The Instigator
PiercedPanda
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
360mph
Pro (for)
Losing
4 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 3 votes the winner is...
PiercedPanda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,048 times Debate No: 44387
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

PiercedPanda

Con

This debate will be discussing homosexual adoption. Pro will be in favour of such. This is my first debate, so please go easy on me. First round is acceptance. Please do not troll, or take any arguments in a personal matter. I await the response of any opponent who accepts. Good luck.
360mph

Pro

I accept your challenge. Your move first, I believe.
Debate Round No. 1
PiercedPanda

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenging debate, and I am excited to hear his points of view. Let the debate begin!

Homosexuality is quite a big issue affecting today's society. It is also referred to as words or slang such as "gay" or "lesbian".

What is homosexuality you ask? Well homosexuality is

"sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex." [1]

So basically when 2 people of the same sexual orientation desire one another. And in some countries such as Brazil and Argentina, same sex marriage is allowed. [2] And what comes after marriage? Children. A married couple wants to have children. But this same sex, or homosexual couple can't biologically conceive a child. So they adopt. There are many reasons why this is wrong, and can negatively affect people.

First of all, fitting it. Many teenagers and children nowadays need to "fit in". It's already hard as it is, now try adding a gay family into the equation. Not only with the trouble that every kid already has, but also with gay parents, it's practically impossible to fit in. This can make the child left out, and lead the child to depression, and possibly suicide.

Secondly, child molestation. Quite a big amount of child molestation to this day is committed by homosexuals. Especially men. [3] So if you are to put a innocent child into a house with a gay couple, you are putting him in risk of child molestation. That child could be in a house and raised by 2 molesters.

Thirdly, you are preventing the child of a mother or father, depending on which sex is the couple. The child could have been adopted by a normal family, with a father or a mother, but now you are preventing such. For example, imagine there is a gay couple including 2 men. They adopt a daughter. Many years drift away, and all of the sudden, she is 14. And this teenager is having puberty issues. Now you can give her a book, or explain what you have read, but you have never experienced it, because you are a man. If she was adopted by a normal family, she would have a mother to explain things to her, and guide her, from personal experience. But you are preventing the child from having that.

Also think about it, because of the influence parents give, the child would follow in their footprints. So you are bringing more and more homosexuals to this world. So if the number increases dramatically, eventually the world will be filled with nothing but homosexuals, and there would be no babies, and the human race would perish :D.

I await my opponent's response.

sources:
1.http://dictionary.reference.com...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.http://www.frc.org...

Good luck :D
360mph

Pro

My argument simply is, that a homosexual couple deserves to adopt a child.

Firstly, homosexuals could be great parents. Homosexuals face bullying, and because of this, they may be the masters of dealing with it, and could give great advice for their children. I mean these are people who were probably bullied and were able to deal with it somehow in a way that others could not. They were able to survive, and still do what they knew was right. They did not conform to society and marry heterosexually. With that, they could also give advice on how to avoid peer pressure. And of course, homosexuals can be great teachers of acceptance, as many people fail to accept groups of people because it's different. For example, when there are few black people in a community, or black people are just looked down at, children might not be able to see black people as equals. Same with homosexuals. It's considered strange because most children see heterosexual marriages. But, if a homosexual marriage is placed in their sight, they will learn to accept homosexuality. And, because heterosexuality is popular in society, the children would still learn to accept heterosexuals, thus accepting both.

Also, homosexuals don't really have any reason not to adopt. There is nothing that homosexuals do more than any other group of people as parents. It's not like most homosexuals are criminals. Also, it's not like most homosexuals turn out to be awful parents. In fact, homosexuals who adopt, I would think, would be great parents (I don't know because that's an opinion thing and I don't have homosexual parents). Homosexuals who adopt clearly have chosen to be parents, and so they want to have children. Heterosexuals sometimes accidentally have children. But homosexuals who adopt choose to have children, which is a step in the right direction of being good parents.

I believe that is all. I hope this debate is good.
Debate Round No. 2
PiercedPanda

Con

I very much respect your points of view. I thank you for your ideas. You make me think differently about this subject, however since this is still a debate, I still remain against Homosexual adoption.

Firstly I would like to point out that pro did not rebut any of my points, but only explained his own arguments.

REBUTTALS:

" Homosexuals face bullying, and because of this, they may be the masters of dealing with it, and could give great advice for their children."

This is only a stereotype backed up by no proof. First of all I would like to quote:

"According to the gay bullying statistics from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, about one fourth of all students from elementary age through high school are the victims of bullying and harassment while on school property because of their race, ethnicity, gender, disability, religion or sexual orientation. Unfortunately the primary reason for bullying is due to something that may set themselves apart from the norm, and that includes sexual orientation. "[1]

As you can see, in their childhood (ages 2-17) bullying is most common. [2] In the quote above, you see that a quarter of students are bullied, not just because they are homosexual, but other reasons to. Sexual orientation is but 1 of the things that people are bullied for. So basically, heterosexual couples would have experienced bullying just as much as homosexual couples, rendering your point invalid. This also goes for the rest of your paragraph.

" It's not like most homosexuals are criminals."

Child molestation is a crime, rendering some homosexuals criminals.

"Heterosexuals sometimes accidentally have children."

Once again, a hasty generalization. Now let us assume that indeed, some heterosexual couples have children by accident,
it can also be a good thing. It would also be good, because not only is a child going to learn lessons, but the parent would learn just as much. Also, people don't just "accidentally" adopt.

Now for my arguments:

ARGUMENTS:

Main thing is bullying. You said it yourself: "Homosexuals face bullying". And as we all may know, a parent gives a huge influence on the child. [3] So if this child were influenced by his or her parents, they would become homosexual, and possibly get bullied. Bullying can build character, but it can also destroy it. Bullying can lead to depression. [4]

Also, we need to consider others, not just the family. There are plenty of religions against homosexuality. Take Christianity, Islam, Judaism and much, much more for example. [5] In adopting a child into a homosexual family, you are disrespecting others beliefs. A third of the world alone is already Christian. [6]

I await my opponents response.

sources:
1.http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...
2.http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...
3.http://www.cbn.com...
4.http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...
5.http://www.princeton.edu...
6.http://www.adherents.com...
360mph

Pro

Dear, opponent, I purposefully did not rebut any of your points as that would be unfair for you. In the second round, you were only able to state your points, not argue mine. So, to even the score, I simply stated mine. And now, I shall argue against yours. Firstly, you have claimed that homosexuals can be child molesters. That is not really true however. Most child molesters who molest children are not homosexuals in truth. And, some molest children of the same gender due to their deprivation of sexual intercourse with the other gender. But homosexuals are not child molesters. People are. Human beings are. People of all races, genders, sexual preferences, etc. Also, if that is the case, should African Americans not be allowed to have children because they are all murdering drug addicts or drug dealers? Of course not. That, as your point is, is simply a stereotype (which if I recall you have accused me of including in my own arguments.)
As for your point that a child may follow in the footsteps of the parent, a homosexual parent would be a perfect person to explain to a child that they have to do what is right for them and be different. Homosexual parents, like the Jedi, will be able to tell their children that they can "search their feelings" and do what they know is right, and so, if the child is not a homosexual, they will not become one. Also, we all know that children do not always follow in the footsteps of their parents. If that were the case, the Empire would not have been crushed, and Luke Skywalker would have become a Sith Lord (another Star Wars reference...I just watched the originals again today, and they are too inspiring not to mention.)
Now, you have accused me of having information that is not backed up. However, you do as well. If it cannot be proven that there are parents who accidentally have children, than it cannot be proven that kids who don't have parents will kill themselves. It is also then a stereotype that kids need to fit in. It is also a stereotype that homosexuals are molesters. It's also not true that people with homosexual parents cannot fit in. Also, if a parent can learn how from an accidental birth (that at times is the reason for adoption,) than couldn't a homosexual parent learn to teach their child things about their own gender, or learn how to be a good parent when their child is the opposite gender?
And yes, people do not accidentally adopt. And that is why it is great that homosexuals purposefully do it. If a child is put up for adoption, and a homosexual couple WANTS and chooses to adopt a child, they will try their best to be a good parent, where as the heterosexual parents that might have put the child up for adoption failed to do so.
Debate Round No. 3
PiercedPanda

Con

First of all, I love star wars to :D And I thank you for not rebutting now that I understand, thank you.

REBUTTALS:

"Now, you have accused me of having information that is not backed up. However, you do as well."

If you properly read my arguments, you would notice I have on-line sources backing up my information. In your later arguments in this round, you also said i was stereotyping. But I'm not. I am simply claiming that a big amount of the children or parents will experience this.

"Firstly, you have claimed that homosexuals can be child molesters. That is not really true however. Most child molesters who molest children are not homosexuals in truth. And, some molest children of the same gender due to their deprivation of sexual intercourse with the other gender. But homosexuals are not child molesters. "

I did not say homosexuals are child molesters, I claimed that a big part of them are. So in allowing a homosexual to adopt, you are putting that child in greater risk of molestation.

"And yes, people do not accidentally adopt. And that is why it is great that homosexuals purposefully do it."

Heterosexual couples adopt to, we went over this already.

" Homosexual parents, like the Jedi, will be able to tell their children that they can "search their feelings" and do what they know is right, and so, if the child is not a homosexual, they will not become one."

If you read your words properly, in this argument once again you agreed with me, and said that being homosexual is wrong. You said that if the kid is not homosexual, he will do what is right and not become one. (paraphrased)

ARGUMENTS:

The child would have trouble making relationships. Think about it, let's say a gay couple adopts a child of the age of 3. He is at that age capable of making friends, and there is a great possibility he made friends and relationships in his orphanage.
Now he lives with gay parents, up to this age, he doesn't even know what a homosexual is. Now he has to be so confused, and frustrated. And let's say you adopt a child as a baby into a gay couple. He may not have made many friends, and he may think everyone is gay, because he may have never met a straight person. So when he goes to kindergarten, when he talks about his parents, he can get in trouble for sharing inappropriate things in class. And because of this, he may have trouble making friends.

Also I would once again like to quote:

"There are also health concerns. Among homosexuals there is a greater incidence of AIDS and HIV. Suicide rates are higher among homosexuals, men especially (about six times higher). And the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, such as herpes and genital warts, is higher among homosexuals as well. That"s not "hate speech," those are documented facts." [1]

So if this happened to a parent, the child would experience it. Especially suicide. If the child saw this, he would go through a state of trauma. He will have many problems.

Sorry I didn't give a lot of arguments this round, I don't have enough time :D

source:
1.http://www.wnd.com...
360mph

Pro

I believe there was some confusion.

"If you read your words properly, in this argument once again you agreed with me, and said that being homosexual is wrong. You said that if the kid is not homosexual, he will do what is right and not become one. (paraphrased)"

Paraphrased or not, what I meant by the quote you picked from my argument is that IF the adopted child is not a homosexual, the parents will encourage him to do what is right, he will do what is right, and not become one. However, if the child IS a homosexual, he will become one. It was arguing against your point claiming that adopted children of homosexuals would follow the footsteps of their parents. It was my way of saying that they will only become homosexuals if they truly are, and if they are not, they will not become one.

Now, I must accuse you of purposefully starting and ending quotes in places that help you and ignoring the bigger picture. Essentially, I'm saying that you quoted what I said, not what I meant.

"Firstly, you have claimed that homosexuals can be child molesters. That is not really true however. Most child molesters who molest children are not homosexuals in truth. And, some molest children of the same gender due to their deprivation of sexual intercourse with the other gender. But homosexuals are not child molesters. "

Firstly, notice how I said "can" and not "are" in the first sentence. I do however say "But homosexuals are not child molesters" in the last sentence. However, the next sentence shows that I am not saying that you are claiming all homosexuals to be molesters. I am simply using it as a transition into my next point of the argument. The next few sentences were... "People are. Human beings are. People of all races, genders, sexual preferences, etc. Also, if that is the case, should African Americans not be allowed to have children because they are all murdering drug addicts or drug dealers? Of course not. That, as your point is, is simply a stereotype (which if I recall you have accused me of including in my own arguments.)" This shows that I was saying there are some homosexuals who may be child molesters, however, it's not just homosexuals, but people in general.

It also leads me to my next point, that if we should be able to prevent homosexuals from adopting, why can't we stop black people from having children. Better yet, why don't we just not allow black people in public or out of executive's branch supervision? A great sum of criminals happen to be African American. So, why can't we just put them all under house arrest or something? Because that's simply unfair.

Also, their are requirements for adopting a child. Not just anybody can walk in and adopt a child. There is a process and a background check. So, if the couple are child molesters, they can be denied. If they hide it, then the issue is not that homosexuals are adopting children, the issue is that the process for adopting a child needs to be improved.

Heterosexuals do adopt also, yes, this is true. However, not all do, and if a safe homosexual couple wants to adopt a child, why should we leave the child in the orphanage until some heterosexual couple comes?

"First of all, fitting it. Many teenagers and children nowadays need to 'fit in'."

This WAS a stereotype and there is no evidence to back this up, and no citation next to the paragraph.

So, I will say again, that there is no reason not to allow homosexuals to adopt children. There are background checks for adopters, and if that is not enough, then either no child should be adopted or better background checks must be done, as not allowing a homosexual couple adopt is unconstitutional. The only way to legally do this is to make the background checks better, or no orphaned child may be adopted. I will say that sometimes the Constitution is not always correct in my opinion, however, in this case it is. You are putting blame on a group of people for child molestation by saying that homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt because most molesters are homosexuals. If you weren't, your argument would be that people shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it puts the child at risk of being molested. But you blamed homosexuals for something that others do. If this was to become a law, homosexuals would be angry as they would not be able to adopt, and children would still be molested and not just by homosexuals. You're arguing for injustice.
Debate Round No. 4
PiercedPanda

Con

For this final round, I hope that neither of us rebuttal. This round is no more than a summary of our previous arguments. (no further arguments)

So basically, I have a few main points.

First of all, a greater amount of child molesters are homosexual. I am not saying all of them are, I am simply saying that the child would have a greater chance of being molested if adopted by a homosexual.

Secondly, homosexuality goes against many religions. In being homosexual, and adopting a kid, you are disrespecting many religions and beliefs.

Thirdly, a parent's influence is big on a child. If the child has gay parents, they would have a greater chance of becoming gay. If this continued, than eventually, the biggest amount of population would be homosexual, lowering the population dramatically.

Fourthly, homosexuals statistically have a greater chance of diseases, depression and suicide. A child being exposed to this would have a negative impact.

Fifthly, the child would have trouble fitting in, and would more likely be bullied.

Sixthly, you are preventing the child of a mother or father (depending on sex of the homosexual couple.

And lastly, the child would have trouble making relationships for the reason explained earlier, they would have trouble fitting in.

I had a lot of fun in this debate. I thank pro for this debate. It was truly enjoyable.

Vote in the words of Spock, "KHAAAAAANNNN" (pronounced "con")
360mph

Pro

As for my summary to this debate, I would just like to say that the Con has failed to truly disprove the idea that there's no reason for homosexuals to not be able to adopt children. The Con has said things, and continues to do so in his conclusion, however, my arguments have shown how there's no reason to not allow homosexuals to adopt, and in some cases, how homosexuals could be good parents. My points are that there is no reason for homosexuals to be oppressed of their rights. Homosexuals are not criminals. Maybe some are, but not all, and you cannot oppress all people of a certain group of a right for the wrongdoings of a few members, and not oppress all from another group that also has wrongdoing members. That is unconstitutional, and worse, unfair. Also, homosexuals are probably some of the best people to tell their kids to be who they are instead of follow a crowd, a valued concept. Homosexuals choose to adopt children, which is great for the adopted children, and because they chose to be a parent, they have a better chance of being a good parent than heterosexuals who accidentally birthed a child.

I apologize for being a running politician in the previous paragraph, I thank my opponent for the debate, and just as the Con did, I shall end my portion of the debate with a nerdy reference.

Don't vote for my opponent, because he's a Death Eater...and a Sith Lord. And Giovanni from Team Rocket...(well actually that would be cool)...I mean he's a Rattata. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by kaufmanj1973 2 years ago
kaufmanj1973
Regardless of whether or not every child "deserves" to grow up with both a mother and a father, the fact remains that there are many children out there who have NEITHER. What is better for the child: to grow up with two loving parents (whatever the sexual orientation), or for the child to sit in orphanages or travel from foster home to foster home?

The lessons supposedly taught by a mother and a father are not exclusive. What about a father who is the sole provider if the mother dies during childbirth, or in an accident, or however else? Is that father a "bad father" simply because he doesn't run right out and replace his dead wife with another woman who can raise his child?

A mother is NOT "someone who gives birth to a child." Biologically, sure. But if a woman adopts a child, she has not given birth to that child, so therefore she would not be the child's mother?
Posted by H4writer98 2 years ago
H4writer98
I have absolutely nothing against homosexuality. But, I do not think they should be aloud to adopt. Every child deserves to grow up with both a mother and a father. A mother teaches their child manners. If the child is a girl the mother teaches certain areas of life and the father "keeps the boys away." If the child is a boy the mother makes sure he is mannerly and the father teaches things like maybe sport. Not being stereotypical they're just some examples. Basically, a child needs two parents. One male one female. For example, Elton John and his partner have adopted and on the birth certificate Elton Johns partner is down as the mother. I'm sorry but that is wrong. A mother is someone who gives birth to a child. Therefore, they cannot be a man.
Posted by PiercedPanda 2 years ago
PiercedPanda
It takes a long time for an adoption to fully succeed. Sometimes it takes 10 years even! So it's not really the heterosexual famillies fault that the homosexual familly started adopting first.
Posted by kaufmanj1973 2 years ago
kaufmanj1973
Interesting arguments, but the facts are faulty.

1. There are many heterosexual couples who do not have children, biological or adopted. The PURPOSE of marriage is NOT to have children; marriage is a union between the two people involved, children are just a potential possibility.

2. Studies show that a vast majority of child molestation (sexual assaults against children) are committed by white, heterosexual males. This comes directly from the U.S. Department of Justice.

3. The purpose of adoption is to provide a child with a safe, loving, stable environment. That should be the primary goal, regardless of the age, gender, or sexual orientation of the adoptive parents. You say that the children being adopted by gay parents are then missing out on the opportunity to be adopted by heterosexual parents. That begs the question: WHERE ARE ALL OF THESE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES, AND WHY AREN'T THEY STEPPING UP AND ADOPTING THESE KIDS? Given the choice between being adopted by a gay couple, or sitting in a deficient and crowded foster care system until the age of 18 hoping that a heterosexual couple is going to come along, I would say that the gay adoptive parents are the preferable choice!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
PiercedPanda360mphTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources definitely go to Con. I thought that conduct should go to Pro because I felt that Pro was right in saying that Con was making strong generalizations. But I'm afraid that Con simply did not make enough claims to defend Con's attacks about bulling, depression, and the like. Great debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
PiercedPanda360mphTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't believe I'm doing this, but I have to vote Con. I frankly don't find any of his arguments convincing, but Pro simply doesn't do enough to counter them. I see some mitigation, and little else. The few benefits that Pro provides (which, for some reason, lack the fact that many of these kids will never find a home, as well as several other arguments) are simply too philosophical in nature and never impacted out. Since I'm not going to insert my arguments into the round (though, frankly, it would be incredibly easily to do so, given the gigantic holes in Con's arguments), I have to hand the debate to him.
Vote Placed by Hierocles 2 years ago
Hierocles
PiercedPanda360mphTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very close debate, but overall I found 360mph to be the most persuasive.