parent. In terms of adoption, the government is able to impose certain guidelines to ensure that the child is brought into as decent of a home as possible. Still, I fail to see how the sexuality of an individual inhibits the child's personal growth, self esteem, ability to bond, have a decent childhood, etc., in ANY WAY. Simply saying they'd miss out on the experience of living in a 2-gender parent household seems very insufficient to support the Con position. I'll repeat for a final time that ORPHANS NEED HOMES. Con talks about these "potential straight people" adopting them; however, in reality that is simply not the case... or else there still wouldn't be so many orphans! There are many kids who would be FORTUNATE to be adopted by gay parents, instead of being born into less than stellar 2-gender households, or adopted by a straight couple. What Con is doing is assuming that a straight couple would make better parents than a gay couple. There is NO evidence to support this, and evidence to support the contrary!

5/6. That brings me very conveniently to my next point: Sources. Con writes, "In a debate such as this where it is opinionated, sources are unreliable. And the source i did provide was from a professional opinion." First off, it depends on your source and what you're trying to prove. Con's so-called professional opinion is not from a professional at all. In a court of law, you have to have a certain amount of credibility in order for one to be considered an expert witness, for example. This includes a PhD, a plethora of experience, etc. Con's "professional opinion" comes from a Catholic researcher... far from credible. My facts and statistics from licensed, UNBIASED professionals with no agenda (such as working for the Catholic Family Protection group, for instance).

So, contrary to Con's point, I haven't provided any OPINIONS via my sources. Any opinion of mine was supported through FACTS. And here's another one from the government's childwelfare.gov: "Nontraditional families have unique strengths that make them excellent, and in some cases, the best homes for certain children." Now, in response to Con's posted sources about cases of abusive gay parents, those entire stories are irrelevant as they can be easily negated by me posting about stories regarding abusive heterosexual parents, like this [2], [3], etc.

I'm out of characters, so I'll end this debate right here. I'd like to say in conclusion, however, that I don't think it's fair that Con presumes I will win based on popular opinion. That assumption is unfair both to me and the readers/voters. I stand by my performance and arguments in this debate.

Sources:

[1] Wierson, M., & R. Forehand. (1994). Parent behavioral training for child noncompliance:
Rationale, concepts, and effectiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5,
pp 146-150. -- Referenced in "You Are Being Lied To" interview with Judith Rich
[2] http://adoption.about.com...
[3] http://www.highbeam.co...
philosphical

Con

Lwerd- #1

That is one of the most utmost ridiculous things I've never heard. "parents have no long term affect on their childrens personalities". Okay, so your saying someone who's been abused their whole childhood, is growing to grow up happy and healthy? Children learn everything from their parents. If something is okay for their parents to do, then it is just as reasonable for them to do, in their eyes. Another proof of flawed sources.

Next as a response to my quote on gays can provide for a child equally, you responded your answer was "absolutley yes!" So my opponent thinks being provided for, is an alternative that makes up for good parenting. I think that insinuation is wrong.

Lwerd- " Again, Con seems to think that this is "unfair" to the child because they may be uncomfortable with their parent's sexuality. However, the child really has no say in their parent's sexuality! This is true of every child, and no different from a presumably straight parent suddenly coming out of the closet."

Didn't you yourself say that you were againt parents coming out of the closet later on in the relationship? After saying that i would presumably say its fairly accurate to use the term "unfair".

Lwerd- "Does this parent lose custody of the child? No. Instead, this is something that the child would have to get over and deal with, the same way parents with homosexual children are often uncomfortable or disappointed with this reality, but likewise there is nothing they can do but get over with it and/or deal with it."

How can anyone use the term "get over with" and "deal with" in the same statement regarding a childs feelings? That is not much from saying a child who just had a death in their family, should just "deal with it". However obviously that would affect the child, for the rest of their life.

now to the third segmant, of arguement one.

Lwerd- "One's sexuality cannot be helped"

I do not nessicarily agree with that, however that does not comply with adoption.

"When the child is 18, they have the option of abandoning their parents the same way every parent/child has that same option once that magical age is reached"

Again, it is horrible to use a child's negative upbringing, as something they have no choice to go through.

"Additionally, I'd argue that living with two gay parents is much preferable than living in an orphanage. If an orphaned child were of a reasonable age to make this choice, at the very least this should be an option given to them"

Yes i agree with this statement. As i have said before, if the child so chooses, and is mature enough to what they are choosing into, then their is really no problem with them going into this situation. However, If this was legalized, i am sure that would not be the case.

Lwerd- #2
Basically in this argument, you have just said, virtually the same thing you have said in the previous two. All we're going with this is i'm right, your wrong. You say I have no evidence on this? Well you have in no way proved that my argument was wrong either. I've already re-taliated the republican qoute, which was instantly dropped from the arguement. Basically my opponent just jumps to the conclusion at the end there, that i am a stereotypical freak, without offering anything backing the statement up.

Lwerd- #3
Okay, I'll tell you how i know personally that living in a gay enviroment is detrimental to a child psyche. A friend, who is quite close to me, lives with two lesbian parents. They are harsh on him. If he does anything lower than what his parents expect him to, he is punished. His punishments are severe, such as no food for a day. Or, how horrible is it, that a kid, at seventeen years old, is literally hit with a stick? And yes, i'm sure you would argue that this is just one situation. Or maybe it would sound like you even argue that he should just suck it up and 'deal' with it. But the truth is, no matter how you argue, gay couples have a tendency to be far more abusive than regular parents. You need FACTS to prove your theories, but i have personally seen what it is like to live this way. And yes, they may EXCEL, because they are too scared and insecure, to not.

Lwerd- #4
I remain that gay adoption is bad, clearly for the child development reasons. What a gay person does does not matter to me, until it infringes upon the rights of another. In this case it's the rights of the child. I am for a child getting the proper parenting they need no matter what the circumstance. However, I believe that proper parenting can come better from a straight couple then a gay couple. Again my opponent assumes I have no evidence to supprt that straight parenting is better. My question how have i not? My main points being, #1 the child adapts more to a straight couple, then a gay couple, #2 Gay parents tend to be more abusive #3 the child may be bullied at school, or get treated un-properly against their will. (this argument has been fairly avoided might i add)
Yes, all children need homes, but they need homes that will treat them properly and allow them to grow up to have a life they deserve!

Lwerd-#5/6
theLwerde was instantly biased against my source being a professional opinion, because the researcher was catholic. That makes no sense what-so-ever. I bet if you researched half of the scientif sources, you would find that they belong to some kind of religion also. So what? Does that mean everything they say is balogne? No because it is still their "opinion" no matter what the circumstance. That is why debates such as these, can't have sources relating to anyones personal opinion. TheLWerd's so called facts, are all just opinions as well.

Lwerd- " I'd like to say in conclusion, however, that I don't think it's fair that Con presumes I will win based on popular opinion. That assumption is unfair both to me and the readers/voters. I stand by my performance and arguments in this debate"

I did not take this debate to win, i took it for my own entertainment and practice for college debate. But, you and i both know that most voters, hardly read the debate in which they vote on. And seeing that i am still fairly new to this site, whereas you have been around a while and have more friends on the site, i would say it is fairly accurate to say to hold popular demand.

I would like to thankyou for challenging me to this debate, it was fun, and kept me busy. Sorry for any and all negativities that may have been taken wrongly during the debating stage. I would like to debate you again sometime, you are wise, and use your logic well.

:-)

-Philosophical
Debate Round No. 3
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rampageboss69 1 year ago
rampageboss69
same sex couples can not provide the same nuture and affection as a heterosexual couple, a father and father or mother and mother can not provide the same aspects as a mother and father.
Posted by Lasagna 2 years ago
Lasagna
Danielle you're just mad you can't reap the fruits of others and nature :P
Posted by Danielle 2 years ago
Danielle
Obviously Dejon didn't read the debate.
Posted by Dejon 2 years ago
Dejon
I think the votes are full of gay and lesbians, first of all its is a disease to be gay or les, You cant reap the fruits of others and nature if you are unnatural you cant take some one babies and grow them in an atmosphere of promiscuity, anal beads and dildo and AIDS, dilation of anal opening and wussy men looking weirdos.

You cant confuse a child with perversion, Drugs depression, have you read studies about homosexuality and depression?? and drugs, and sexual diseases? some mother goes through so much trouble 9 months and some gay perverted person takes her baby okay maybe she died maybe she abused drugs and not worthy of parenting, but still we cant take her child and give it to a pervert.

How many times it happened that these gay people molested these adopted children?? LOTS!! read the news because its not their own they did not feel the pain and anticipate to bring this baby to life.

They deserve to be treated like human beings I know and deserve all kind of respect and psychological help, BUT NO WAY they do not get to have children they did not create, Okay a straight couple can adopt who long to have a baby and could not because of medical problem MOM and DAD involved NOT DAD and DAD??? or Mom and MOM? latex and dildos??? Porn and Porn....So please cut the crap and stop defending this pervert Ideas they d rather be left in an orphanage and not given to Gay people.
Posted by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
"That's really sad that you felt the need to vote based on your personal opinion and not the content of the debate (which I clearly won). I hope it makes you feel better. Have a good day :)"

WTF? That was a little uncalled for, seeing as i am 99% sure that most of your votes came from biased personal opinions and lack of reading. I haven't dissed your side is that way, so there was no point in saying that. See now if you said "In my opinion, i clearly won" that would have been different.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
I'm sad that Koopin seems to feel that him being put up for adoption is a real possibility!
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
It's cool, Koopin. If you think Phil won this debate, then I'm not sad about your bigotry but just sad you're illiterate.
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
sorry, dont know why it posted twice
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
There is no rule on who you must vote for, I believe philosphical did the better job in this case.
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
There is no rule on who you must vote for, I believe philosphical did the better job in this case.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by newman 4 years ago
newman
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by liz93 4 years ago
liz93
DaniellephilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Xer 4 years ago
Xer
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by AlecJohnson 4 years ago
AlecJohnson
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tolaughoften 4 years ago
tolaughoften
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by kylekyle114 4 years ago
kylekyle114
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by greatstuff479 4 years ago
greatstuff479
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Ponder_Rosa 4 years ago
Ponder_Rosa
DaniellephilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 5 years ago
Vi_Veri
DaniellephilosphicalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70