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

Homosexuals should be able to adopt

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 42154
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




(Note- this is not a religous debate)

First Round- Acceptance
Second Round- Argument
Third Round- Rebuttals

Good luck opponent- have fun! I will be taking pro for this argument


Good luck opponent, I think you'll need it :) !
Debate Round No. 1


I will get right into my argument, thanks for accepting the debate con.

Argument 1- Restricting the right of homosexuals to adopt is state sanctioned segregation.
If the government restricts the right of homosexuals to adopt, based solely on the fact of their sexual orientation, the state is "or policy of keeping people of different races, religions, etc., separate from each other"[1]. While they aren't physically separating homosexuals from non--homosexuals, they are separating them based on their rights.

Argument 2- Homosexual parents are just as good at raising chidlren as heterosexual partners
Experts say their is no evidence that children who are raised in gay households are any worse off then their heterosexaul counterparts [2]



Cezar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Argument 3- There are so many orphans to adopt
If homosexuals can adopt it will lower the amount of oprhans and give them homes. Currently there are 153 million orphans [1]



Well... Firstly I wanna say that I'm soooo sorry for not participating at round 2, but I'll try to make clear in only one round why homosexuals should not be able to adopt!
Firstly about what team Pro said today we see the following:
- about the first argument , the Pro says that the government shouldn't restrict homosexual's rights because he is separating homosexuals from heterosexuals, the truth is no democratic government should ever attempt to regulate people's reproductive rights and dictate who is or isn't allowed to have children. And unless a massive harm can be shown to the child, the government usually doesn't take children away from their parents, as that might be more harmful. But the government is allowed to define what a family is or should be, under the law.
- about the second argument, I can just say that is completely wrong, because children raised by gay couples will find it more difficult to learn appropriate gender roles in the absence of male and female role-models. Although not an exact match single parents provide a similar case where there has not been someone of the other gender as a role model. Although the evidence is not nearly as conclusive as is often claimed1 there have been many studies that have shown that two parents from different genders is beneficial to the child in its development2. Similarly it is often claimed that boys develop negative attitudes to study because there are very few male teachers in primary schools3.

1 Flood, Michael, Fatherhood and fatherlessness, The Australia institute, Discussion Paper Number 59, (November 2003), p.xi ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)

2 Sarkadi, Anna et al., 'Father's involvement and children's developmental outcomes: a systematic review of longitudinal studies, ActaPaediatrica, 97 (2008) pp.153-158, p.155 (accessed 2nd August 2011)

3 Gerver, Richard, 'Lack of male role models a primary concern', The Telegraph, 22nd March 2009, (accessed 2nd August 2011)

- about the third argument : the Pro says there are many orphans and voting this motion will make this number more little, but numerous studies have shown that children do best when they are raised by two married, biological parents1. In the case of adopted children that is impossible, but a man and a woman is the best approximation of that family. Since that is the best environment to raise children, the government has to encourage and promote these traditional unions, not undermine them. Allowing gay couples to legally become parents, would legally and socially redefine what a family is and society as a whole may suffer. Children who are adopted already face bullying and exclusion in school because of their difference, placing them in same-sex households will double their exclusion and make their lives much harder than if placed in an opposite-sex household.

1 Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 4th November 1950 ,( accessed 2nd August 2011)

And now my argument is based on the fact that the focus of this debate should not be on gay rights, but on what is in the best interest of the adopted child. The adoption process' goal is to find the most suitable parents for that child, not to resolve other social inequalities and injustices. Being raised in a traditional family, by a mother and father, is the best environment for a child. Studies have shown that children who are raised by homosexual couples can have problems with substance abuse, violence and 'at risk' behaviour. Therefore the state has the obligation to try to provide the child with that environment.

So at the end... we BEG you, for the children, to vote the OPPOSITION! :)
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ScrinTech 2 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit calls for automatic conduct reduction. Links go to PRO, as he was the only one to add any links to support his arguments. CON displayed bad spelling and grammar in round three, as forgetting to capitilize many times. Arguments are tied. Con may have won if he did not A) Beg us to vote for him B) Not forfeit. Debate goes to pro.