The Instigator
Republican95
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 24,833 times Debate No: 9394
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (6)

 

Republican95

Pro

I stand in affirmation of the statement: Gay Couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt children.

===
Definitions
===

Gay Couple-two people of the same sex (two women, two men) who are recognized as being in some sort of union by law.

Adopt-the act of legally assuming the role of "parent" for someone who is not one of your biological children.

===
Arguments
===

a) While exceptions occur, the norm in nature is that offspring are nurtured by mother and father. To legally allow adoption by gay couples is to encourage what is an unnatural upbringing.

b) Homophobic language and behavior is still common in society. Placing a child too young to have an opinion of their own in the care of a gay couple exposes them to this prejudice, and subjects them to ridicule or violence. Whatever ideal we might have, the psychological and physical welfare of the child must come first.

c) A child's primary role models are his or her parents. Bringing a heterosexual child up in a gay household gives them a distorted view of a minority sexuality, just as a girl brought up by two men would fail to benefit from a feminine influence.

I thank whoever accepts this debate.
Danielle

Con

I accept Pro's proposed definitions.

[ Rebuttal ]

A) Pro's first argument is that nature's "norm" is for offspring to be raised by their mother and father. I have two distinct and valid arguments against this. First, there are plenty animals in nature (including humans) where this is not the case. For instance, mother hamsters, pandas and sharks often eat their own young. Some fish spawn by simply releasing streams of their sperm into the general vicinity of fish eggs; in other words just chancing whether or not they will succeed in mating (and then the males don't stick around to raise their fish babies, etc). The point here is that if Pro wishes to relate humans to animals in the nature sense, then he must acknowledge that not all animal parents are "good" parents by typical moral standards to humans. I submit that humans are held to a higher, more advanced standard and way of thinking.

Moreover, who is to say what is "natural?" The reality is that everything we do is natural. If it weren't, we wouldn't do it. For instance, air conditioning isn't natural i.e. occurring in nature without human interference. And yet because we have created and implemented this thing into our society and lifestyle, it has therefore become natural as in something humans do for comfort/protection/etc. A good analogy for this phenomenon is to think of a beaver dam. Random sticks aren't just lying around to provide shelter for these animals -- meaning they're not natural -- and yet beavers build these things to benefit themselves and thus the act has made beaver dams a part of nature. Similarly, if humans decide to allow gay adoption to benefit themselves, this too would become natural.

On a final note to this point, the obvious fact here is that not all parenting occurs between a mother and a father. In fact, ONE THIRD 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]. With numbers that high, it can be argued that in fact this trend has become or is becoming what is natural. However, I think it'd be more appropriate to say that because humans are more cognitively advanced than other animals, our norms are different and more transient as opposed to others in the animal kingdom.

To re-cap on this point, (1) It would be illogical to compare humans to other animal species in every aspect, including parenting (2) Everything that humans do is natural (3) What is natural has the potential to become the norm and often does... or at least very popular.

B) The idea that gay people shouldn't have children because they may be subject to ridicule is absolutely absurd. Children are cruel, and the fact of the matter is that children from all backgrounds and at all ages are often ridiculed at certain points in their life for certain things. For instance, a child with over-weight parents might be made fun of because their parents are fat; the kid who dresses humbly may be tormented for being considered poor; a child with red hair may be teased constantly for being a "ginger" -- etc.

The point here is obviously that it is IMPOSSIBLE to shelter children from being teased. Even if extensive measures are taken to do so, the reality is that kids will find things specifically to bother others about, even including their name or last name. Not to mention that just as homophobia is still alive and well today, so are things like nationalism and racism. Should we restrict certain ethnicities or races from having children too? There is one statistic that proclaims 100% of black people have been called the N-word at least once in their lives. So, by your standard, black people should not have children as statistically speaking they will DEFINITELY be made fun of for such a ridiculous (and uncontrollable) reason.

Additionally, your argument that homophobia "still" exists actually works in my favor. How do you think that stereotypes and bigotry are overcome in society? The answer is simple: exposure. If people - especially children - are not exposed to various lifestyles or cultures, then of course they're going to rebel against it or see it as threatening or bizarre. Sociologically speaking, humans are always looking for an Other; someone who is different from them to ostracize and stigmatize to scapegoat or just out of internal natural prejudice. The only way to combat this homophobia is to show children and society at large that homosexuals are just as capable, worthy and deserving of equal rights as heterosexuals.

C) Pro's final point is equally absurd. First of all, what evidence is there to support the notion that the sexual orientation of one's parents has any bearing on their own sexuality? Just as not all heterosexuals raise heterosexual children, not all homosexuals would raise homosexual children. I'd like for Pro to explain what "distorted" view of sexuality these children would be exposed to. It appears as if the only thing they'd be exposed to is the fact that there are different kinds of families with different kinds of lifestyles. Homosexuality has been present for thousands of generations and isn't going anywhere anytime soon, meaning that it'd actually be beneficial for this exposure to children... more about this later.

Furthermore, Pro talks about a female being raised by two men. Stereotypically speaking, aren't gay men very effeminate? In that case, his declaration that they wouldn't be exposed to a feminine influence is wrong. Not to mention that Pro fails to mention the fact that children have various influences in their lives outside of their parents; in other words, a girl in that situation may have an older female such as an aunt to look up to. Note that Pro also failed to explain why parents of two genders are necessary or even beneficial. In fact, "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 [3]." The point here is that it is one's peers who most influence a child - not their parents.

[ Arguments ]

A) Contrary to Pro's belief, children growing up in same-sex parental households do not have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes. 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. I will expand on this and my following point when I have more characters available to do so in the next round.

B) My second point is that Pro will have the burden of proving that children are better off in orphanages than with gay parents (as this would be and IS the case). I'll also expand on qualifications for parenting further in Round 2.

Sources:
[1] http://www.childstats.gov...
[2] http://www.webmd.com...
[3] 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
Debate Round No. 1
Republican95

Pro

I thank theLwerd for accepting this debate challenge and I hope that it is insightful to the readers and ourselves.

I will start by attacking the rebuttals put forth by my opponent.

a) My opponent states that not all animals in nature are raised by their biological mother and father.

But at least as far as we know, it is natural for a HUMAN CHILD to be raised by its mother or father. This has been the norm since the beginning of time and is still the norm, but maybe not so much since the 1970s. If evolution is true, than the evolutionary science supports human children being raised by a man and woman. If the Bible is true, it supports that a child should be raised by their mother and father. It is natural for HUMANS to be raised by a man and a woman.

b) My opponent states everything a human does is natural.

Something is not natural if it involves a choice. I can choose to either go to school or not. Something is only natural if if there is no choosing involved: breathing for example.

c) My opponent says that 33% of Lesbian households and 22% of Gay households have children.

She makes the fact of gay child adopting seem more prevalent. It is not. When combined, this accounts for less that 1% of total U.S. Households. It is by no means "normal" in the United States to see a gay couple with children. My opponent also tries to inflate the statistics because probably more than 75% of these children are one of the homosexual's biological children from another marriage.

d) My opponent does not care about the welfare of adopted children

It is true that children with overweight parents or poorer parents might get made fun of. However, children of gay couples are more likely to be exposed to VIOLENCE rather than just playground bullying. Homosexuals are maybe the biggest targets of violence and discrimination in America since the African Americans of the 1960s. Several gays are murdered every year just for being gay. Let's not put innocent children in the way. The VIOLENCE towards blacks, fatties, or those who are poor doesn't compare to that homosexuals receive.

I yield back to theLwerd
Danielle

Con

A) While I agree that it is "natural" for a human child to be raised by their mother and father, I also submit that it is "natural" for a human child to be raised by someone other than their mother and father. Proof is that this is not only done all the time, but actually becoming quite common. You cannot say that because a majority of children are raised by their mother and father that it is necessarily the right way, as that implies the ad populum fallacy. Likewise, you cannot say that because it is customary to be the case that it is necessarly the "right" way, because that gives way to the appeal to traditional fallacy. In other words, Pro's burden here is proving that a child must always be raised by their mother and father in order to be considered acceptable parenting. This includes being against adoption in general (as adopted children are not raised by their bioogical parents).

B) My opponent proposes that something is not natural if it involves a choice. This is simply not true. Sex is a choice; one chooses whether or not they would like to have sex, and yet sex is considered natural. Diabetes is natural and yet it may be the result of choices (i.e. poor diet). A better example might be a mental illness such as schizophrenia. It is natural as in occurs due to wiring/chemicals in the brain and yet one does not have a choice whether or not to have this disease. I think these examples are sufficient enough in proving that my opponent's proposed standard for what should be considered natural is absurd.

C) Pro asserts that because only 1% of households in the U.S. contain children with gay parents (nowhere was that statistic cited, by the way... plus it's more like 3% , but I digress), and therefore this is proof that it is not natural. However, note that given my analysis of what is considered natural and Pro's rebuttal - or lack thereof - we can see that this clearly isn't the case, nor is it relevant.

D) Pro has made a blatntly false claim in stating that I don't care about the welfare of adopted children. That is a ridiculous thing to say with absolutely no basis. While indeed I do not want innocent children to suffer, the point that I made is that innocent children suffering is a fact of life and we cannot exclude homosexuality in the adoption process because of that fact. You cannot prove that a child will be a victim of violence just because their parents are gay, nor should you assume so.

Moreover, I can just as easily argue that it is Pro who does not care about the welfare of children. For instance, he would rather needy children (orphans) remain in homeless shelters with no family, rather than be adopted by gay parents who will have met all of the necessary criteria adoption agencies establish in order to complete the process. In other words, he would rather punish innocent children by preventing them to enter a welcoming (and probably stable and loving) home.

Conclusion:

Pro failed to respond to ALL of these arguments of mine:

- Nature is transient; not permanent
- Exposure is the cure to homophobia
- Studies show that children with gay parents don't suffer; they EXCEL
- Kids with gay parents still have same-sex role models
- Etc.

As such, all of my arguments stand. I have refuted Pro's meager arguments and established even MORE credible ones of my own which have been cited by government and other reputable sources, whereas Pro's are rooted only in opinion with no factual basis or logical backing.
Debate Round No. 2
Republican95

Pro

Republican95 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Unfortunately Pro has failed to respond or provide a sufficient rebuttal in the third around. As such, I'll provide a quick re-cap of the debate:

1) Pro posited that nature intended for offspring to be raised by their mother and their father. I responded by noting that this is not true for all of nature's parents, not to mention that animals do not have the cognitive abilities of humans and therefore cannot suffice as a suitable basis for comparison. I also mentioned that very often human children are not raised by both of their biological parents, and since everything that humans do IS natural, then therefore it can be said to be a natural thing for humans to find care takers for their children, even if those care takers are not their biological parents.

2) Pro mentioned that gay people shouldn't have children because their kids will be made fun of on their behalf. I responded by noting that ALL kids get made fun of at some point for a plethora of reasons; if it weren't for their parent's sexuality, it would be for another reason. We cannot use the cruelty of children as a reason to punish adults, nor can we say "Black people can't have children because black people get made fun of." Moreover, I noted that the only cure for homophobia is exposure. In other words, the more kids were exposed to homosexuality, the less likely they would be to discriminate against this lifestyle in the future.

3) Pro supposed that a lack of heterosexual influence in a child's life would promote that child to be homosexual as well. I responded by noting the ridiculousness of this claim; merely being exposed to a homosexual will NOT make you homosexual -- Just as straight parents don't always raise straight children, not all gay parents would raise gay children (in fact, statistics show quite the opposite). Additionally, I pointed out that children can find same-gendered role models in family, friends, etc. and would not be missing out on any aspect of parenting or nurturing by having two gay parents.

4) Again, Pro did not respond to ANY of my following arguments:

Exposure is the cure for homophobia; Kids with gay parents would still have role models of both genders in their lives; There are plenty of kids in orphanages who need parents, and who would be better off with gay parents than no parents (not to mention that it'd be beneficial to the state to let them be adopted); Kids with gay parents don't suffer - they excel (!!!)

As Pro has given you no adequate reason to affirm the resolution, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vi_Veri 4 years ago
Vi_Veri
Butchered. Nice job, babe.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
"there is no need for negative feed-back maikuru"

I don't follow. Should I refrain from commenting on those issues that influenced my vote?
Posted by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
no what i was saying is that could have gone somewhere with the arguments he did have, but instead totally butchered it. Con obviously won this. and there is no need for negative feed-back maikuru
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
No problem, forfeited debates deserve love too =D

My RFD, though, needs a quick edit. After reading Kleptin's comment, I realize I was working off of memory concerning the sources. Con did, in fact, use sources that were relevant and earns my sources vote.
Posted by Kleptin 4 years ago
Kleptin
C: CON. Pro forfeited a round.

S&G: TIE. No major errors on either side.

A: CON. This was slaughter. Con's first round completely decimated Pro's, and Pro skirted around certain arguments that Con made without addressing them. In addition, Pro's forfeit simply sealed the deal. It was Con the whole way.

S: CON. Con was the only one to include sources.
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
Thank you for your RFD.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
C: Con - Forfeit penalty.
S & G: Tie
A: Con - Despite philosphical's claim, none of Pro's arguments could be considered "good," detailed, or convincing.
S: Tie
Posted by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
ooh he had good points but didnt really go anywhere with them. mind challenging me to this?
Posted by Vi_Veri 4 years ago
Vi_Veri
examples for you, buddy:

....Radon, pollen, and mold spores, volcanoes, release of clouds of sulfur dioxide from the ground in places like Smoking Hills...
Posted by Vi_Veri 4 years ago
Vi_Veri
There are natural, what people would consider, "pollutants."
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 4 years ago
Nails
Republican95DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
Republican95DanielleTied
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 Vi_Veri 4 years ago
Vi_Veri
Republican95DanielleTied
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 Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Republican95DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 4 years ago
Kleptin
Republican95DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
Republican95DanielleTied
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