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

Resolved: The US Federal government should legalize same - sex 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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 824 times Debate No: 92263
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)





  1. 1. No kritiks
  2. 2. The first round is for acceptance only
  3. 3. Fine, morality can be used.
  4. 4. Be courteous
  5. 5. Express interest in the comments before accepting, this argument should be impossible to accept otherwise

Round Structure
R1: Acceptance
R2: Cases
R3: Rebuttal
R4: Final Focus

Legalization: Removing state barriers to allow for same-sex adoption nationwide.
Same-sex adoption: Couples who share the same gender adopting a child previously up for adoption



I want to thank Pro in advance for devoting their time and hard work to this debate. I look forward to listening and learning from pro's perspective on same sex adoptions. I also ask that all readers be attentive, open-minded, ensuring fairness and acting courteous to both sides.

I would now like to accept this debate as Con
The US Federal government should NOT legalize same-sex adoptions
Debate Round No. 1



We need to see that under the status quo that benefits to the people should be the metric in today’s debate for the judges. If I can prove that homosexuals adopting is a net benefit to people, then the judge should vote on the affirmation.

Contention 1: Lack of people adopting

In the status quo, there are not many people adopting children within the foster-care system. According to Child Welfare, over the period from 2008 to 2012 (2), nationally the rate of adoption decreased. All the while, the amount of children in the foster care system increases. According to ABC News in 2006 (1), the amount of infants in the foster-care system increases by 40,000 every year. Why does this matter? Well, according to the Washington Post in 2007:
“In nearly every state, the cost of providing basic care for a foster child exceeds the government's foster-care reimbursement rate, according to national research released last week (3).” What is shown is the fact that when looking at the status quo, child care is not funded as well in the foster-care system, which results in services being not as effective. What this leads to are children not given the proper care which results in criminal activity and dropping out of school. If we were to look at the Christian Science Monitor in 2010, we can see that out of hundreds of foster-care children surveyed, 60% ended up convicted of a crime, all the while only 6% had any college degree (4). This problem is easily shown, because without support from future parents, the result is putting children in an ineffective system that usually results in conviction of a crime and low educational success, which needs to be prioritized in today’s debate. Thus, the quicker the foster-care children leave the system, the more likely these effects will not take place. What can be easily seen is that by allowing same sex couples to adopt, we would see that less children would be in the broken foster-care system and more in homes where they can grow with support from potential parents. In fact, we can see that rates of same-sex couples adopting has gone up. According to the Williams Institute, we see the following:

‘In 2000, the Census reported about 63,000 (same-sex) couples raising children. Today, the figure is now more than 110,000 (5).”

With this, we can see that getting rid of the current state barriers to same-sex adoption, we would be increasing this number exponentially. Keeping in mind that this figure has grown this much despite state barriers is truly amazing. The Washington Times in 2011 outlines the three barriers in three points (6).

• Many government safety-net programs use definitions of family tied to marital status, which may exclude same-sex partners.

• Because of lack of legal recognition for their unions, gay and lesbian parents can face heavier tax burdens, higher costs for health insurance, and diminished financial protections in the event of death or disability.

• When same-sex parents separate, one parent may lose custody or visitation rights, even in cases where he or she had been a child’s primary caregiver.

With this in mind, we can see empirically that removing opposition to same-sex couples adopting, the result would be an obvious raise in adoption.

Contention 2: Alternative just as effective

My opponent will obviously bring up the common point made that some people think that same-sex couples are not going to be as effective parents as heterosexual couples. This premise is false. According to a psychologist in Clark University by the name of Abbi Goldberg, gay parents tend to be more motivated and more committed due to the fact that they simply do not have the same rate of accidental children as heterosexual parents (7). Not only this, but the Boston University cites a study following lesbian parents and found that the majority of children in the family had high social, and educational success (8). This is quantified by Simon Crouch, a lead investigator on the subject of same-sex adoption shows in his study in the BMC public health journal shows that children from same-sex couples were 6% higher on general health and family cohesion (9). My opponent will also bring up social stigma as well when related to same sex adoption. However, when we turn towards a report of the National Academy of Pediatrics, children of same-sex couples are more resilient to social stigma (9).

Contention 3: Cost

The amount spent on the foster care system is huge. According to ABC News in 2006, we can clearly see that taxpayers pay $40,000 dollars per child in foster care, resulting in $22 billion spent on the system (10). With same-sex adoption, we see an obvious decrease in spending that means more taxpayer funding for other important projects such as public infrastructure and other important issues related to the American people’s need. This is because we would be seeing less of a need for funding foster-care systems because there is less need of funding with less children in the systems.

Contention 4: Constitution

According to the 14th amendment, all people should be treated equally under the law (11). With this in mind, if we were to allow for one group to adopt, by the 14th amendment it is an obligation that others are considered equal under the law as well. By not affirming, we are setting a dangerous precedent that allows for violation of the constitution to occur, specifically the 14th amendment which provides due process under law for all citizens, which could lead to potential harms to citizens in the future with unfair laws. In other words, we are reaching an obligation of constitutionality by affirming.


We need to see that under the status quo, there is a net benefit to affirming this resolution to the people due to helping everyone who lives under the constitution, including the people in the foster care system. Thus, I urge an affirmative vote.


1. (

2. ( C: Total adoptions for selected years, 2001–2012)

3. (

4. (

5. (

6. (

7. (

8. (

9. (

10. (

11. (



Both parties in this debate are genuinely trying to help children. Pro and I will give our best projection of the future, to prove what the best way to help our children will be, because it is the children's interest that must come first. It is up to each one of us to be informed and do our utmost to participate so we can better our nation. As the wise old proverb that states; "if you want to know what the future will be like watch a child play." The well-being of our nation's children is not something we should be willing to gamble on if there is the slightest chance of harm to our children.
It is well known that parents make an invaluable contribution to society by shaping the character and personality of their children. During the long, eventful process of rearing a child, parents will have to devote time to warding off the negative influences that threaten their child. Child specialists say that by the age of eight months children will already form a strong bond to their parents. This leads us to the fact that it is essential that children have committed parents in their life and that this nurturing adds to their psychological health. Whether homosexuals can adopt or not does not change this line of reasoning and so this is a point where both sides can agree. Yet, I have to play the Devils advocate whether homosexuals provide a good environment where children will infact flourish.
We need to determine set a living standard for what a child needs in their life, each one of these standards are important none can be overlooked.:
To view the whole list for the best interest of children can be viewed at the site. I will list a few. (B) The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and continuation of the education and raising of the child in its cultural and religious heritage. (D0The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws. (N) The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home or homes. (O) The moral fitness of the parties involved. (T) Exposure to domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against, or witnessed by the child, as well as the likelihood that the child may be exposed to further incidents of violence while in the care of a parent.
Homosexuals are not necessarily the sort that deal drugs and engage in domestic violence. In fact, many of them have good jobs, stable incomes, demonstrate genuine compassion, and would do almost anything to give the best possible care to a child in their custody. In short, they're good-hearted people. However, there is yet more points to consider. Many couples are involved in bad life style choices which translates to them being unfit for child rearing. The problem, of course, is that homosexuals are still a subset of the "bad lifestyle" sort. And "bad lifestyle" (across the board) certainly translates to "unfit for child rearing.
Behaviors always have contexts, and homosexual activity is in the context of 1) a redefinition of sexual morals, and 2) its accompanying promiscuity. When you redefine sexual morals in a far more loose manner, consequences follow--such as an increase in promiscuity and disease.
If mere homosexual activity harms no one, then why do gay men have a lifespan that is significantly less than heterosexual men? Why is the homosexual man 44 to 86 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV than heterosexual men? Why is the incidence of domestic violence double that of heterosexual men (3)? Why do lesbian women have greater health risks than heterosexual women (4)?
1. Gay men lifespan shorter than nongay men: "The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for men in general
2. "In 2007, MSM [Men Sex with Men] were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women."
3. Domestic Violence higher among homosexuals: "'the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.
4. Sex of women with women at greater health risk than women with men: "For women, a history of sex with women may be a marker for increased risk of adverse sexual, reproductive, and general health outcomes compared with women who reported sex exclusively with men
Conduct versus Orientation
Homosexual lifestyles are full of promiscuity and related health risks. A person"s inclination toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate other sexual orientations such as adultery and pedophilia. Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.
The way homosexuals try to get around this is to legitimize and protect any sexual conduct associated with an orientation. Why are orientation and conduct so important? Because sexual conduct has serious public health consequences which society has both a right and an obligation to regulate. In contrast, there are no public health implications to sexual orientation properly defined.
Even a pedophile"s orientation, abhorrent as it may be, is harmless to the public if he never acts upon it.
Pro must agree that children of lesbian or gay parents are disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of biological parents that are still together. When principles of the family dynamics are followed then the family unit works very effectively. The best way to discern what is most beneficial to children is by studying what nature intended for them. The study that helps us to understand is nature Biomimicry. This study seeks sustainable solutions to human challenges by emulating nature"s time-tested patterns and strategies. This very point emphasizes that nature has enough wisdom to sustain it's existence in the most successful way, better than any design by man. Thus, it is inborn wisdom given to us by nature that tells us a child needs both a mother and a father, for their long term benefit.
What the Gay right communities has attempted to accomplish by making homosexual adoption legal is summed up by one word Acculturation: When individuals or groups of people transition from living a lifestyle of their own culture to moving into a lifestyle of another culture, they must acculturate, or come to adapt the new culture's behaviors, values, customs, and language. Acculturation of the gay community is so wide spread America has had to accept the vernacular of the homosexual culture.
Example: The term homosexuality is now accepted as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality, a state-of-being completely independent of conduct.
In reality, the "gay" movement does not want a biological cause to be found. If science were to identify a biological cause of homosexuality, that day would begin the "race for the cure."Since the "gay" movement can"t prove biological cause, the assertion that homosexuals are "born that way" remains nothing but a hypothesis: one which provides no justification for abandoning long-standing, experience-tested social policies.
A very important question must be asked: When same-sex adoption is accepted, what purpose is really served, by what follows? Is it really to the benefit of the children or are the children just guinea pigs in a social experiment? Is the underlying purpose to aid sexual orientation theory which creates a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status?
Change the Cause
The idea that same-sex adoptions, help children find a good home is a poor model. It is not the most workable solution to abolishing the problem. We need to confront the problems head on. To understand this consider;
The reasons that so many children are given up by biological parents are as follows.
1. Lack of financial means, resources, and support to raise a child. 2.Abusive relationship or environment or both parents may have a physical or mental disability. 4.Lack of a two-parent household with an invested partner. 5. A birth mother may feel that her age gives her baby an unfair disadvantage 6.Culture, Morals or Religion. 7 .Birth parents from some cultures may place a baby up for adoption if they prefer one gender over another.
If you want to help our nation's children meet your high standards of living from our list above then resolving these causes must be your chief concern. The best way to help families succeed in providing a quality life to their children is to protect the integrity of families. We need to help biological PARENTS WHO WANT TO keep their children to KEEP THEIR CHILDREN! Then and only then should we try to find a family for children that closely resemble that which nature intended. Why is it biological families can not support children's best interest, but in the case of homosexual adoptions we change the criteria as to what is in a child's best interest? A Child's best interest is not a slogan! It really means something. If we are going to consider making homosexual adoption legal and we are going to act meaningfully and not haphazardly, we must rationally count the cost; Think before we act. Right judgment, then, and proper actions always go together.
Debate Round No. 2



My opponent has cited Canadian statistics, which may apply, yet I would like to remind my opponent that we are debating whether the US should legalize same sex adoption, not Canada.

Rebuttal 1: “Bad lifestyle”

My opponent claims that there could be problems as homosexuals are supposedly worse parents than those who are straight. However, I have shown with my case that this is false. Let us look toward Simon Crouch, a lead investigator into the subject when he reports that children of same-sex couples scored 6% higher on general health and family cohesion (1). Not only this, but the sooner we get these children out of the already flawed system of foster care into loving families, the better. Remember, the Christian Science Monitor estimates in 2010 that only 6% of former foster children studied received a college degree and 60% ended up convicted of a crime (2). This is a direct result of the foster care system showing its wear and tear trying to accommodate for so many people in the foster care system while still trying to provide important services. So, regardless of whether a homosexual couple will not be able to become parents, we need to affirm the resolution and stop the degradation of the children in foster care.

Next, my opponent claims that homosexual males and lesbians are more likely to suffer health risks and die at a younger age. I will go down the health risks in the order provided.

1. Lifespan

According to my opponent, gay men live 8 to 20 years less than heterosexual men. This is from a study in Vancouver that suggested the same thing that is stated by my opponent. However, according to Politifact, the actual story is much different. When delegate Bob Marshall stated that homosexual behavior cuts life expectancy by 20 years, the authors responded by saying that the claim was a gross representation of their work (3). Not only this, but the authors claimed that in the status quo, this is quite different as AIDS and HIV declined after 1996, which was not taken into account in the study. We can also see, from the Center for Disease Control that the same thing happened in the US as deaths from HIV peaked in 1995 at 36.3 deaths per 100,000 people, and decreased in 2010 to 2.7 per 100,000 people. Ergo, we see this point having no more bearing on the debate. Even if you do not by that argument, my opponent has not yet offered the significance of why this matters when it comes to caring for children.

2. Homosexual sex means more HIV

I am not saying this is not true, but this has become meaningless. Mostly because this can be solved in the post fiat world. Currently, there are many barriers to health care for same-sex couples due to their own orientation. In fact, according to the National Women’s Law Center approximately 8% of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were rejected outright when they needed healthcare (4). This also extends to 20% of HIV positive individuals (4). However, in the post fiat world people would be more open and accepting of homosexuality so people can get the treatment they need. After all, about 1/5 LGBT people are actually withholding information about their sexual practice from their doctors, out of fear of refusal (4). This can be addressed, yet this entire argument is in the wrong as it implicitly assumes that receiving AIDS was a rational choice and should result in people not being able to care for children, which my opponent has not supported. In other words, this argument is not topical in addressing the needs of the children who are still suffering in the broken foster care system.

3. Domestic violence

This entire argument is quite untrue. If we were to turn toward the NCBI in recent years, we can see that there are no significant differences between domestic violence from same-sex couples or heterosexual couples in terms in terms of physical, or sexual abuse (5). Even if you do not buy that argument, let us ask ourselves why a phenomenon as described by my opponent would exist. If we were to look toward Mr. Carroll of Northwestern University, we would find that internal and external stressors could be the cause of supposed increases in domestic violence among homosexual couples due to being marginalization (6). However, we are becoming a more progressive society that values the individual and people’s choices. This means that these rates will certainly shrink as we pass this resolution as it solidifies a precedent in acceptance of people. Not only this, but there have been no recent examples my opponent has cited showing that the removal of state barriers to facilitate same-sex adoption caused extreme harm to children in the past.

4. Women having sex with women health risk

There is no link to the resolution why sexual activity that can lead to health risks should ever be a metric for allowing someone to parent or not.

Rebuttal 2: Acculturation

No, I do not think that children who are raised by homosexuals are at any way disadvantaged. I think that children who are in the foster care system are, but I have proven otherwise. The main argument that my opponent poses is the concept of biomimicry. I have shown real statistics that prove otherwise including Simon Crouch who estimates that children living with same-sex couples rank 6% higher on health and family cohesion (1). Biomimicry is simply a philosophical theory that my opponent has not yet proven. The rest of the argument he has provided holds nothing on today’s debate since my opponent is attacking the gay movement, not the issue at hand, which is whether children are better off in the foster care system or in a gay household. The only part of the argument I will address at the end is my opponent’s question. He, (condescendingly,) asks if I affirm the resolution because I want equity with sexual orientation as well if I am thinking of these children as “guinea pigs” in a social experiment. No, I am affirming this resolution to address the fact that currently children are suffering in the foster care system and that this is a solution to the problem.

Rebuttal 3: Counter plan

My opponent has brought up a counter plan that involves prioritizing the family, and addressing 4 arbitrary factors for heterosexual couples. This is vague, which causes a problem since my opponent cannot specifically tell me his plan. However, I will address the one thing he has stated that seems to be somewhat specific, which is helping biological families keep their children. This is fine, in fact I would encourage it. Here is the thing though, it is not a counter plan. This is because it can be used in conjunction with the resolution at hand. My opponent has still not shown what makes this plan of his work, or what specifically we would do to enact said plan. My opponent has not even shown the impacts of the counter plan he has provided and has limited his argument to the bare minimum.


My opponent must prove to me that any of his theoretical arguments apply despite the statistics I offer to the contrary. Not only this, but my opponent has to prove net harms to passing the resolution, which he has yet to do as well and has assumed that I would implicitly see his impacts. For instance, my opponent claims that domestic violence in higher with same-sex couples, yet does not link the argument by saying how this will impact the children. This seems to be the only one that is topical as the other arguments in the section I referenced had little to do with the competence of parenting skill for same sex couples.


1. (
2. (
3. (
4. (
5. (
6. (
7. (



Pro's argument has a specific agenda, which is to generate an emotional response in this debate, similar to the questions in the surveys given to people on the matter of same-sex adoption. One such question reads: A child would be better off in a home with same-sex parents than no home at all. Yes or no

This is all a part of the Acculturation of America. Homosexuals want us to feel sorry for them as an oppressed minority. Why do tricks like this work? It is every bit as studies of the human brain show:

Neurons that fire together wire together:
To oversimplify: Our brain cells communicate with one another via synaptic transmission"one brain cell releases a chemical (neurotransmitter) that the next brain cell absorbs. This communication process is known as "neuronal firing." When brain cells communicate frequently, the connection between them strengthens. Messages that travel the same pathway in the brain over & over begin to transmit faster & faster. With enough repetition, they become automatic. That"s why we practice things like hitting a golf ball"with enough practice, we can go on automatic pilot by Deann Ware, Ph.D.

This is where we find the thick interwoven web of disadvantaged children, and a coercion effect to feel the same attitude towards homosexuals.

Conduct versus Orientation

Repeatedly we return to the emerging pattern of the key issue; Conduct versus Orientation. Should we treat homosexuals as an oppressed minority because they can not help being who they are? Or, are they merely normal people, who are engaged in deprivation? Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality. Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society. Depravity of mind can also be described as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a person owes to another, or to a community.

Seek the Truth

SCIENTISTS are hard at work to try to find genetic causes for alcoholism, homosexuality, promiscuity, violence, other aberrant behavior, and even for death itself. Would it not be a relief to find that we are not responsible for our actions, but are merely victims of biology? It is human nature to blame someone or something else for our errors.

Trying to pin the entire blame for our misconduct on our genes simply does not work. Rather than helping us to solve or overcome our problems, notes Psychology Today, doing so "may be teaching us a helplessness that is at the root of many of our problems. Instead of reducing the incidence of these problems, this seems to have fueled their growth."

In fact, research attempting to link specific genes to human behavior has been unsuccessful. For instance, in Psychology Today, a report on efforts to find genetic causes for depression states: "Epidemiologic data on the major mental illnesses make it clear that they can't be reduced to purely genetic causes." The report gives an example: "Americans born before 1905 had a 1 percent rate of depression by age 75. Among Americans born a half century later, 6 percent become depressed by age 24!" It thus concludes that only external or social factors can bring about such dramatic changes in such a short time.

What do these and numerous other studies tell us? While genes may play a role in shaping our personalities, there are clearly, other influences: A major factor is our environment, which has undergone radical changes in modern times. Concerning what today's youth are exposed to in popular entertainment, the book Boys Will Be Boys observes that it is unlikely that children will develop sound moral principles when they "grow up watching tens of thousands of hours of TV shows and films in which people are assaulted, shot, stabbed, disemboweled, chopped up, skinned, or dismembered, when children grow up listening to music which glorifies rape, suicide, drugs, alcohol, and bigotry.

If being a homosexual is not natural then perhaps we need to consider that homosexuality is learned through empiricism.
Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions. Empiricists may argue, however, that traditions arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.

Here is a quote from such a person who CHOSE not to practice homosexuality anymore.

"When I was a young boy in boarding school, I got involved in homosexual practices, although I never thought of myself as being a homosexual. My parents were divorced, and I craved the parental affection that I never received. After finishing school, I did compulsory military service. There was a group of homosexuals in the barracks next to mine. I became envious of their lifestyle, so I started associating with them. After associating with them for a year, I began to think of myself as a homosexual. "This is the way I am," I reasoned, "and I can do nothing about it."

Now, can you imagine this coming from children raised by homosexuals?

Survey questions that are also asked about gay rights are;
It is ok for gay couples to be foster parents. yes or no

If a foster child wants to be adopted by his/her gay foster parents, we should award him/her that opportunity. yes or no

Woe! Wait! Backup! Gay couples want to be foster parents? The foster system that has been demonized in this debate. Let us ponder over this thought; although both sides recognize that the foster system has problems, only one side attacks the foster parents. Pro has not given credit to the numerous benevolent families involved in foster care of minor children:
"Foster parent adoptions account for more than half the adoptions of children from foster care. According to the national Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), in FY 2010, 53 percent of children adopted from foster care were adopted by their foster parents" (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011).

'A Brighter Day' even offers training for foster parents to enrich a child's life-

"Making the decision to open up your home to a child in need is not an easy one " every day, foster children fight stigma and fear, but every day these children spend outside of a home is a day further from success."

"We believe that when a child is given stability, love and compassion, they have a much higher chance of growing into contributing members of our society."

"At A Brighter Day, our goal is to empower foster families for success in child placement. Love and passion are necessary for foster success, but alone they are not enough. The training we provide gives you the skill set to work with the trauma, so many foster children have faced and understand what it means for the child, for you, and for your family. The team at A Brighter Day will educate you for success, offering guidance and training along the way."


Pro agrees with my plan to keep children with their biological parents that want to keep their children. As long as a child is in foster care then the biological parent can get their children back. If we can eliminate the cause for losing a child, one way is to give a parent a fair trial which they lack, and stop rewarding the state monetarily for taking children. Those who support this plan can go to the website for the Family Civil Liberties Union.

Pro's arguments only pose as if they are for the children's benefit. Ergo, in reality the solution is only tailored to the needs of the Gay community. Pro wants to base the safety of our children on mere conjectures.

Pro sites the Liberal Dominated Mass Media as his resource "politifact" which is more like politi-fiction. Politifact is found on the watchdog journalism fact finders all the time for being inaccurate. This is hardly a credible source. The interviewers care more about "fund than fact."

Pro relies on Studies which are limited to observation perspective, position, and bias. Studies which are not based on vivid portrayals of experience.

In R3 Pro relies on the fallacy "Attacking the Evidence" which does not prove that Pro is correct. That is like telling someone; 'The vet can't give any reasonable explanation for how my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There's no other logical explanation!"

When the standard for a child's best interest came up, Pro could only focus on the Source, that Canadians came up with my example, never mind what children need.


I ask our readers to observe how bias can really change how a person interprets evidence, because Pro failed to see how Promiscuity, domestic violence, and health conditions could be poor lifestyle choices which affect children's lives. Not to mention the infantile development found in children of gay parents, the escalation of crime (especially violent crimes), proliferation of sexual transmitted and other diseases, the escalation of mental illness, chronic substance abuse, and gender confusion. These are the results of citizens raised in unstable homes.

Debate Round No. 3


Rebuttal 1: Acculturation

My opponent brings this up yet again, however, whether or not acculturation exists has nothing to do with whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Since there is no impact, this entire argument falls. This doesn’t even fit in under the framework that me and my opponent agreed to about what would be best for the children being adopted. Regardless, I will say that my opponent does not explain the quote and its importance.
Rebuttal 2: Conduct vs. Orientation

Again, this argument is not topical as it only poses a question, and does not answer the question at hand. This has nothing about what is best for the child and simply rehashes my opponent’s opinion about gay people being depraved. However, my opponent has already stated the following:
“Homosexuals are not necessarily the sort that deal drugs and engage in domestic violence. In fact, many of them have good jobs, stable incomes, demonstrate genuine compassion, and would do almost anything to give the best possible care to a child in their custody. In short, they're good-hearted people.”
This is a complete contradiction from his depravity claim.

Rebuttal 3: Seek the truth

My opponent seems to be implying that children adopted by homosexual families are more likely to be homosexual. Not only has my opponent only relied on one quote from someone only labelled as a past homosexual, but the link is weak at most since he offers no evidence to back this up simply saying: imagine if this were to happen to a child. Well, that assumption is meaningless. My opponent has yet to refute my statistic showing that children of same-sex couples fare better on family cohesion and health by 6% (1). Regardless of whether my opponent claims that homosexual parents reap homosexual children is meaningless as it does not contribute to the debate and hand anyway. I would recommend debating the topic my opponent actually wants to debate which is, resolved: Homosexuals are evil and depraved. However, this is not that debate.

Rebuttal 3: Foster care

This argument in insensible as to why this needs to be focused on in the debate. I am not attacking the people adopting, no matter how few are. I am showing the fact that without the proper funding, children will suffer with mental health problems or a criminal record. Regardless of whether righter Day actually helps foster parents prepare for child care means nothing, as it does not show why this resolution should be negated.

Rebuttal 4: Cross-ex

My opponent claims that my arguments only hold water if I prove that children are ok living in homosexual households. I have, if you read my entire second contention of my case, the following is stated:

“According to a psychologist in Clark University by the name of Abbi Goldberg, gay parents tend to be more motivated and more committed due to the fact that they simply do not have the same rate of accidental children as heterosexual parents (7). Not only this, but the Boston University cites a study following lesbian parents and found that the majority of children in the family had high social, and educational success (8). This is quantified by Simon Crouch, a lead investigator on the subject of same-sex adoption shows in his study in the BMC public health journal shows that children from same-sex couples were 6% higher on general health and family cohesion (9).”

My opponent tries to destroy the credibility of Politifact by saying it is liberal. Allow us to see the “epitome” of “unbiased” by looking at his citations:
Do I have to explain this one? It could be written by anyone!
The Family Research Council has been labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (2).
This site is a Christian site from Truth Ministries, these people inherently hate gay people.
This is another church ministry that is against homosexuality and inherently right-wing.

Since my opponent has yet to prove any sort of substantial evidence Politifact being liberal, I do not see how this still stands. Regardless, the case that he makes is inherently biased with right-wing and church based evidence.

My opponent vaguely attempts to go against my studies, yet has no specific reason for going against them.

Next, my opponent backtracks by saying that me attacking his evidence is a fallacy. How? You just attacked mine!

I have simply reminded my opponent that the resolution specifies the US Federal Government as an actor, I was not attacking your evidence now. Also, yes, my arguments thus far have shown that it would be best for the child to be in a home off any kind, regardless of orientation. It is my opponent who has yet to refute them.

Rebuttal 4: Extensions

Extend my 1st, 3rd, and 4th contention which have yet to be touched upon.


In the end, my opponent does not offer the points necessary to negate today’s bill, so affirm.

A final focus is a final rebuttal; no new points may be brought up as far as points that have yet to be mentioned.
Also, the assumption that my argument is only there to “promote an agenda” is ridiculous. Refrain from saying such ludicrous attacks in the future or a voter may dock you points.


1. (
2. (



Christians can not be the scapegoat in this debate, because they really are not hateful. To the contrary, ask any Christians and they will tell you that they are willing to DIE on the cross for any homosexual. The reality is; Christian's love the person, they just can't condone the act because they believe it goes against God's laws. Furthermore, the act goes against Nature, which helps mankind by bestowing upon us; sustainable solutions to human challenges as well as time-tested patterns and strategies. Why else would a child develop such a close bond to Mom and Dad at 8 weeks old? Is it not a blessing that a child has both a Mother and a Father to protect and nourish them?

Are Christians unloving? No. Do Christians want to acculturate with the gays? No. Does anything mentioned here show that a Christian is not worth listening too? No.

What is Pro's premise that leads to the resolution? That there is a lack of adoption. Why do I need to refute Pro on this point? Some couples are lucky; the adoption goes smoothly. Increasingly, however, adoption is snarled, discouraging, and costly whether you adopt in the United States or internationally. That could be why only two percent of American families adopt.

Is the Alternative is just as effective; Not according to the study by the FRC, which claims "the population of homosexuals raising children is so small that it is difficult to obtain a representative sample."

Pro does not want to recognize the FRC as being credible, reducing his argument to an ad hominem. So, then, I will challenge the reader to see if the FRC has merit, In the debate I included in my sources an actual survey given to the population, These list several loaded questions that limit the choices to yes or no. Where are the studies that Pro shows? Have they talked to children who are now adults? Were the children surveyed, raised by Homosexuals or did their parents only have a same-sex experience for a short time? Were the respondents an accurate representation of the population? Did they ask loaded questions? Do you not think that the ones interviewed were informed as to what the nature of the study was about, thereby, being able to acquire consent? This was indeed a great way to ennoble the gay community. We can understand why they would be so generous as to donate their time to the reporter.

These studies may have given accurate observational perceptions about their life, however, we are looking for vivid portrayals of experience, making it real. Have we fallen into the trap of the four idols?

1. Idols of the Tribe; are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstractions in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration, distortion, and disproportion. Thus, men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world, but are not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen. They extend their opinions, investing the starry heavens with innumerable imaginary qualities. In a short time, these imaginings gain dignity and are mingled with the facts until the compounds become inseparable. This may explain Bacon's epitaph which is said to be a summary of his whole method. It reads, "Let all compounds be dissolved."
2. Idols of the Cave; are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolically; a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident. Thus, an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion. The chemist sees chemistry in all things, and the courtier, ever present at the rituals of the court, unduly emphasizes the significance of kings and princes.
3. Idols of the Marketplace; are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification, Bacon anticipated the modern science of semantics. According to him it is the popular belief that men form their thoughts into words in order to communicate their opinions to others, but often words arise as substitutes for thoughts and men think they have won an argument because they have out-talked their opponents. The constant impact of words, variously used without attention to their true meaning, only in turn; condition the understanding and breed fallacies. Words often betray their own purpose, obscuring the very thoughts they are designed to express.
4. Idols of the Theater; are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the fields of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect, they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end; systems barren of merit, parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.
-Francis Bacon

I must emphasize that Pro constantly relies on the alternative argument.: The alternative is typically answered by claims that the alternative cannot solve for the case's harms, meaning like a Counter-plan it has a tangible solvency deficit. While at the same time Pro's solution is only tailored to the needs of the Gay community.

Pro has given reasons why homosexuals would make good parents. Yet, he seems to dodge the most important issue; that these alleged good parents are also homosexuals. Can the government restrict a person's preference? No. Can the government restrict conduct that is harmful to children? Absolutely.

What would the outcome likely turn out to be, for the adopted child, if the government does not restrict this conduct and allows same-sex adoption;

Promiscuity, domestic violence, and health conditions. The escalation of crime (especially violent crimes), a proliferation of sexual transmitted and other diseases, the escalation of mental illness, chronic substance abuse, and gender confusion. These are the results of citizens raised in unstable homes.
Also, The feelings of the oppressed Gays & Lesbians will only translate to the children. These children are already going through a lot, losing their biological parents. Do they need to face the ridicule by the community, too, just for being raised by same-sex parents?!

When you look at this source tell me what you focus on.
B. (m) The capacity and willingness of each of the parties to involve themselves and members of their family in community activities and events. It is recognized that a parent's involvement in such activities helps to foster a sense of community and sets a good role model for the child(ren) which are important factors in the child's development and future opportunities.

To defend my source look at what the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child said:

The survival and development of the child are generally ensured best by remaining in or maintaining close contacts with the family and the child"s social and cultural networks.

* The challenge of social justice is to evoke a sense of community that we need to make our nation a better place, just as we make it a safer place.-- Marian Wright Edelman

Gay's themselves have other avenues to have children, even by having their own children. The child"s right to be brought up by his/her parents is a fundamental principle, recognized by the United Nations council.

Arguments Biological Parents face in the family court system are based on technicalities and deadlines rather than logic. These courts are too busy to hear all the facts. Court hearings become rocket dockets! Fair trials are in reality Kangaroo courts.

I proposed that we aid the children first. Help Parents who want to keep their children to keep their children. Even if they are single, poor, or divorced. Fight court corruption with the Family Civil Liberties Union! Help change the foster system and support our excellent foster parents!

It is high time that we come together and fight for our nation's children. We can restore strong families to how they were before the sexual liberation. The sexual liberation often focuses on terms of rights like "individual desires, what I want, what I may pursue", while it destroys the common good by undermining families and rotting whole neighborhoods from within. None of this seems to matter when the effects are; children growing up without fathers or mothers, of the incidence of venereal diseases, of births out of wedlock, of delinquency and crime.

In conclusion; Same-sex adoption should not be legal because Ignoring values and principles had destroyed the very fabric of our community, selfishness has guided our decisions. It is my fervent desire that all of our readers take to heart the following advice:

Marian Wright Edelman (born June 6, 1939) is an American activist for the rights of children. She has been an advocate for disadvantaged Americans for her entire professional life. She is president and founder of the Children's Defense Fund.
Marian Wright Edelman
"I think it is important that people who are perceived as liberals not be afraid of talking about moral and community values.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rightreform 4 months ago
PolitiFact"s record as a watchdog pundit is suspect so far. The ratio of fact checks is running almost 4-1 against right-leaning commentators, and a third of the nine critiques have been aimed at Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio.
The good news is that PolitiFact is taking suggestions. So here"s an admonition to the army of conservative citizen watchdogs already fact-checking the liberal media: Send your tips to truthometer@. or tweet them to @politifact.
Posted by Rightreform 4 months ago
Households with Children in the United States1

Opposite-Sex Couples
Married Opposite-Sex Couples Same-Sex
Unmarried Couples
Households with children 22,872,151 2,267,016 94,627
Biological only 90.80% 88% 72.80%
Step only or adopted only 4.40% 5.20% 21.20%
Combination 4.80% 6.80% 6%
Posted by Rightreform 4 months ago
I appreciate the comment, and for your fair judgement. I picked a tough side in this debate. The trouble is that homosexuality is argued wit logic-free values. In the United states value words as free and equal are used. What I have realized is that homosexual adoption already is legal in many states, yet this has barely made a dent for foster children gay's still face the same walls that heterosexuals do.
Households with Children in the United States1
Plus the number of children in homosexual homes are mostly biological explain that one to me if adultery and promiscuity are no prominent. Then you can explain to me how studies can be done on such a small group with adopted children.
Opposite-Sex Couples Unmarried
Opposite-Sex Couples Same-Sex
Households with children 22,872,151 2,267,016 94,627
Biological only 90.80% 88% 72.80%
Step only or adopted only 4.40% 5.20% 21.20%
Combination 4.80% 6.80% 6%
Theworldiscomplicated you are right it is complicated, many people lie about the success of their own political system and argue with studies in their favor when half the experts agree and half the experts disagree.
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 4 months ago
Good debates from both sides. Pro opened up using the fact that we don't have enough people adopting children, and that same sex couples could allow for more children to be adopted. Pro backed his information using quotes. Con agreed with Pro on that matter by stating that both sides want to help the children. Pro provided information by several universities, including Boston. Pro explained why same sex couples don't have negative consequences on their children, in fact, he provided the fact that they may be even better parents by saying that they motivate their kids more. Con did have a good argument on the fact that it is better to be safe than sorry when it comes to children's health. Pro provided the 14th amendment which is apart of one of the most important parts pf American History, the constitution. Con provided a good point that domestic abuse is high in homosexual couples than heterosexual couples. Con used sources to prove that homosexual couples are at a disadvantage.

Con provided a point regarding why should the criteria be different for homosexual couples. Pro provided information why certain points con provided, like lifespan really matters. Pro provided information proving that Con's point about domestic abuse is false. Pro rebuttaled cons assumed point, which is that same sex couples children could be more likely to be gay. Pro provided that this is not true. Con pointed out that Pro can't blame Christians for the whole problem. Con provided an interesting point that we could avoid all this by encouraging the biological parents to keep their kids.

This debate tied on all except who made better arguments. Pro made better arguments like that we need more children adopted or that heterosexuals have a lot of problems too. Con tended to bring up points, like the lifespan, which is irrelevant as to why they shouldn't be able to Scott. Great debate!
Posted by Rightreform 4 months ago
However, I am blocked, because of my age, rank and number of debates. It seems I am underestimated.
Posted by Rightreform 4 months ago
I'm up for this debate.
Posted by Wylted 4 months ago
You should just say gay adoption so people k ow what you're talking about
Posted by lord_megatron 4 months ago
It isn't legal in the US??
Posted by blamonkey 4 months ago
I have changed the rules to allow for morality, you may accept if you would like.
Posted by Rightreform 4 months ago
I agree this whole subject is a guise. And the rule that morality doesn't play in this discussion is very wrong. As I do not disagree that gay parents can be good parents and that children can decide for themselves what is right and wrong. However, many heterosexual parents have a hard time getting an adoption. And many adoption agencies are church related and have moral views against same-sex adoption. And this is an effort to condemn their beliefs.
The Andrews government appears determined to use the power of the state to force religious believers to act against the principles of faith and conscience. Will lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex organizations and their political sponsors accept any limits to their demands for compliance with ""progressive"" attitudes towards sexual identity? If not, they should drop the masquerade and stop pretending the anti-discrimination agenda is just all about peace, love and understanding. Peter Kurti and Jeremy Sammut are research fellows at the Centre for Independent Studies.




Australian, The. 10/23/2015. .
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by pensfan 4 months ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate on both sides.