Same Sex Couple's Shouldn't Be Aloud to Adopt
Debate Rounds (3)
I believe same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt for a three part reason.
1. In my opinion if nothing else it is unethical for in reason if children are influenced to be gay/lesbian as well it can hinder us. For the fact is if all the world was gay than who would have children and therefor who would continue us as a whole.
2. I continue by saying it can wrongfully influence a child. As I previously brought up it can influence a child and this is wrong. A child shouldn't be influenced into controversial things whatever they maybe. For the children shouldn't have to be drug into it in the first place.
3. Also allow me to be humored here, but what of the child's rights. What if the child him/herself doesn't want two mommies or daddies. All children deserve a father and mother not two of one or the other.
Now I conclude my instigation with this I do have more reasons, but will for now hold them back to provide my opponent room.
1. Homosexuals are just like any other normal person in society, really. They go shopping, they work, etc. What families need are loving parents, and homosexuals can be loving parents. It is by no means necessary to deny the right to adopt. As a quick note to your last statement, almost all feedback from kids who have homosexual parents is in fact positive. Denying them the right to adopt a child or children because they're different is utterly pointless. Each person is their own person. Everybody is different.
2. I would also like to question your statement that homosexual couples with children influence the children to become gay, and your remark on an all homosexual world. The number of homosexuals in the world is significantly smaller than the amount of heterosexual people. I doubt that everyone in the world will become a homosexual because homosexual parents influence kids. (Or that it would affect births) I would like to challenge Pro to find any evidence of children that have been influenced to become a homosexual themselves in the first place.
3. Many children who are raised by homosexual couples fair the same in terms of self esteem and other development, but some in fact do better than those who are raised by heterosexual couples.
(Take note these are not all of my arguments)
Here are some sources to look at:
I can't help but feel that it's population control (well actually a part of it) and I know this is absurd to say but think on it. So many things show case gay and lesbian and seem to push for it to be okay and acceptable. It's reached all forms of media and has even begun to reach a point to where gays can kiss in public but someone who is heterosexual could get in trouble for kissing the opposite sex at the wrong place or time and gay pride parades. So the point is they are promoting and allowing gay more then straight. Almost all movies and shows have a peice of it and it has only grown more and more common with time.
sources on this matter.
Also here is this on how some areas are pushing more towards gay with all the rights.
Disclaimer I mean to bring attention to who holds the rights not the other controversial aspects of below article.
I would also like to further inquiry on my claims that gay adoption is wrongful to children with this.
We need to think of the adverse effects all this can and will have on society we have pushed to the point of reverse discrimination on the matter and its becoming worst and worst and now to drag children into the matter won't help either. A child is a delicate and influential being and placing them with in such environments is as I instated unethical.
Now I will show a very graphic article on how a child can get a horrible short end of a stick by being aloud to people with obvious mental or hormonal problems to be gay in the first place.
I will warn this article is rash and a little rude and it isn't these things I post it for rather I put it out there to show how in this case literal abuse has happened. So I ask please excuse the sensitivity of it all and stay on course with the core point in mind.
I know I have taken a highly controversial route but then again this debates core point is highly controversial in itself.
I hope con and all readers take nothing the wrong way. I know some of it is ruff but this rashness is needed to help people realize the seriousness of the matter.
I would also like to ask why it's bad that media portrays homosexuality as okay and acceptable, as I see no reason why it's bad that the media is doing this. If you say that it influences children, again I don't believe it does, but I could very well be wrong. I also would like to ask how they are allowing gay more than straight on media such as television. I personally have only seen a couple romance shows in which the characters are gay, but I don't normally watch them; the difference in the number of them they are may be different at where I live. I would like to question your usage of the word 'allowed'. As far as I know it's perfectly okay for a heterosexual person to kiss another heterosexual person on television, as well as in real life.
As for the first source you have given, I would hardly believe that the reason she [the victim] is being abused because of her homosexual father. Anybody can abuse a child, it doesn't matter if they are heterosexual or homosexual; what matters is the kind of person it is. A heterosexual father can abuse a child, as well as a heterosexual sexual father. I fail to see why sexuality matters in a case of child abuse.
As for your second source, I believe there are gay pride parades because they want to be able to get married, adopt, etc. It's not completely legal, and a gay pride parade is used to say they want their rights to be able to adopt, and get married with whom they want; no matter the gender. There is no straight pride parade, because it has been legal since the beginning of humans, really.
For your third source, if it is fact true, I agree with. I do doubt that heterosexuals are not allowed to kiss and hold hands is against the law in Saudi Arabia, but if it is true, I agree.
Before I get into your next source, I first want to say that discriminating against homosexuals by not letting them adopt, is an awfully stupid way to stop them for discriminating against us. I doubt they even will! Their parents are heterosexual in the first place to actually create them, unless they were maybe adopted. Anyway, now to your next source.
The source first says, that kids who have a homosexual couple for parents, will have a tough time. Obviously! Because we have discriminated so much against homosexuals, kids will be made fun of by some people! Kids always make fun of people though, they're immature, there's people being made fun of for even being smart! It goes on to say things about people being abused by their homosexual lovers. Again, it depends on the kind of person. Sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with it, if it does, please provide evidence.
Again, before I get into this last source I have something to say. This article was not at all graphic. Anyway, it talks about this child saying 'I'm a girl', and the parents let him have his fun. What exactly were they supposed to do? They let him play princess because he had fun doing it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
Now that I have finished addressing your argument, I would like to say a few things as well as provide some sources that go with various arguments. First of all, I've said this once, so I'm just mentioning it again. I would like to challenge Pro to find statistics [if possible] about homosexuality influencing children, as well as evidence that shows that homosexual parents are more likely to abuse children. I also would like to clarify that homosexuality is NOT a mental or hormonal disorder by any means. If Pro has evidence to support this, please give some.
Now for my sources:
This source is just more of an interesting one:
This source is about why they should be allowed to adopt, and will explain some things better than I could:
This explains discrimination against homosexuals is unjust:
Now I would also like to say that in the Bible homosexuals are not actually condemned to hell because of being homosexual, but for the worship of false gods. This segment following is something I said on an opinion statement:
At the heart of the claim that the Bible is clear "that homosexuality is forbidden by God" is poor biblical scholarship and a cultural bias read into the Bible. The Bible says nothing about "homosexuality" as an innate dimension of personality. Sexual orientation was not understood in biblical times. There are references in the Bible to same-gender sexual behavior, and all of them are undeniably negative. But what is condemned in these passages is the violence, idolatry and exploitation related to the behavior, not the same-gender nature of the behavior. There are references in the Bible to different-gender sexual behavior that are just as condemning for the same reasons. But no one claims that the condemnation is because the behavior was between a man and a woman. There was no word in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek for "homosexual" or "homosexuality." These words were invented near the end of the 19th century when psychoanalysts began to discover and understand sexuality as an essential part of the human personality in all of its diversity. Consequently, it cannot be claimed that the Bible says anything at all about it. The writers of the Bible had neither the understanding of it nor the language for it.
'There is only one reference to sexual behavior between women, and that is in Romans 1:26. The context of this reference has to do with Gentiles rejecting the true God to pursue false gods; i.E., idolatry. And, the sexual behavior described is orgiastic, not that of a loving, mutual, caring, committed relationship. What is condemned is the worship of false gods. In regard to marriage, it's important to remember that the Bible was written in a patriarchal culture that assumed men were in control and women were subject to them. Marriage was not an equal partnership, but a matter of a man owning a woman or women as property. Women provided men companionship, children and labor. Certainly, love between the man and woman or women could develop, but love was not the basis of marriage. Consequently, the biblical concept of marriage is not appropriate today. We no longer accept the inferiority of women and superiority of men. We no longer accept marriage to be a property transaction. The concept of marriage has evolved throughout history. Today, we understand it to be a voluntary spiritual relationship based on love, respect, mutuality and commitment. What really matters is the quality of the relationship, not the gender of the persons involved. And marriage is created not by religious ceremony or civil government. It is created by the persons involved who make their commitments to one another. Whether or not there is a religious ceremony to celebrate the marriage or marriage license to legalize it, the marriage two people make together in private is real and valid and should be honored as such. I hasten to add that marriage should never be understood as a requirement for two people in relationship. Being single in an intimate relationship is an honorable choice'
Information is from:
I just put segments together and cut others out.
damienvox forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con had stronger arguments that were backed by fact. Pro made illogical assumptions based on his own beliefs. Societal influence is only caused by the social discrimination of gays; take that out of the picture and gay adoption will result in no psychological effects. Pro was also unable to respond to Con's arguments which give him the arguments and the conduct. Good debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate