The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Homosexual adoption

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 974 times Debate No: 43690
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Gay marriage should be legal and I am not against gay people. But should two gay people be on the same adoption list as a normal couple? I do not argue that gay people shouldn't be allowed to look after children or privately adopt a child from a friend or family member, but I propose that if there is an excess of parents in a society wanting to adopt children- then man/woman couples should always be preferable to gay couples.


If gay marriage is legal, then there should be no reason why they cant adopt children, if they meet the adoption guidelines because legally they are a married couple. is their right to be able to adopt as much as it is the right of a single parent to adopt children.

A long as there is an assessment that the child will be brought up in a loving environment there is no good reason to deny gay people this right to adoption.

So my basic argument is on two points
1. It is their right as gay people to adopt children
2. As long as they can provide a loving environment for the child they should be allowed to adopt
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, thank you for your challenge I look forward to a productive debate for us both. I will attempt to address all your points.

Your first point that their right to marriage means they should have the right to adopt I do no fully agree with. This is because it is just the individual rights of the two people that are getting married, that are being 'freed'. The two individuals have the right to partake in the societies 'partnering up' ceremony and conditions, regardless of their partner choice. However the decision to adopt a child involves the child's rights and this makes it slightly different than the rights of an individual to marry.

You say if their brought up in a loving environment there is no good reason to deny gay people adoption. It is debatable that there are some reasons why two fathers/no mother, or two mothers/no farther can have some negative effects on a child's upbringing. But this debate is not about whether gay couples should be banned from adopting, it is suggesting that mother-father families should be chosen over father/father or mother/mother households in the adoption agency.

You say that gay people have a 'right' to adopt children. 'Rights' don't include powers over others; the 'rights' of one person are questionable and not necessarily 'given' when they apply to others. Does the baby have the 'right' to have a choice in the decision to be raised in a homosexual household, if he can just as easily be raised in a natural family? (Assuming he/she has that opportunity)

I hope I have addressed you points adequately, thank you


It seems I have eaten more than I could chew. Great points there, here is my rebuttal

1. Right to adoption
At law Adoption refers to the act by which an adult formally becomes the guardian of a child and incurs the rights and responsibilities of a parent.
-So legally speaking any person irregardless of sexual orientation has the right to adopt, provided they meet the legal requirements. Denying a person based on sexual orientation or giving preference to others based on sexual orientation is a form of discrimination which is against the UN Universal Bill of Rights. Thats my reasoning on how it is the right of a gay couple to adopt.

In society we cannot choose our parents, so in effect a child has no right to choose their parents since there are no legal provisions to make this possible.

2. Environment
There is no scientific proof to prove that there is any negative effect on a child if they are raised in a gay family, there is evidence to support the fact that a gay family setup will result in all children being gay, since the very essence of sexual orientation is the fact that a person is born as is. Until the day there is peer reviewed research that proves that there is a problem with a child being raised in a same sex marriage then we should not discriminate, which beings my next point.

3. Fairness/Level playing field/Discrimination
What I am saying we should level the playing, a qualifying same sex married couple should have the same chance of adopting a child as a mixed sex couple.

4. Rights of a child
As I mentioned earlier on a child cannot choose its parents, so it follows that in any setting such a right to choose what environment they grow up in is not enforceable as it does not and cannot exist.

5. Moral issues
When you say natural family, you imply that being gay is unnatural which is unfounded except in religious jargon. Morality is subjective, which is why we cannot create laws based on moral standards.

I hope I have addressed you points adequately, thank you
Debate Round No. 2


As before I will try to respond to each of your points in turn.

Your first point states that because the laws position and definition of adoption is applicable to gay couples; this is because it does not state otherwise, or call for only heterosexual couples, and it is illegal under UN law to discriminate based on sexuality. From a lawyers point of view; fine, good point. But I do not use laws to shape my own philosophy, and the mere fact that a law can co-habit with a certain practice doesn't give me reason to support that practice.

I get your point about not choosing our parents, that is true. You logic is we cannot choose our parents in the natural world and thus not being able to choose them in this circumstance is 'natural' and so acceptable. I see the logic and agree but I do not quite see why, when actually given the choice, we would put a child with same sex couple rather than with a traditional couple.

Now this issue about whether gay households are better for children, or more specifically, worse for children than traditional households is the real issue here. The evidence shows that gay parented children are no different from regular parented children, but the means in which these these people are tested may not be showing every possible psychological effect. It is known that children hold their parents to be 'godlike' (when they are really young) and the lack of a same sex role model or an opposite sex model at this stage seems too me, quite a serious matter. There are distinct differences between men and women and, whichever sex you are, you learn what you are, and familiarise yourself with the opposite sex very early in childhood from your parents.

So, you say there is no evidence showing a measurable difference in children of gay parents and children of non gay parents. This is supported by some research as I have explained, but it has its limitations. I will address your other points and then link them back to this one.

You next point basically says 'its not fair' that gays aren't allowed to use the surrogate/adoption agencies when traditional couples can. It's not there (the law) to be unfair to gays, its there for the children's well being (whether you agree that it protects children or not, it is a law to protect the children, not to discriminate against gays).

Your last point I will link back to the 3rd paragraph. You say that homosexuality not being natural, is merely religious jargon. I don't believe it is just religion that makes it 'un normal'. For instance, nearly every creature, every human, every mammal that has ever existed, did so because of a heterosexual 'relationship'. Homosexuality (however much individuals are genetically predetermined to be so) does not produce others and thus it 'dies-out' each time it is acted upon and so does not continue. I would argue that homosexuality is in many ways a social construct, resulting from social issues such as gender confusion (you say gay parented children are more likely to be gay, this could be due to gender confusion) and being confused about who they are and what their place is in the world. Landolt et al (2004) showed how homosexual men faced a lack of social structure, connectedness and guidance in childhood and found a direct link from this too (what he called) gender non-conformity in early life. The research is not clear on whether genes cause homosexual behaviour but the research here and the point that gays are more likely to form in gay households, suggests an environmental influence.

Therefore if homosexual behaviour is an environmentally determined behaviour, we can assume its not necessarly natural or normal. But Obviously the fact that these couples cannot have sex and sometimes have to have physicaly unhealthy sexual practices and cannot have children, is the main indicator of their not so normal 'couple' behaviour. I believe that children brought up in these households are more likely to have some confusion about themselves and their sexuality than children in a traditional family. And I re state my argument that gays should be able to adopt children, but not be able to come above traditional families on the adoption register.

A further point is that adoption agencies (assuming there is an exess of parents not children) and surrogate mother organisations, are set up to help couples who cannot consieve children because of fluke medical conditions. There are much more healthy gay couples than problem traditional couples. I worry that with an increase in homosexuality and a decreasing taboo against owning kids, and this being the only option they have of having kids, it will become almost like a market for children and the problem couples of man and women will be competing with a huge numbers of gay couples. As every gay couple needs a surragut or adoptee.

Again, the point is that these agencies are created for couples who are having difficulty conceiving a child, they are not there for gay couples who want children. Also, theoretically, if there was no gay fostering taboo then every gay couple would typically want to adopt 2/3 children and this would make it even more difficult for man/woman couples to get their baby.

Look forward to your response

Landolt, M. A., Bartholomew, K., Saffrey, C., Oram, D., & Perlman, D. (2004). Gender nonconformity, childhood rejection, and adult attachment: A study of gay men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(2), 117-128.


profwamba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


So just to clarify, I would not disallow homosexuals to adopt, nor do I hold any pre justice against them. I merely believe that, if given the choice, two parents of a different sex should always be preferable to a homosexual couple, when bringing up a child. Not because homosexuality is wrong or because children shouldn't be seeing two men/two women being intimate because its confusing. But because of the unavoidable problem of only one type of sex, and possible confusion about themselves. This confusion could arise, for example, when a child askes where she has come from. The two guys would have to explain how a woman gave birth to her, because a mommy and daddy loved each other very much and cuddled specially to create her. Then they would have to explain why that mother is not bringing her up and what you and your partner actually are. You would have to explain that anyone can have sex with anyone and that although it takes a man and women to make you, you (the young girl) are being brought up by a 2 guy relationship. I think this has the potential to be damaging at times, not because gay people are bad, gay people I'm sure make excellent parents in themselves. But they cannot avoid that problem, its not their fault. And so that is why traditional, man/woman couples should be chosen first for young people, because it maybe typically better for their mental health. Remember I would never, ever ban gays from raising children. I would just always pick a traditional couple over a homosexual couple if the choice can be made. Also if I was in power, I would probably not discriminate at all because I believe gays would feel 'hard done' too.

Thank you


Gay households vs mixed couple households
The underlying argument of this issue you have zeroed in on is basically homophobia as one of the commentators aptly pointed out. Who are we to dictate what rights can or cannot have. The majority of children in the world grow up with single parents so the issue of having or not having a male/female figure does not bold down to marriage.

There is a difference between sexual orientation & gender. So you might be a male but sexually you might be a female, this means you are then gay as you will be attracted to the opposite sex although you will be of the same gender as the people you are sexually attracted to because you are sexually of the opposute gender.

That said it means that the male & female figure is as present in a gay marriage as it is in a mixed gender marriage. The only difference is the reproductive system present.

The moment we start treating gays like normal people without any prejudice, is the same time that gay families will be able to exist without any problems. Its our homophobia that troubles them not specifically that there is anything wrong with being gay. So stop homophobia and you have no problems in gay families.

The same problems gays & lesbians are facing now are the same perception problems that blacks faced when slave and racial discrimination was globally condemned, there where sections & unfortunately still are sections of the community that propagate these ism and phobias.

What is the goal of adoption
As you said in the comments ""adoption agencies are set up to provide children who are in need of loving families, with them.""
So along as the family is loving & can take care of them, then let gay couples have an equal opportunity to adopt as mixed couples.

One a gay family being a difficult for a child to grow up in
-The problem is the homophobia not the gay family. As a commentator said "single parent have a harder time raising kids but are allowed to adopt."

On homosexuality being unatural
Theres a difference between sexuality and gender
Sexuality - psychological attribute of being female or male
Gender - physical attribute of being female or male

So nature gives us gender, but it does not follow that if your gender is male your sexuality is male, it can be female, which is also natural. There have been incidences of homosexuality recorded in the animal kingdom,
but anyway there are a lot of unatural things in the world today, from laptops, compters, roads, but hey they still work.

So basically my argument is that there is a difference between gender & sexuality. This argument by itself explains away the issues you mention on
1. Natural
2. The need for female & male role models (they exist in a gay marriage coz there are also female & male) + the point on single parents
3. Generally speaking your whole argument is based on an underlying homophobic tendency. Gays & lesbians deserve their full rights in society as anyone else, just take them as any other couple, there is a female & a male (sexually)
4. On the re-emphasis you made - The fact that you say this is potentially damaging i.e gays raising a child & having to explain that it is okay to be gay is certainly homophobic.
Debate Round No. 4


I will just remind you of the argument: that should there be a sustained exess of parents wanting to adopt, then man woman couples would be 'preferable' to homosexual couples. I think gay people should be allowed to adopt children, and raise children, I would think it a disgrace if they where not allowed to.

Also, I don't think it is anyone's 'right' to 'purchase' (adopt) a child. It must only be done in the most extreme circumstances. Should the world be as it should, there would be practically no kids in orphanages, and so homosexuals could not raise children (obviously apart from fluke situations, eg death etc.) . So in a world where it is unlikely that an infertile couple could ever find a orphan child, I would put them on a separate list to all the homosexual couples that also wanted a child.
Maybe this is not right, but I don't want people to think that I am saying what it seems like I am saying, if you read the other peoples comments. I am not against homosexuals and traditional couples being on the same list now, nor am I opposed to gays raising children. I am saying that both a father and a mother is better for children than two dads and no mother, or two mothers and no dad. This is not a dig at homosexuals at all, it doesn't question their character, ability to bring up children or their rights, it questions the effects of not having either a mother or father on a child that could otherwise have both.

Your first paragraph: I would not be in support of allowing single parents over two parents either.

You say that children get both gender role models, because one or both parents exhibit the opposite sexual tendancy to their physical self. I don't know if that's quite true, I think learning about females through a 'camp dad' is going cause some confusion to a tender mind. I have shown the research that shows things too be different with homosexual parents. It is not their fault, as I have said, it is NOTHING to do with their personalities, rights or morals: it is the underlying problem that gender roles are confused and the child is confused. If people are gay let them be so, but they cannot have children because they are not meant too and they cannot. They should not be banned like I have said, but not allowing lots of babys the right to a father an a mother that really want them, because of large numbers of homosexual couple's of two dads or two mums want a baby, is thenconcern for me.

So just to answer your numbered points at the end. 1. Natural . Roughly 3% of modern humans are homosexual, and animals only really show homosexual tendencies in captivity, and homosexuals do not reproduce. So everything in the world is essentially natural, but homosexuals having children certainly isn't because it is impossible. Again I remind you the argument isn't about whether homosexuals should be allowed to have children or not.

2. A 'camp' dad or a 'butch' mam is not an exact substitute for a actual dad or actual mam. At best this will be a little less effective at socialisation into the real world, at worst it will be deeply confusing for the children. And the point on single parents Is irrelevant because I would not choose a single person over a traditional couple either, indeed I have not given it thought but believe I would have a gay couple instead of a single parent. Like I state again, I am not against gays raising children, that is not the argument!

3. You say my WHOLE ARGUMENT is based on homophobic tendencies. I don't really know how to respond to that apart from insisting that I am not 'homophobic'. I assume you mean that I personally have a dislike for gays, based on a lack of experience of them and a bigoted attitude towards understanding them. Resulting in a dislike for them due to my aggressive and essentially 'bigoted' personality. So I have come to try and attack them, to chip away at their rights. This is absolutely absurd, I am an understanding person who is open minded, 'liberal', understanding and sympathetic. Some of my friends who I deeply respect and hold in very high regard are gay, and i have gay family members whom I love. I have explained my position on the 'rights' argument, that rights do not apply to other individuals, and it is nobodies 'right' to have dominion over a child. These points you make of homophobia and rights are to general and not direct enough. Both concepts are abstract and vague, and so are difficult to defend. I don't feel you have fully elaborated each argument (homophobia/rights) or fully addressed my position regarding these points, I feel you merely restate that you think I am homophobic and gay people should have exactly the same rights. You don't address the research that shows negative differences in the children of them households, you didn't seem to acknowledge that I was only arguing that a mother and father would be preferable to a gay couple, and not that gay couples shouldn't be allowed.

The research says that two dads and no mother or two mothers and no father is potentially 'damaging' to children. You do not address this issue. Your argument against the potential effects of lacking a mother, is that a camp dad will be just as good. You do not address the potential confusion that a child might face, children don't see the world how we do. I get the feeling that you still feel that I think gays are less that everybody else and so don't deserve the same rights, I cannot give any more explanations to why that its not true.

So thank you for this argument it was very enjoyable and I admire your liberalism and attitude towards freedom and equality. Thank you


Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting.

Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.

Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show.

In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.

"There's no doubt whatsoever from the research that children with two lesbian parents are growing up to be just as well-adjusted and successful" as children with a male and a female parent," Stacey told LiveScience.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Thank you spinelli, I apologise for any offence I may have caused. I am new to the website and I wished to get a debate and so I attempted to be controversial, I would not defend this issue to the grave and I am completely open to persuasion. Debate should be constructive, not competitive.

Your first point I accept, I admit you are right and I am wrong; adoption agencies are set up to provide children who are in need of loving families, with them.
I was trying to be to controversial, I actually am referring to a theoretical society in which there are very few children up for adoption and it is very hard for couples to adopt. When there is an excess of children in a society (like there is) any loving couple will do. But because all gay couples would want to adopt, and if the children where scarce, the infertile couples may find themselves outnumbered.

Your claim than homosexual parents are no more likely to produce homosexual children is not strictly true. It was not me who proposed it though I see now that it may of been a typo from my opponent. However it was my intuition that lead me believe it, seen as children's role models are their parents. But I attempted to find any credible scientific research on the matter. The latest research done by the family research council has recently produced a document supporting the assumption, it even went onto say (by the way I'm not in total support of this) ""The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.""

Now I don't believe it is this servere, I believe homosexual couples have an unavoidable problem that is 1; not their fault 2; not an absolutely massive issue. We must have a debate together would you be interested ? I have no roo
Posted by Spinelli 2 years ago
An interesting debate, and I wish I had caught it in time.

I have issues with a couple of your points. Firstly, the adoption system was not "set up for medically infertile couples". It was set up to provide children with loving homes and families.

Secondly, gay parents do not preclude gay children. Whether profwamba meant to say this or it was a typo I am not sure, but either way is false.

It is stated that children need both a male and female role model " I"m sure I don"t need to point out that there are millions of children brought up by single parents with no negative effects from having only one parent. There is no measurable evidence suggesting that children brought up by gay parents are worse off than those brought up by straight parents (at any social or academic level).

The real points I have a problem with are from your comment. Your statement that homosexual behaviour is "strange" is homophobic, and there can be no argument about that. Again you use quotation marks around "natural" suggesting that it is not a normal lifestyle " which it is. Homosexuality is found widely in nature and in ancient literature. Many, many straight couples use anal penetration. Straight men and straight women. Just because it"s not something you"d personally like to try, does not mean it"s not "an alternative way of having sex".

It isn"t a case of "more homeless people are gay" " it"s "more gay people are homeless". The reason for this should be obvious! Gay people still face huge amounts of discrimination, bullying, verbal and physical abuse. They are thrown out by their families and have nowhere else to go.

There are a million and one studies about how people are gay, and each of them gives different reasons. Several can be disproved. One of which, is that gay people are "disturbed or confused about themselves in their early life". It"s just outright false.

I find your arguments poorly researched and quite frankly offensive.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
To suggest I am 'not a supporter of gay rights' is understandable, but oversimplified. I believe the ONLY difference between gays homosexuals in regard to law, should be in aathe adoption and surragute industries. And I am not saying they should not be allowed to adopt! But rather that traditional families come first. Not because gay people deserve less, are worth less or are just less important. But rather because if gay people could use the same system set up for medically infertile couples, the demand would grow and the infertile couples may be in the minority. An artificial human conception is a last resort for couples who have exhausted other alternatives and are unfortunate enough to be infertile. All gay couples would use this industry as first resort and, what was set up to aid desperate mothers and fathers, would become almost like a market or a shop for gay couples to obtain children.

Homophobia is a complicated issue, just like racism. One cannot be so nieve as to denounce it entirely and claim its purely evil and 'not real'. Yes, racism in wrong and homophobia is wrong, but they are not un-real, that means there are differences between races and there are aspects of homosexual behaviour that are 'strange'. I am not against gays fostering children nor do I condone negative racism. But I do believe that homosexual behaviour, however 'natural' it feels to a person, is not just an alternative way of life. I perhaps am ignorant, I accept that, but to me, anal penetration, apart from being physically damaging, is not an alternative way of having sex. Also, like you say, half the homeless people are gay, gays use more drugs, the study I referred to concerning the childhood of gays people; these suggest that people who are homosexual, are or where disconnected and possibly disturbed or confused about themselves in their early life. I do not dispute that they are gay now, but I question whether they are born gay.

I would not defend this issue to the death
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter: While you are a skilled debater, I cannot believe that you are supportive of gay rights. To me, the arguments that gay persons can't adopt is thinly-veiled homophobia (maybe not you, but certainly your arguments). Even if persons growing up with gay parents have a harder time, that would only make sense because half of the USA has enough of a distaste for LGBTIQA persons that they want to refuse them marriage. There is also an increase rate of suicides and drug use for gay/lesbian persons: not because they are immoral of course but because they are rejected by society. Did you know that half of homeless children are LGBTIQA? Additionally, single parent have a harder time raising kids but are allowed to adopt. Your advocacy of refusing gay/lesbian persons children because they are gay/lesbian... is disturbing to me.
Posted by profwamba 2 years ago
very thorough rebuttal there, will take time to respond to your last argument. Great debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.