The Instigator
valcarcelm
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Travniki
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Should Gay Couples and Single Americans Have The Right To Adopt?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Travniki
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 762 times Debate No: 22843
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

valcarcelm

Con

Acceptance Round:
Position: I believe that gay couples and single americans shouldn't have the right to adopt.
Please notice the time frame is 12 hours.
Travniki

Pro

"Get in the car Jefferey we're going shopping!"

"Ok Leeroy! But this time we're getting an asian one!"

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
valcarcelm

Con

The typical american family is raised with both a mother (female) and father (male). The reason is a child needs to be brought into a disciplined yet caring home. The mother is usually the caring nurturing kind while the father disciplines the child and sets boundaries for the child. However, if both parents are the same sex is most likely there wont be a balance for these children. Another reason, is as the child of both sex parents grows up they will question why I dont have a mother and father. We all know it takes a man and a women to create a baby. Why change tradition then? If a couple chooses to be gay, they understand they cannot create children together. However, the insist to adopt a child and raise it with untraditional values.
I also disagree on why single americans should not adopt. As i stated before, it takes a male and female to create a baby. Male are less likely to adopt as single men. However, if a women is single, they should not be in a rush to adopt a child. If one cannot hold onto a relationship with a significant other, one cannot raise a child on their own. If your single, the child would just become a burden to you and whoever chooses to help raise your child like parents, siblings, friends, etc.
Travniki

Pro

CONS CASE:

They need a mother to nurture, and a father to discipline; parents carry out important roles that come with their genders

Con doesn't understand two important things about this debate: The way current families work, and the way a Gay partnership works. No longer is the mother simply the housekeeper and housewife, and no longer is the father always the breadwinner and disciplinarian. In the modern household, ever since the Feminist movement, the roles played by parents are not gender specific. That is to say mothers are quite regularly the strictest of both parents, while the father is the playful and lenient parent. This goes to show that the gender of the parent plays absolutely no role in the sort of qualities the parent will have.

Con also clearly knows nothing about a Homosexual relationship. In any relationship, homosexual or heterosexual, one partner is always dominant (or the "man" as con puts it) and the other is less dominant and more nurturing (the "woman" as con puts it). When there are two partners in any relationship (I had two pet fish that used to do this) one of them will be the dominant, and one will be the lenient. A homosexual relationship doesn't involve two little giggling schoolgirls that are just going to play hopscotch with the baby, as opposed to raising him. There will be balance for a child in a homosexual household.

"Why change tradition then? If a couple chooses to be gay, they understand they cannot create children together. However, the insist to adopt a child and raise it with untraditional values."

One, people don't choose to be gay, it is genetic. If you are going to create debates about a certain group you should probably read up on them a bit, instead of just asking Santorum what his opinion is. Secondly, what does a traditional value encompass? Unless you argue that homosexuals are inherently bad people, then there is no reason to suspect that they will raise their kid with negative values.

You're right...they do understand they can't create children together....I'm pretty sure that's why they are adopting...
" If one cannot hold onto a relationship with a significant other, one cannot raise a child on their own."

Having a romantic relationship is much, much different than raising a child. There are so many factors as to why a person isn't in a relationship (past abusive relationships, or simply no desire to be with any of the people you know).

But anyways, the reasons for why someone is single doesn't have much of an effect on whether they are going to be an effective parent.
This is the best option for the child

Being in an orphanage has enormous consequences on a child. We should strive to get them into loving caring homes as fast as we can. Con seems to wonder if the child will ask himself "Why don't I have a mother and a father" if he's in a homosexual household....well con you do realize the child is already asking himself that in the orphanage?

Why does someone want to adopt a child?

I think we all know the answer, because they are loving caring people and want to take in a child to nurture and love. Con wants to deny homosexuals and single people this right.

Con understands nothing of the mindset or realities of a Homosexual relationship.

Apparently she's also never heard of a "Single Parent Household" either.
Debate Round No. 2
valcarcelm

Con

I agree and orphanage can be a terrible place for a child and we should all strive to get them to caring homes as fast as possible. However, I don't believe a child should just be taken into any home with a single parent or a homosexual couple. Single parents are usually lonely and are looking to be loved and understand if they adopt a child they will have that unconditional love.
Neither single people or Homosexual couples have had the experience to deal with a child. An orphan child usually comes with a rough past and sometimes psychological issues. For children in orphanages I recommend they be adopted by couples or families with children already and have had the experience with their own children.
I may not know much about a homosexual relationship. But before you question my knowledge on Single Parent Households, I'd like to let everyone know I am from a single parent household. I may not have been adopted but I was born without a father figure.
Growing up without a father/mother figure is very difficult not only on the child but also on the parent. The parent that usually has to play both roles usually is more dominant in a specific role. The child could grow up either too disciplined and unhappy or too free and troublesome.
It is also financially difficult for single parents to raise a child. People usually don't understand the needs of a child. Especially as they get older where they grow out of toys and clothes and need a college education and a car.
Travniki

Pro

This is my Only chance to reply in 12 hours and I'll get to it.

Homosexuels don't have experience
You're right. But neither does any parent before they become a parent. There's no difference between a homosexuel partnership having a child for the first time, and any other partnership having a child for the first time.
" Single parents are usually lonely and are looking to be loved and understand if they adopt a child they will have that unconditional love."
When you put it that way, I actually don't understand how you couldn't support a Single parent adoption...love is good?
"For children in orphanages I recommend they be adopted by couples or families with children already and have had the experience with their own children."

Unfortunately life isn't a Disney movie, the chances of a family with kids adopting more kids are slim. With this mentality we have tons of neglected children in orphanages.
"Growing up without a father/mother figure is very difficult not only on the child but also on the parent"
It is a lot preferable than being in an orphanage...the child already has the scars of a broken childhood, any sort of nurturing parental figure is going to do miracles, be it one parent, two parents, or five parents.
Financial difficulties?
If the parent can afford a kid, then they can adopt. If not they can't. Just because you're single doesn't mean you're poor.
Debate Round No. 3
valcarcelm

Con

Love is good, I understand that. But when the single parents seeks that through a child because they cannot find a lifelong partner I call it selfish. Love of a child and love of a partner are two different loves and I don't think seeking that love through a child will fill in that gap of finding a loved one.
Your right life isn't a Disney movie, however their are many families out there who are willing to take in children from orphanages.
Children from orphanages don't always have to come from a broken childhood. Maybe the child's biological parents were just too young to raise the child. Why give that child a family with just one parent, when that child could have had the chance to being a two parent home.
I am not saying just because someone is single they are poor. I am saying one persons income is not sufficient enough to raise a child.
Travniki

Pro

"when that child could have had the chance to being a two parent home."

I take this excerpt from my opponents speech to show that she has dropped all arguments against Homosexuels having the right to adopt.

She has not met her burden of truth to show why Gay couples and Single Americains should have the Right to adopt.
I believe my analysis on single parents still stands and I am no fan of arguing the same thing every round in a never ending circle.
Debate Round No. 4
valcarcelm

Con

My argument stands as it is. We obviously disagree on the morals and traditions of families. I believe gay couples should not adopt because whether they choose to be gay or discover they are. Being gay is understanding that they cannot pro create.
Single Americans also need to understand that a family consist of two parents and that is best for the child. A child needs to also come into a family with a good financial base.
Travniki

Pro

"My argument stands as it is. We obviously disagree on the morals and traditions of families. I believe gay couples should not adopt because whether they choose to be gay or discover they are. Being gay is understanding that they cannot pro create."

Yes gay people cannot pro create...that's why they adopt...facepalm. So infertile couples who can't pro create shouldn't adopt? Not being able to pro create is more of an argument towards allowing adoption.

"Single Americans also need to understand that a family consist of two parents and that is best for the child. A child needs to also come into a family with a good financial base."

It really isn't. A) It gets the child out of the orphanage as fast as possible and they don't have to wait. B) Single parents are likely to have a stronger financial base than most parents because they are only supporting 2 people with their job.

Cons argument doesn't "stand as it is". Con doesn't have an argument. Con has told us how con thinks Gay people can't be parents and how Single Mothers are always poor.

I've told con how a Homosexual relationship emulates a heterosexual family, and how the qualities of a parent have nothing to do with gender.

I've told con how Single parents have a financially stable base to raise a child, because they have very few people to support (A "normal" family can consist of only the dad who works, a stay at home wife, and four kids. That's one job supporting six people. A single parent household is one job supporting two people.)

I've told con how a child in an orphanage doesn't always need two parents, and one nurturing parental figure is enough for them to have a healthy development.

Con has ignored everything I've said and told us how these two groups are somehow being selfish for wanting a childs "unconditional love".....once again con fails to show the inherent difference between Homosexual couples, single parents, and "normal parents".
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Pro's conduct was lacking:
Crude racial comedy was deemed offensive by this voter. Conduct goes to Con.
Con used a spell check, Pro did not. 'Homosexuel' is not a word. Spelling to Con.
Con provided the following points of discussion:
1.> It takes heterosexuals to make the baby.
2.> Gender roles play a part in raising the child.
3.> Children may suffer from gender confusion if same sex parents are present.
4.> Single parents generally lack the support system and finances to raise the child.
5.> Additional, unfair burden is placed upon extended family.
6.> Orphaned children suffer from pre-existing instability. A traditional setting is favorable and therapeutic. Non-traditional settings may cause further confusion and alienation.
7.> Single parent households lack either discipline or nurturing (depending on the missing gender role).
8.> Most gay couples or single women adopt to fill a void, making it less about the child and more about the "self". Raising children is a selfless act.

Overall theme: A good parent is someone you don't need to recover from.

Pros counter-argument:
1.> Gender roles - Mothers are in the workforce now and no longer stay at home to raise children, so that somehow voids their natural desire to be nurturing. Irrational. Does that mean a stay at home father has to sit down to pee? Women are still nurturing and men are still disciplinarians. Intrinsic gender roles are pervasive.
2.> Homosexual Gender Roles - Gay people have a "dominant" vs "submissive" relationship, which somehow qualifies them for traditional parenting roles. That would be true if dominant is equal with masculine and submissive is synonymous with feminine. Unfortunately they aren't.
3.> People don't chose to be gay, it's genetic - No Sources. This could be a winning argument if you can prove it.

I found Pro overconfident. Way to many "because I said so" arguments where used. Statements like:" Con clearly doesn't understand..." don't help if you lack sourc
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
Why are you talking about adoption if they should (if a proper plan is put in place) not even be in the country?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
valcarcelmTravnikiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by bmichael 4 years ago
bmichael
valcarcelmTravnikiTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't seem to have very reliable sources to back her arguments. The very little reasoning that she did have was completely ignorant. Pro, on the other hand, gave more convincing arguments with an altogether better message.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
valcarcelmTravnikiTied
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: Poor arguments by con, PRO easily refuted cons arguments, most of which made no sense, he also showed the holes in her argument. Easy vote for pro.