The Instigator
David0047
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
CelestialKnight
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

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 4 votes the winner is...
David0047
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,514 times Debate No: 42787
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

David0047

Pro

Same-sex couples in the United States should legally be allowed to adopt children.
CelestialKnight

Con

children should not be exposed to the risk of growing up in a same sex couple relationship. it is completely unnatural for the development of the child and its unethical.
Debate Round No. 1
David0047

Pro

This is the most elementary of objections. Term: "Natural", Defined: "Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind."

"Of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something:"

Attributive (of a parent or child) related by blood:

Music (of a note) not sharped or flatted:

Christian Theology relating to earthly or unredeemed human or physical nature as distinct from the spiritual or supernatural realm.

In other words: Status By Birth.

I realize that science says that 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality http://www.news-medical.net... but I don't believe in most of what science says. As Stephen Colbert's correspondent exclaimed in 2004 when learning from the zoologist at the zoo housing ostensibly "gay" penguins that there were lots of gay animals around:

"Just because it happens in nature, doesn't make it natural." Yes it does.

As far as child development: I argue that non-traditional or nuclear-family-structure based households thrive better economically, socially and mentally due to recent sociopolitical alterations to the global economy and governmental technological sectors. Children from single parent households are just as likely to attain the same shot at the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the children from traditional nuclear family structures, for example.

As far as ethics are concerned, wouldn't the most ethical way of going about this be to teach our children not intolerance but love? If you teach your child that two people of the same sex cannot have a child like she or he can, they are going to wonder why. Your answer to that question your child asks:

Mom/Dad (Because there must be both),

"How come THOSE two people have any kids?"
CelestialKnight

Con

I argue that "gay" animals (if there are any) can be demon possessed just like the demon possessed pigs in the bible that committed suicide. (so it shows that even they can commit unnatural acts when under possession)

Children should know where they come from and not be brought up into the confusion that a homosexual couple is likely to inflict on them from their abnormal relationship. When they know that a mom and dad is the correct relationship to produce offspring, everything makes much more sense and it is normal as it should be.
Debate Round No. 2
David0047

Pro

In response to my "opponent," CelestialKnight's last argument: There is no such thing as "demonic possession," but if there were such a thing, it would have nothing whatever to do with a same-sex adoption debate. You're just being ridiculous.

However, I am inclined to give the comment made by Donjuandebater1212 regarding the definition of "natural" a modicum of more consideration. Firstly, you are wondering what "teachings I follow" due to my silence regarding Judeo-Christian Theology and my ostensible rejection of scientific studies. The claim that I don't believe in what science says was meant as a joke; of course I do. Also, the quote I gave by Colbert's correspondent--"Just because it happens in nature doesn't make it natural"--was also meant as a joke. The only difference I can see between the two jokes is the fact that my joke was meant to draw attention to the silliness of rejecting science's ability to lead to knowledge about nature, and the Television show's joke was meant to reveal the hollowness of the idea that something that happens in nature can be considered "unnatural".

Donjuandebater1212 claims that I am confusing two disconnected definitions of the term "natural" in the sense that if you claim that two male penguins who end up life-mates with one another, this is not the same as when you find two female humans mating for life--for example. The reason for this, according to Donjuan is that in the former instance, there is no way to definitively prove that the penguins recognize their relationship as "gay" in the sense that we understand it as reflective humans, and that in the latter case, it is actually an instance of "human behavior based on historical reference". "It is not natural," argues Donjuan, "for humans who have the ability to recognize and understand the full meaning of the choices they make, to become homosexuals out of natural causes or even to convert to that lifestyle". It seems like what Donjuan is saying here is that penguins can find themselves naturally attracted to mates of the same sex, but humans cannot do so because they are aware that two mates of the same sex are unnatural. If you think about it another way, you can see the logical flaw: because humans have the ability to understand societal conventions and historical reference, they cannot practice certain sexual and pair-bonding rituals which occur in nature, because HUMANS are unnatural due to ipso facto this ability. If this argument is true, then ALL sexual and loving relationships between humans are considered unnatural and should be shunned. I'm not quite sure this is what you had in mind.

The last part of Donjuan's argument I find to be the most problematic and disturbing, however. Looking closely and paraphrasing, the argument goes as follows:

"Although there are lots of good gays out there, there are also bad ones, and so gay people can't call the shots with their moral righteousness on the strait [sic] community. But here in the USA (land of the free) where religion is awesome and homosexuality is looked down on (discriminated against), "the people who descended from [America's] founders adopted such views" and therefore those views are right."

Right?

Wrong.

Just because religion is a central force in the United States and because Christian teachings and theology have a ubiquitous and powerful presence in policy-making and social control DOES NOT mean that the "descendents" of intolerant and discriminatory views of non-heterosexual people are morally right. In other words, just because it's the dominant view or because it is the traditionally recognized view, doesn't mean it doesn't have to change.

Also, you should work on spelling, syntax, punctuation and sentence formation.
CelestialKnight

Con

in response to my opponent who represents the pro side of this argument, gays being demon possessed/influenced people have everything to do with this debate. It is unethical for children to be raised by people being controlled by demons that will most likely influence the children as well. We already have enough evil in society that we don't need to add to the burden by sending kids to couples that will corrupt the children further.

Everyone with common sense knows that two males nor two females are compatible with each other and thus it is not natural at all. male and female is the correct puzzle pieces that fit together. Lets not ruin the country further by allowing unethical adoptions take place people. please vote for what you know is right by nature.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Donjaundebater1212 3 years ago
Donjaundebater1212
There are three points I want to make clear here:
A. Yes, I am well aware that I am terrible at spelling, grammar and things of the sort.

B. David, you seem to have misinterpreted the point regarding the natural argument. If that was because of my bad grammar and spelling or sentence structure, I do apologize, however you have twisted the point I strove to make.

When you say: "It seems like what Donjuan is saying here is that penguins can find themselves naturally attracted to mates of the same sex, but humans cannot do so because they are aware that two mates of the same sex are unnatural." You have missed the point of the word "nature" or "natural".

Of course anyone can be attracted to something in a sexual way or in anyway for that matter, because feelings and sexual preferences are interpretation and therefore are the product of nature inadvertently. However, the point I was trying to make was that the two male penguins may be attracted to each other, (not specifically for sexual reasons) and like dog's may act sexually towards each other out of natural instinct, but they were not meant to behave in such a way in nature. That is not to say that nature dictates the relationships between two beings, but it does imply what relationships it had intended two beings to have. For example, One male penguin may decide to act sexually to the other male penguin. However, neither penguins will bare an off-spring because it is not the way nature intended for off-springs to come about.
Now to take this example and relate it to what I was trying to say about humans. Humans have the ability to make choices with far more thought being put into them as well and consider other factors such as society and their own desires at the same time. A human makes a choice to be gay based on their feelings. A human knows that biologically, two humans of the same sex are not designed to be together in a biolgical way or rather, a natural way. (TO BE CONTINUED ABOVE ^^^)
Posted by Donjaundebater1212 3 years ago
Donjaundebater1212
CelestialKnight... what the f**k kind of response was that???
Posted by Donjaundebater1212 3 years ago
Donjaundebater1212
David, what do you actually believe in ? You must not agree with any Judo-christian theology and you state you don't believe in the majority of science, so what teachings do you follow?

Secondly, this statement absolutly cracks me up: "Just because it happens in nature, doesn't make it natural." Yes it does."
Why you ask? Because you are confusing two different implications of the word "natural".
What the man means is , is that just because something happens in nature, (i.e two penguins practicing homosexuality in an istensible way which means that to humans, it appears gay, but no one can prove if the penguins recognize that they are gay or are even companions for reasons regarding homosexual attraction,) that doesnt make it natural (natural referring to human behavior based on historical reference. It is not natural for humans who have the ability to recognize and understand the full meaning of the choices they make, to become homosexuals out of natural causes or even to convert to that lifestyle. ).

Furthermore, teaching of tolerance and love is possible through any relationship. But I would like to take this time to point out that although there is a vast majority of moral and sensible gay couples in America, there is an equal number of gay people/couples who are immoral and abusive just as strait people can be. The gay community has no right to call shots on the strait community when they commit the same crimes and so on as the strait community does. I suppose thats the only real example of true equalness between the two, but in a country based on views which are specifically pro-religion which encompasse anti-homosexuality, then the people who descended from its founders adopted such views. And asking to wide spread a lifestyle by raising children under gay influences is the gateway to opening up the tolerance of much more taboo relationships under the guidelines of love and tolerance which can be twisted.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
David0047CelestialKnightTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins for the following reasons: 1. His arguments are founded on reality and observation whereas Con's arguments are based on abstracts. 2. Although Pro's use of sources was scarce, he still cites sources. Con's only reference was an allusion to the Gadarene demoniac.
Vote Placed by ChrisF 3 years ago
ChrisF
David0047CelestialKnightTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was even, everything else goes to Pro. All of Con's arguments are invalid, unless they can provide solid, indisputable proof that all homosexual people and animals are demon possessed.
Vote Placed by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
David0047CelestialKnightTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The bible is not a reliable source. And the demon thing was funny but not logical.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
David0047CelestialKnightTied
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: Con's argument from demon possession cracked me up. Pro clearly wins arguments.