The Instigator
dan40000000
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sara_ann_dee
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should Gay Parents be allowed to raise children?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 78217
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (0)

 

dan40000000

Con

No rules! The first round are is accepting the debate.

Good luck to anyone who challenges me!
sara_ann_dee

Pro

I accept - good luck to you as well.
Debate Round No. 1
dan40000000

Con

I would like to thank Sara for accepting this friendly debate on a topic that I am passionate about. To get it out of the way Gay people have the right to be together and that should not ever be taken away from them as they should not be discriminated against. However in the case of children we should shift our focus from the potential gay parents rights to raise kids but more to the rights of the kids themselves. I think we can all agree that kids have rights like anyone else no matter how small the kid. In these rights I think the kids should be given their best chance to succeed. This is why we provide free schooling, protect them from unfair working practices that may plague them later in life etc. All these laws and regulations have existed to give kids their best chance to succeed in life. This is what people fought for decades ago.

Today the fight continues. Men and Women are different in a astonishing way. The evidence is so obvious that when people say that Men and Woman are the same you have cause to laugh in their face because their is so much evidence to support the claim that men and women are different so much so that it is considered fact. (http://www.drlumd.com......) Dr Louanne is actually an interesting story. She was determined to research Women's brains to convince everyone that Men and Woman are inherently the same but are different because of the way they are raised. Of course her research proved the exact opposite and she admitted it which makes her a very credible source. Here is a funny source that is interesting and supports the argument. (http://nymag.com......)
http://www.livescience.com......

Now that we have established that Men and Women are inherently different we can also establish as fact that Men and Women cannot copy each other either physically or mentally and that is a fact. To deny it would be to spit in the research of extremely qualified Doctor's. If Sara needs I can provide more research and evidence to support this position.

Therefore the question remains since Men and Women are so inherently different do they in fact parent in completely different ways? The answer of course is yes. Logically in Math lets take a number like 8. If Men =2 and Women = 1 then no matter what equation you do no matter what when using two different numbers on the same number you will result in a different outcome every time. Logically you can conclude since men and women are so different it is obvious they parent in different ways but in case there is any doubt about this here are some credible(some more credible than others) resources that support the idea that Men and Women parent differently:

http://www.today.com......
http://www.cfcidaho.org......
http://www.frc.org......
If you want more detailed stuff
http://papers.ssrn.com......
How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
http://www.amazon.com......

And My favorite one which I deem most important is:
http://www.familystructurestudies.com......

I will help you and give you this research paper too:
http://www.squareonemd.com......

As you will see the research is clear that a child's best chance is with a Mother and Father. Now because this is such a hot topic there is just as much evidence to support this claim as their is to destroy it. And there are plenty of writers, bloggers to spew all sorts of information. They even deny research or make up reasons why that research isn't credible which is ironic because people listen to them and ignore the real Doctor's. Peer reviewed research is very strict and dissects papers much more than a blog or writer does so if you trust those type's of people than you need to dramatically change your process of learning.

So we have to look a little deeper. For example I have noticed that few if any studies look at graduation rates and success. I am very concerned with studies that show kids are just as happy or happier, etc so I hope Sara doesn't show those because those are easy to destroy. To save time I will do it now. First happiness cannot be measured since their is no universal scale to do so. One man's happiness is found in the possessions they have while others in the people they know and so on. This means all studies that measure happiness can be completely ruled out.

However kids in the same income level and same type of neighborhood can be measured with data to see if they go to college, cheat on their spouse, etc.

Now I know Sara will attempt to destroy my sources since if she doesn't the evidence is clearly in my favor. So I will say this as my final statement to the first round. The evidence is conclusive that Men and Women are different so regardless on this other research I have shown (and the counter sources you will show) there is a significant difference and so any source that says their is no difference is just silly, since that counters the one fact that we do know. Men and Woman are different.
sara_ann_dee

Pro

(No problem! I am happy to debate this topic with you. I will use the first round to put forward evidence to support my side, most of this round for me will just be facts and statistics, then I will pose some rebuttals next round).

Reason 1 - They nurture the neediest:

"In October 2011, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that 60 percent of gay and lesbian adoptive parents adopt across races, which is important because minority kids have a tougher time getting out of the foster system. And 25 percent of kids placed with adoptive gay and lesbian parents were older than 3 — also a tough age range to adopt. More than half of the kids had special needs. A 2007 report by the Urban Institute found that more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians in the United States would like to adopt. That's a huge number of potential parents, far dwarfing the more than 100,000 adoptable kids stuck in foster care today." This quote explains how gay and lesbian couples are more willing to help needing children then straight couples do - that is very important and benefitial to our adoption systems.

Reason 2 - They foster tolerance:

"Kids raised by gay and lesbian parents say their upbringing taught them open-mindedness and empathy. In a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Clark University's Goldberg interviewed 46 adults who grew up with at least one gay parent. Twenty-eight of the interviewees independently mentioned that they felt their upbringing made them more tolerant and accepting." (http://www.abc.net.au...) ---> "Dr Crouch said same-sex couples faced less pressure to fulfil traditional gender roles, which led to a more harmonious households."Previous research has suggested that parenting roles and work roles, and home roles within same-sex parenting families are more equitably distributed when compared to heterosexual families," he said. This means that children raised by gay and lesbian couples are more tolerant and empathetic then children raised by straight couples."

Reason 3 - They raise confident children:

"An upbringing in a same-sex household can give kids a boost of confidence. In a 2010 study published in the journal Pediatrics, researchers examined the kids of planned lesbian families, in which a single lesbian mother or two lesbian partners decided to have kids, in contrast to bringing them to the relationship from previous heterosexual partnerships. Like other studies of lesbian moms, this one found no significant differences from straight parents in kids' development and social behavior. But the kids of lesbians were more confident than the kids of straight parents. According to the researchers, active involvement by parents may explain the self-esteem boost." This means that children raised by gays and lesbians are more confident with themselves then children raised by straight couples.

Reason 4 - Health and Happiness:
A major new study finds that kids raised by same-sex couples actually do a bit better “than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.” The study, conducted in Australia by University of Melbourne researchers “surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children.” The children in the study scored about six percent higher than Australian kids in the general population. The advantages held up “when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income.” The study was the largest of its kind in the world." This means that children raised by gay and lesbian couples are actually more healthy and happy then those raised by straight couples.

Reason 5 - "The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever." (http://www.frc.org...)



Citations:
http://www.livescience.com...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://www.biomedcentral.com...;
http://www.abc.net.au...
http://theconversation.com...
http://www.frc.org...
Debate Round No. 2
dan40000000

Con

Well Sara while those sources are interesting I will repeat myself and say that any research showing kids "happier" shows that either the person conducting the research is extremely biased or naive. Either way it means we need to completely discard the research because as I said earlier happiness is not a quantifiable number and some people may be "happy" because they don't know how good life can be or the other way around. Just like Denmark is the "happiest" country in the world but that doesn't mean anything it's just flawed research. Not to mention one of the sources is from thinkprogress.com which is more biased and inaccurate than fox news. If I told you i didn't believe in global warming because http://www.climatecooling.org... said so. I mean you don't even have to go to the website to know it's extremely biased so those sources are gone. And just in case you think I am writing them off without knowing anything about them. My true expertise are in economics and finance. I have read several of their articles in those topics and it amazes me how wrong and biased they are. People give fox news a hard time they have nothing on thinkprogress.org. I would gladly debate you on that website in the future.

Your BMC public health citation said the article is gone so that's out. Your livescience source made me laugh because when you have a study of 46 people any statistician will tell you that the data is far from conclusive. I mean I could right now find 46 people who are racists but that wouldn't mean that the US is racists as a whole. The real problem with most of this research is that they aren't comparing the same type of variables. Most of my sources do the same thing. Comparing a lesbian couple who are both wealthy vs a poor hetero couple that is unfair. You have to compare side to side. The problem with this data is biased people will include them or ignore them depending on their bias.

Interesting though these stories that were used in the Supreme court case http://cnsnews.com.... If you discredit this source it was a supreme court case I will have no trouble finding another 10 links for it or better yet federal documents so don't try :)]
Interesting that they "foster" tolerance yet there is a lot of support to show the exact opposite is true. They are very hateful on religious groups as well.

These stories show that while the Gay community paint a pretty picture of themselves they in reality can be (not always) extremely destructive. Now Hetero Parents have some bad stories about them no doubt but I would argue that the negative stories are not nearly as common (as a percentage not a whole number) as the negative stories of being raised by a Gay couple. I mean how often do kids have these type of experiences from a Mother and Father.

So an overview most of your sources don't survey enough people to even include them in the conversation. My sources are guilty of the same thing (not all but some of them). I only used my sources not as credible information but to show that you can cheery pick research and data which means our data can be misleading.

Remember the media doesn't like to recognize this but gay couples have by far the shortest relationships out there. http://www.frc.org.... This is true. Not to mention that fidelity is very weak in Gay relationships which is a huge problem when raising kids. Faithful parents are essential for raising kids. If you ever knew a kid who didn't trust their parent it is damaging to their relationship. http://family-studies.org.... This shows how their just isn't sufficient data from lesbian families to hold any amount of water. Kids also do better when their parents are biological that is also widely proven as well and as you know Gay couples cannot have 100% biological interest in the kids.

BOTTOM LINE:

Men and Women are different as previously stated. There is just as much evidence to support gays as their is to destroy them. Weeding through the research is nearly impossible. The fact is that it's tough to evaluate gay parents because their hasn't been time to do so. But the excuse of letting them do it so we can experiment is a very dangerous idea. Here are a few FACTS that we know:

Men and Women are very different
Men and Women not matter how hard they try cannot copy each other
Men have different relationships with their kids than Women do
Children are more attached and it is shown to their biological parents

While it is an interesting idea to experiment with Gay parent's and let them go but this idea is dangerous because if it turns out you are wrong then you just screwed over a lot of people. If I ran an experiment on a completely new diet with foods that have rarely been eaten before and we don't know anything about the food it could be better, the same or worse who would honestly support that? I know I would play it safe it's logical.

Men and Women are different they have different relationships with their kids these are facts. So instead of going through flawed research and debating a pointless argument on things that cannot be concluded because of lack of research let's stick to what we know. Biological parents are best. Two of them are best. Balance is always good and since Men and Women are so vastly different I guess their is only one way to balance it. Imagine two lesbians raising a boy? They can read all they want but they won't truly understand him in any way. I mean my Mom tried and I was even the 5th boy but sorry she didn't understand me like my dad did. That is why it's so essential their is a mother and father. Even if Lesbians adopt a female if that female comes across boys at a young age how will the lesbians handle that? I know how fathers would.

These are the types of problems that come from Lesbian parent's. They paint a pretty picture but the real picture is far from pretty.
sara_ann_dee

Pro

I will include my first round arguments below so it maked it easier for you to pose more rebuttals :)

Reason 1 - They nurture the neediest:

"In October 2011, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that 60 percent of gay and lesbian adoptive parents adopt across races, which is important because minority kids have a tougher time getting out of the foster system. And 25 percent of kids placed with adoptive gay and lesbian parents were older than 3 — also a tough age range to adopt. More than half of the kids had special needs. A 2007 report by the Urban Institute found that more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians in the United States would like to adopt. That's a huge number of potential parents, far dwarfing the more than 100,000 adoptable kids stuck in foster care today." This quote explains how gay and lesbian couples are more willing to help needing children then straight couples do - that is very important and benefitial to our adoption systems.

Reason 2 - They foster tolerance:

"Kids raised by gay and lesbian parents say their upbringing taught them open-mindedness and empathy. In a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Clark University's Goldberg interviewed 46 adults who grew up with at least one gay parent. Twenty-eight of the interviewees independently mentioned that they felt their upbringing made them more tolerant and accepting." (http://www.abc.net.au......) ---> "Dr Crouch said same-sex couples faced less pressure to fulfil traditional gender roles, which led to a more harmonious households."Previous research has suggested that parenting roles and work roles, and home roles within same-sex parenting families are more equitably distributed when compared to heterosexual families," he said. This means that children raised by gay and lesbian couples are more tolerant and empathetic then children raised by straight couples."

Reason 3 - They raise confident children:

"An upbringing in a same-sex household can give kids a boost of confidence. In a 2010 study published in the journal Pediatrics, researchers examined the kids of planned lesbian families, in which a single lesbian mother or two lesbian partners decided to have kids, in contrast to bringing them to the relationship from previous heterosexual partnerships. Like other studies of lesbian moms, this one found no significant differences from straight parents in kids' development and social behavior. But the kids of lesbians were more confident than the kids of straight parents. According to the researchers, active involvement by parents may explain the self-esteem boost." This means that children raised by gays and lesbians are more confident with themselves then children raised by straight couples.

Reason 4 - Health and Happiness:
A major new study finds that kids raised by same-sex couples actually do a bit better “than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.” The study, conducted in Australia by University of Melbourne researchers “surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children.” The children in the study scored about six percent higher than Australian kids in the general population. The advantages held up “when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income.” The study was the largest of its kind in the world." This means that children raised by gay and lesbian couples are actually more healthy and happy then those raised by straight couples.

Reason 5 - "The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever." (http://www.frc.org......)



Citations:
http://www.livescience.com......
http://thinkprogress.org......
http://www.biomedcentral.com......;
http://www.abc.net.au......
http://theconversation.com......
http://www.frc.org......


Rebuttals:

(Rebuttal for "research"): That is COMPLETELY false and is obsurd for you to make that assumption. The research was based off of REAL FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND SURVERYS. If you do not believe the facts that are right in front of you - then I do not know what to say to you.

(Rebuttal for "BMC"): I am sorry that the article went does but that is not my fault because I checked it a few days ago and it was still up - I do not own the site you could not find the article on. You need to prove to me with evidence how my data is biased - rambling about how it is from your OWN OPINION AND CONCLUSION is not valid nor reliable. I'm sorry to say that but you need to support that claim or else everyone will deem it to be false.

(rebuttal for "Supreme court article"): You just contradicted yourself. As you have said before, "Your livescience source made me laugh because when you have a study of 46 people any statistician will tell you that the data is far from conclusive. I mean I could right now find 46 people who are racists but that wouldn't mean that the US is racists as a whole." You are hipocrate because the only peope included in your study were: B.N. Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Dawn Stefanowicz, and Katy Faust. That is 4 people... 42 LESS then what I have and you were complaning about my source. Before you point fingers - you may want to check your own sources first :) oh and also, even heterosexual parents can expose their kids to similar experiences and situations. That is just if the couples are good parents or not - there will be some good parents and some bad parents regardless of their sexuality. It is just, as I have stated before with my previus evidence, the homosexual couples are actually better parents then heterosexual couples. And your final statement for "negative stories in homosexual couples occur more than heterosexual couples" is completely false and obsurd. If anything, heterosexual couples are more violent and grusome then homosexual couples. Take this fact for example: "One myth surrounding male rape is that all male perpetrators are homosexual. However, the reverse is true; heterosexual men make up most male perpetrators who assault or rape other men." (http://www.soc.ucsb.edu...) Can't deny the facts :)

(rebuttal for "homosexual relationships are shorter"): You are wrong... once again. Here is a study that tested gay and straight people who are/were in a relationship. "When asked about their love lives, gays were more likely to have long term relationships. In fact, 59% had been in a stable, loving relationship for three or more years. They were very committed to their significant others and reported high levels of joy in their lives. Only 19% admitted to cheating on a loved one, which is much lower than the national average." Also, "Only 47% had been in a stable, loving relationship when surveyed. Even less reported having been in a long term love relationship. In fact, only 42% said that they had been involved in a committed relationship for longer than three years. Of those who had married, over 50% had been divorced. Almost half admitted to cheating on a spouse or loved one. Two thirds said they were unhappy with their sex lives. They said it was difficult to communicate their desires to their mates, and so, they had unsatisfactory sex. One woman put it this way, “the sex is miserable and so is he (her husband).” (https://www.psychologytoday.com...).

(rebuttal for "difference"): The couples are adopting kids who have no home and are abandoned or lost... It is better for the child to have a home then not. And as you have said about balance, that is ridiculous. Some women are good at men things and vice versa - there is no scale.


Citations: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu...;
https://www.psychologytoday.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
dan40000000

Con

I will only add this. How can a Lesbian couple explain men to a daughter? Or how can gay men explain women to a son? How can Gay men explain to their son about being married to a women? These are situations that are impossible to solve without a balanced approach. Their is no way around it and we all know the dangerous statistics of girls who get manipulated by boys when they are either with a father or without a father and so it really worries me that so many girls are being raised without fathers :
http://www.growingupwithoutafather.org... (remember these are statistics which are real numbers and are much more valid)
http://www.fathers.com...

To add on to this children crave their biological parents plane and simple. Children need both fathers and mothers because they are so different they cover where the other can't. I mean honestly does any lesbian understand men? How can they? It would go against everything we know about women. Not to mention that Lesbian women are abused at a much higher rate than hetero women (Which would suggest that clearly they aren't "born with it") and these women who obviously hold bitter feelings towards men (like my aunt which I have witnessed in person) are not fit to raise either men or women. Research Ed gains a notorious murderer and you will find his mom hated men and abused and mistreated him. These are the results of parents who have such hatred towards the opposite sex. (of course it's not a 100% obviously). Now I understand that a kid having some parents are better than no parents but it should be preferred that children get placed first with a stable straight couple and if worse comes to worse gay parents are better than nothing.

So Final it is proved extensively that kids need fathers and mothers.

Now rebuttals ( I hope you are ready )

1. Research: So if I ask you on a scale from 1 to 10 if you are happy what would you put? I know a Guatemalan (I lived there) who would put a 10 yet he is extremely poor and was abused as a child. Now I point this out because happiness is a mental state that realistically cannot be influenced by outside people or rather none of us should let it be that way. Truly happy people understand this. Also other people tend to view happiness according to those around them a sort of comparison to those around you. Others view happiness in the vacations they take the money they have, etc. So how can any survey accurately gauge true happiness? It's impossible don't you see?

Now take a survey that sees how many students of a above 100K income household graduated college? These are real statistics that can be compared to each other. Either they went to college or they didn't? They were abused or they weren't? And so on. So you should be able to notice how happiness isn't quantifiable like other things. Denmark is the happiest country supposedly. I have a close friend who lived their for two years and they are "happiest" but not like Americans. In fact if you think happiness is such a good measure and an accurate one then go live in Denmark for the next 5 years and you will understand what I am talking about.

2. BMC- No need to waste time on this you posted an article that isn't there it may be there and true but since I can't see it then like in court it wouldn't be considered and would be thrown out. No more discussing necessary.

3. Supreme Court: Did you read my response at all? I said "Most of my sources do the same thing", "Hetero Parents have some bad stories about them no doubt", "My sources are guilty of the same thing", " I only used my sources not as credible information but to show that you can cheery pick research and data which means our data can be misleading", Now you called me a hypocrite but I wonder if you bothered to read my response at all because the quotes above clearly indicate that I acknowledge that I can cherry pit data and I even tell you I am doing so just to prove a point. I discredited my sources right up with yours. So I fail to see what you are arguing here my only thought is you just didn't read/understand my quotes which are very clear.

4. Relationships are shorter- Well we will have to agree to disagree on that one. My sources are there already so there is no point arguing this one since I think you are clearly wrong.

5. Balance- If you read my sources above you will see that women and men are completely different are you denying this? Since we are biologically so different it is BIOLOGICALLY impossible to be able to copy each other. Sorry there is just no way that women can be like men and vice versa. The evidence is VERY clear in this area so there just isn't an argument to be had on that subject.

IN MY CONCLUSION:

Research on Gay's vs Straights is impossible to sift through and find true 100% credible resources. So instead of research on silly things like happiness which just can't be researched (go google happiness and see if their is scientific evidence to that answer) let's stick to the facts that we do know for sure and not all these silly sources that we BOTH HAVE ( I don't want you to miss this again so I will say it BOTH OF OUR SOURCES ARE NOT COMPLETELY CREDIBLE). Remember the difference between tangible statistics and non tangible surveys to help here is another example. The Area of China is 3.7 million miles squared. Fact known with 100% percent accuracy with a universally quantitative set of data. Compare that to are Chinese people happy? No know facts. No universally quantitative set of data. A million different opinions. So how can you possible argue that the happiness question is just as valid as the area question? Numbers just don't lie

Fact Men and Women are different.
Fact girls raised without Men are far more likely to be abused (https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com...)
I can go on with these facts it's pointless as you get the picture

Therefore the best case scenario for kids is with a Women and Man present. Which means Gay parent's should not be allowed to rob kids of their best case scenario and should not be preferred before straight parents. I am not anti-gay in any way I am pro child and the numbers don't lie.
sara_ann_dee

Pro

(rebuttal for first paragraph): Once again, some lesbians are just as masculine as men. And vise versa, some gays are just as femanine as women. So they will be able to explain to their children such things that you have listed - that is not even a problem.

(rebuttal for biological): ""In October 2011, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that 60 percent of gay and lesbian adoptive parents adopt across races, which is important because minority kids have a tougher time getting out of the foster system. And 25 percent of kids placed with adoptive gay and lesbian parents were older than 3 — also a tough age range to adopt. More than half of the kids had special needs. A 2007 report by the Urban Institute found that more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians in the United States would like to adopt. That's a huge number of potential parents, far dwarfing the more than 100,000 adoptable kids stuck in foster care today." This quote explains how gay and lesbian couples are more willing to help needing children then straight couples do - that is very important and benefitial to our adoption systems." Your claim never included the needy children.

(rebuttal for research): It is not impossible... As I have stated before, "A major new study finds that kids raised by same-sex couples actually do a bit better “than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.” The study, conducted in Australia by University of Melbourne researchers “surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children.” The children in the study scored about six percent higher than Australian kids in the general population. The advantages held up “when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income.” The study was the largest of its kind in the world." This means that children raised by gay and lesbian couples are actually more healthy and happy then those raised by straight couples." Studies cannot make the children happy but it can address who is and is not."

(rebuttal for BMC): Agreed - same goes for your article whom only measured 4 PEOPLE.

(rebuttal for supreme court): I read your whole argument, I will repeat my previous: As you have said before, "Your livescience source made me laugh because when you have a study of 46 people any statistician will tell you that the data is far from conclusive. I mean I could right now find 46 people who are racists but that wouldn't mean that the US is racists as a whole." You are hipocrate because the only peope included in your study were: B.N. Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Dawn Stefanowicz, and Katy Faust. That is 4 people... 42 LESS then what I have and you were complaning about my source. Before you point fingers - you may want to check your own sources first :) oh and also, even heterosexual parents can expose their kids to similar experiences and situations. That is just if the couples are good parents or not - there will be some good parents and some bad parents regardless of their sexuality. It is just, as I have stated before with my previus evidence, the homosexual couples are actually better parents then heterosexual couples. And your final statement for "negative stories in homosexual couples occur more than heterosexual couples" is completely false and obsurd. If anything, heterosexual couples are more violent and grusome then homosexual couples. Take this fact for example: "One myth surrounding male rape is that all male perpetrators are homosexual. However, the reverse is true; heterosexual men make up most male perpetrators who assault or rape other men." (http://www.soc.ucsb.edu......) Can't deny the facts :)." I am sorry if I have sent you the wrong message but I alywas read your whole argument - I don't think you read mine.

(rebuttal for relationships): "you think I am clearly wrong." OPINION IS NOT ALLOWED IN DEBATE DISCUSSIONS. And I provided more evidence then you did yourself. I will repeat it since you do not seem to understand: " Here is a study that tested gay and straight people who are/were in a relationship. "When asked about their love lives, gays were more likely to have long term relationships. In fact, 59% had been in a stable, loving relationship for three or more years. They were very committed to their significant others and reported high levels of joy in their lives. Only 19% admitted to cheating on a loved one, which is much lower than the national average." Also, "Only 47% had been in a stable, loving relationship when surveyed. Even less reported having been in a long term love relationship. In fact, only 42% said that they had been involved in a committed relationship for longer than three years. Of those who had married, over 50% had been divorced. Almost half admitted to cheating on a spouse or loved one. Two thirds said they were unhappy with their sex lives. They said it was difficult to communicate their desires to their mates, and so, they had unsatisfactory sex. One woman put it this way, “the sex is miserable and so is he (her husband).” (https://www.psychologytoday.com......)."

(rebuttal for balance): Okay genders will never be 100% the same but that does not affect ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. I have clearly explained the major benefits of letting gay couples raise childre, and if you cannot accept the facts then I do not know what to tell you.

All I will say about your conclusion is that I have already provided evidence to explain how children raised by heterosexual couples are more likely to be abused and raped. Did you even read my argument? It does not seem like it.

Here are some more facts/evidence/statistics to support my side:

"Gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt because there is no proof that they do bad parenting. An article on The Huffington Post titled Child Abuse Rate At Zero Percent In Lesbian Households, New Report Finds says, “The paper found that none of the 78 NLLFS adolescents reports having ever been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. This contrasts with 26 percent of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3 percent who report sexual abuse.”(www.huffingtonpost.com). When compared to child abuse done by traditional couples, having same-sex couples would be better for children. This confirms that parenting done by gay or lesbian couples is the same as or better than the parenting done by normal couples. This is another reason why gay adoption should be allowed."

CHECK OUT THIS LINK: http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...

"Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

"When there is only one parent in the family due to divorce or the death of a spouse, the parent may choose a same-sex partner. Gay adoption would allow the partner to become the legal parent of the child. Two legal parents is a pro in the sense that the child would have additional inheritance rights and child-support rights. The child could receive survivor benefits from social security if the new parent dies. The child could also be eligible for health care benefits of the new legal parent, depending on the health insurance policy."

CONCLUSION: Overall, there is no clear cut reasons why this should not be allowed. It is only benefitial for our society and children.

Citations:
http://youthvoices.net...;
http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...;
http://www.livescience.com...;
http://www.livestrong.com...;
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dr.TurkeyBaster 1 year ago
Dr.TurkeyBaster
Absolutely not, gay people are already against God's teachings by being gay. They shouldn't be allowed to have children, because it ruins those poor children's minds and teaches them that being gay is accpetable. Other species of animals might be homosexual, but humans are above other animals.
Posted by dan40000000 1 year ago
dan40000000
Yes as an analyst I am very familiar with the Quality vs Quantity argument which seems to be what we are talking about here. We just prefer different things is all. I would prefer more activity even sacrificing clowns who don't read and just vote (because they could easily cherry pick anyways) but that is just me.

On a funny side this whole conversation reminded me of this clip which is a favorite of mine. https://www.youtube.com.... I like the end :)

I enjoy the site I truly do I wish there was some middle ground for us because I really wish more people would vote it is truly just a shame no one hardly votes.
Posted by tlockr 1 year ago
tlockr
Hmm....grumble.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
It's in the PM bladerunner sent you. Look at the end of the message.

Here's the issue with your suggestion. If we didn't remove voting privileges, many of these voters would continue voting on debates. Realize that I don't just peruse all available debates for faulty votes - my intervention is entirely dependent on reports. Many of these early votes are just not going to meet the standards by any stretch of the imagination, so I'll have to hope that new debaters will know to report these votes. Most of them won't. And so the result is that we end up with the same kind of vote becoming commonplace before the voter is able to learn from their initial mistakes.

The loss of privileges is overblown. All you have to do to get them back is vote on a decent debate, send the vote to bladerunner, and if it's good enough, you'll get them back quickly. If not, he'll coach you through improving it. You may not like it, but it's the best system for ensuring a quick turnaround and acclimating new users to the site.
Posted by tlockr 1 year ago
tlockr
Yeah I've definitely noticed that, too, dan. There seems to be two abilities needed to win debates here. 1) general debate talent and 2) the ability to get opposing votes turned down. I see this in the comments section of all the best debates. They are rife with complaints from (probably new) users about how their vote was slashed.

There definitely needs to be a better system in place to warn new users about losing their privileges. Rather than just immediately hosing people while they learn just how high of a bar DDO has set for voting summaries. I am aware that there is a document or Read Me post for new users to learn from but I'm talking about the first disciplinary step. Instead of pulling a vote and warning the users the attitude here is, remove privileges first than warn users; it seems very backward to me.

I understand you guys are busy, and the DDO admin is not represented well if you are being short staffed; not something you can control. But you gotta cut noobs like me some slack, too. I see my vote taken down and days later I get one report of a vote bomb (a summary I actually put some thought into). With only this one instance cited, my privileges were removed. Really confusing a irritating for me since up to this point I've had most positive experiences with this website.

I'll take the constructive criticism handed to me and remember it for my future voting. Now, how do we reinstate the voting privileges?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Let me start by saying that I"m glad that you feel arguments on this site have influenced your opinion. It means you"ve taken the time to read those arguments, consider them, and fit them into your worldview. The issue is, altering your mindset isn"t necessarily a good reason to vote for a given side. Having one good argument that changes the way you view the world doesn"t mean that they"ve done a good job supporting their side or upholding their burdens. You"re couching your decisions in how their arguments affect you, not how they affect the debate.

If you"ll note, on that debate, I spent a great deal of time going through many of the RFDs given. Cherry-picking is something I look for. Reasonable people can disagree. I"m not sitting here telling you that there"s only one correct side to vote for in every debate " quite the contrary, I"m just stating that it"s necessary to support your decision, no matter which side it"s for. You seem to be viewing moderation as some oppressive force aiming to regulate votes to produce a "correct" decision, but all we"re here to do is ensure that each vote meets a basic level of evaluation that shows that the voter took the time to read and consider the arguments.

And yes, sometimes bias will be a part of decisions that I consider sufficient, mainly because the person doing the voting makes clear how their decision played out based on the debate. They might have found certain arguments more persuasive from their subjective lens, but that"s not enough of a reason for me to remove their vote. Bias is a part of how many people vote, yes, but it shouldn"t be obviously separate from the debate itself.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
It seems we won"t agree on the issue of numbers of votes. I personally don"t think it"s best to have more votes just for the sake of having more votes. Votes should at least do something to inform the debaters, something that shows that the work of the debaters is paying off and that others are taking their arguments seriously. Many of those 18,000 views are repeat views and took place after the voting period ended, but I recognize that not all people who viewed the debate voted on it. Not all people who viewed it read it, either. And among those who did read it, there are many who stopped before finishing. Those people aren"t going to provide feedback " they"re going to provide opinions. I don"t think that"s helpful to the debaters, nor do I think those votes should be weighed evenly with more considered votes. Maybe that"s just me.

I don"t know why you"re deciding to make this political. I"m not injecting politics into this conversation, and my views on this are entirely separate from my politics. I accept that I can"t realistically police every single vote to perfection, but that seems like a poor argument against moderation. Just because the process isn"t perfect doesn"t mean it"s not beneficial. We provide extensive feedback to every voter whose vote is removed, and try to help them improve in providing feedback. I don"t see that as a negative. Sure, some people aren"t going to vote because it requires extra effort, but are you honestly telling me that, coming off of this debate where you apparently spent a great deal of time working on your arguments, that you want people voting on it who are going to take mere minutes to come to a decision, people who barely even took the time to skim your arguments? You"d be satisfied with someone voting on this debate who was obviously biased against you, and who apparently read only your first round before coming to a decision?
Posted by dan40000000 1 year ago
dan40000000
But I tend to promote freedom a lot and let people govern themselves so maybe I am not right for this site sadly. I have really enjoyed my experience here but I always wondered why my debates had 200+ views and no votes. It all makes sense now too bad.

Liberals like to try and control everything and it always produces similar results in economics. Except you wasted tax payer money and everyone's time. Example you are working a lot and in reality you can't prevent people cherry picking lines. So the end goal isn't getting accomplished except you are installing an attitude that voting isn't worth the effort on this site. Just too bad really it is a great website other than that I really have enjoyed it here so everything else you have done very well so thank you.
Posted by dan40000000 1 year ago
dan40000000
@whiteflame
Last thing I will say

I agree with you that my personal opinion shouldn't influence a debate. However in a case where I am on the fence and after I read through the debate if I am swaying one way it is because they had stronger arguments. Now for times when the debate doesn't convince me you can still read through and notice who won the debate by the way that you are being swayed for example do I feel a little doubt or does his/her arguments make me think, etc.

Here is my main point evaluating a debate and even giving reasons can be debatable still and is still potentially biased I mean do you guys have an official answer on who won. For example in this debatehttp://www.debate.org... . Now pro has 9 points yet I thought it was obvious that con won (even though I disagreed with him I had that feeling that I was talking about). Now these nine points should be stripped right? Because they were clearly biased votes I even read their reasoning and let's be real they are biased. This is my point even if we write a lot and explain a ton their is still potential bias in voting so how is this different from just voting without explaining. You should know you can twist anyone's words to be negative just look at MSNBC, CNN, of FOX. So who is the super genius preventing this? You can't obviously so why try an control other aspects?

It is just sad because no one votes on this website and even on hot topic popular debates like the example I gave you their were only 10 votes!! with 18000 views!!!!! I just find it sad you prefer little to no votes because you want detailed explanations which are most likely biased either way so you goal isn't getting accomplished. I can cherry pick lines in that debate example to show how pro won. Do you moderate those too?

I all I see is suppressing voting with the threat of removal of voting rights while trying to accomplish something that is truly impossible.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
And, with regards to the defense of your vote, I don't think you're reading my feedback very clearly. You cannot demonstrate that Con deserved the vote solely by arguing that Pro's arguments were weak. If you feel that Pro carried the Burden of Proof, then you could have used that to justify your vote, but you never talk about BoP. So all you're doing is presenting reasons not to vote for Pro, but never providing any reason to vote Con.

You also presented weaknesses in Pro's argument that never appeared to be addressed by Con. Just because you think the argument is weak doesn't mean that, within the context of the debate, it was shown to be weak. You're artificially expanding on Con's responses, and thus favoring him in your RFD.

One last thing. The view that we're simply not intelligent enough to understand your RFD is about as absurd a proposition as any I've seen. I can't glean anything from your RFD beyond the fact that you were clearly biased and only cared about tearing down Pro's argument yourself. I can't even determine that you read the debate beyond the opening round. This isn't a lack of intelligence playing into it, not an IQ problem at all - you never showed, anywhere in that text, that you'd read the debate to the bottom, analyzed both debaters' arguments, and come to a decision based solely on those arguments. Not only that, but even if you'd shown that effort, this vote would still be a clear vote bomb, since you afforded all 7 points instead of the 3 from arguments alone. That was your choice, but you still have yet to justify a single one of those 4 points. How, exactly, am I supposed to glean any information on them from your RFD?

You deride me and anyone who disagrees with you as intellectually inferior when you've given us none of the tools we need to see your vote as an actual evaluation of the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.