The Instigator
swalker
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Pro (for)
Winning
75 Points

Should homosexual be allow to adopt children's?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,713 times Debate No: 16294
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (11)

 

swalker

Con

Social science evidence agrees that the best environment for the well being of children is a house with both a mother and father.
A. A homosexual environment, can model homosexual behavior to children.
B. In study published in January 1996 issue of developmental psychology,London researches Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by homosexual parents were much more likely to experience with homosexual behavior themeselves.
C. Base on their findings, Golombok and Tasker acknowledge that by creating a climate of rejection of homosexuality within the family,parents may have some impact on their children's sexual experimentations as heterosexual, lesbian or gay.
D. The state interest in protecting children should prohibiting homosexual couple from adopting children.
IV. Stability is the key to raising an emotional and mentally healthy child
A Unmarried and homosexual partnerd simply cannot provide the stability that married heterosexual couple can give.
B. Children need a role model, both male and female
C. Homosexual activists put their personal desires above the rights of these children to have a chance at a normal family life with a father and mother.
Ore_Ele

Pro

I thank my opponent for starting this debate, and I look forward to going through every round.

I will start off by addressing each of my opponent's claims.

"A) A homosexual environment, can model homosexual behavior to children."

I agree, it can model homosexual behavior (the love between two people of the same sex). My opponent treats this as if it is a bad thing.

"B) In study published in January 1996 issue of developmental psychology,London researches Susan Golombok and Fiona Tasker found that children raised by homosexual parents were much more likely to experience with homosexual behavior themeselves."

First, I would ask for a link to that study. Second, again, why is that bad? Unless you believe that homosexuality itself is inherently wrong, then this is not passing on any "wrong" beliefs.

"C. Base on their findings, Golombok and Tasker acknowledge that by creating a climate of rejection of homosexuality within the family,parents may have some impact on their children's sexual experimentations as heterosexual, lesbian or gay."

This is also true. If parents create an atmosphere of intollerence, that intollerence will pass down to their children. We saw this with racism, and we continue to see it with white nationalism [1].

"D. The state interest in protecting children should prohibiting homosexual couple from adopting children."

The state interest should be the balance of protection and well-being of its people and their rights. Unless you can show that homosexuals adopting children is de facto harmful to the children, there is no reason to deny that as a right.

"IV. Stability is the key to raising an emotional and mentally healthy child"

Agreed, though I would argue that it is stability and love. Both of which can be provided by homosexuals. Unless you have any evidence that homosexuals, de facto, cannot provide love or stability, this doesn't really add to your argument.

"A Unmarried and homosexual partnerd simply cannot provide the stability that married heterosexual couple can give."

evidence? (for the homosexual, not really interested in the "unmarried" though I would argue that you mean "single" rather than "unmarried").

"B. Children need a role model, both male and female."

I'm so glad that you brought this up. This is actually a claim on gender roles, rather than the sex of the parents. This is going to lead into my arguments.

Studies on homosexual parents are limited, namely because 1) homosexuals rarely have children of their own. And 2) homosexuals are often denied the ability to adopt. This means that any study is naturally going to be small, and so more prone to errors and suffer from lower accuracy.

But there is one thing which we see on the rise which can give us some insight to the matter, and that is role reversals of the parents (working moms and stay at home dads). There have been plenty of studies and books writen on the effects of the parental role reversals on children [2][3][4][5][6]. We can see that it is important that both roles (a nurturing parent and a working parent) is ideal for child development. But we can also see that it doesn't really matter which parent fulfills with role. This means that a father could do the working, or do the stay at home nurturing.

This also brings us to an obviousl conclusion. If a man can be a nurturer, and the child turns out fine, and a man can be the provider (worker), and the child turns out fine, than what logical reason is there that you can't have two men (or two women for that matter), one nuturer and one provider for a child? Since it is proven that the sex of the person in the nuturer role doesn't make a difference.

[1] http://www.stormfront.org...
[2] http://sparkaction.org...
[3] http://www.amazon.com...
[4] http://www.drkylepruett.com...
[5] http://www.eric.ed.gov...
[6] http://www.amazon.com...
Debate Round No. 1
swalker

Con

homosexuals have to be punished by the Lord
Traditional Jewish and Christian societies have interpreted these passages as moral imperatives forbidding all forms of homosexual activity. Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites -- the demands for same-gender sex -- are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident with Lot and the angels." Inge Anderson 1
why do you sodom and gommorah was destoryed because people were doing all those sexual things men and men
God's Law Forbids Homosexual Acts
It is easy to see that homosexual acts were forbidden by the Law. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22. This sin called for the death penalty under the Law. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;" Leviticus 20:13. "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." Deuteronomy 23:17. "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Exodus 20:14. Although this verse does not mention an homosexual act, nevertheless, it would forbid this sin. Why? Because homosexuals commit adulterous acts with persons of the same sex.
So what make you think it's right for a two mens adopt a child?

Should Homosexuals Be Punished?
Certainly the homosexual should be punished by civil government. The Bible condones laws against murder, kidnapping, adultery and many other sins. Society has a right to protect itself against destructive crimes. These things are not private matters and should not be treated as such. It is not a matter "between consenting adults in private," as we are told.

Listen to the Word of God! "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (the homosexual), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." 1st Timothy 1:8-10.

Saving Grace And The Homosexual
Some people contend that a homosexual cannot be saved. Generally they base their belief on Romans 1, which says: "God gave them up." Others point to 1st Corinthians 6:9,10 to show that the homosexual cannot be saved. However, we believe that a close study of these Scriptures will prove just the opposite. We hasten to say, that we do not believe that a person who is saved will remain a homosexual. That person who is saved will turn from it, repent of it and forsake it
Ore_Ele

Pro

"homosexuals have to be punished by the Lord."

Are you the Lord? If not, then you are admitting it is not your place to punish them. We know quite well that we are not at right to carry out the punishment of God. "For the wages of sin is death"[5]. "All of sinned and fallen short..."[2]
"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone..." [1]

"God's Law Forbids Homosexual Acts"

God's law forbids many things, however God's law also has something else, which is far more important than punishment and hate, and that is forgiveness and love.

"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." [3]
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." [4]

Lastly, opponent ends with "Certainly the homosexual should be punished by civil government."

I will finish with another verse, "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." [6]

If my opponent needs, I can provide evidence that the New Testiment is more in line with God's view than the Old Testiment, since there are plenty of examples to show that God changed his style, but I will leave that up for my opponent to decided.

Also, regarding all the non-religious stuff from my R1, I will extend as it was not addressed.

[1] http://www.keyway.ca...
[2] http://bible.cc...
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[4] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[5] http://bible.cc...
[6] http://bible.cc...
Debate Round No. 2
swalker

Con

No i did say i was the lord? I said the lord is going to punish them and dont come to me with them versus because I already know that thank you very much but like I said the lord is going deal with the sinners on judgment day
So the debate is offical over with no more to say.........
Ore_Ele

Pro

Whether the Lord will punish them or not is not really the purpose of this debate. It is about whether or not the government should allow homosexuals to adopt.

As shown in R1, there are no medical or psychological reasons to prevent adoptions.
As shown in R2, there are no religious reasons that our government should make it law.

Thank you for the debate. I hope you stay and enjoy many more debates and that we can all learn and grow.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by tianyijoanna 5 years ago
tianyijoanna
It's interesting to see how pro uses the "lord" brought up by con to attack con's arguments. I am wondering how can a homosexual father play the role of a mother? Will homosexuality bring people the characters of the other gender?
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Thats horrible, Christians should love the sinner hate the sin.
Posted by i8JoMomma 5 years ago
i8JoMomma
they should be shot
Posted by Ryanconqueso 5 years ago
Ryanconqueso
I haven't started to read this yet but as Cliff pointed out the error IN THE TITLE. I can only imagine it will be painstakingly humorous and a clean cut victory for pro.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Yes, I had the acceleration turned up high on the mouse.

"Should homosexual be allow to adopt children's?"

Grammar win!
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Not to question a vote that is in my favor, but is there a reason that "sources" was given as a tie?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
swalkerOre_EleTied
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: This debate made no sense at all, Con was the instigator and she couldn't stay within the parameters of her own resolution
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
swalkerOre_EleTied
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's arguments made no sense at all. Pro refuted all of his arguments and had a ton of reliable ground to stand on. Then, in the last round, con tried to change the debate.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
swalkerOre_EleTied
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: Hands down
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
swalkerOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: obvious, refer to the reasons of the past voters.
Vote Placed by gonovice 5 years ago
gonovice
swalkerOre_EleTied
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: Pro used much better conduct, and portrayed their knowledge in a much more professional way. Con was too emotional to make a good argument.
Vote Placed by Lionheart 5 years ago
Lionheart
swalkerOre_EleTied
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: Although I do agree with Con in this debate... Pro put forth a better argument. Had better conduct. Had better spelling and grammar. Provided more reliable resources and links to those resources. But, I do disagree that it doesn't matter which gender provides which role in the development of a child. I also disagree that the 2 people of the same gender in a relationship raising a child, can fill both roles the same as a relationship involving 2 people of opposite genders.
Vote Placed by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
swalkerOre_EleTied
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: swalker sucks for finishing her debate with another person but not with me. swalker sucks for finishing every round of this debate and not so much as posting an explination for forfeiting in my though swalker was online 8 hours ago before the time ran out and did basically nothing on this site according her news feed. so minus all points from swalker for sucking at debating and sucking as a person. :(P
Vote Placed by Ryanconqueso 5 years ago
Ryanconqueso
swalkerOre_EleTied
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: Typically I don't like to slight others but really? What was that? That was the most ignorant debating I have ever seen. OreEle actually provided linked sources, refuted every claim, and made a valid argument. Con however used personal opinions, un-sourced material, and provided no argument to their arguments as they were entirely invalid. The spelling and grammar was terrible and the arguments were bordering on hate speech. Someone should have paid attention in History to align their views.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
swalkerOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: You'd think that Con would at least know to capitalize "Lord." In any case, Con did not present scientific data contradicting Pro's references. If Con's claims based on religion are true, they should be supported by facts evident in the real world.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 5 years ago
XimenBao
swalkerOre_EleTied
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: Lack of support up front, bizarre excursion in R2, then total collapse in R3.