The Instigator
http.mrp
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cooldudebro
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should same sex couples be allowed to adopt children?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Cooldudebro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 88827
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (2)

 

http.mrp

Pro

I think that same sex couples should be able to adopt children because they are not able to have children on their own, and they might really want some. Most people become better people when they have children. Just because they have a sexual preference that's different, that shouldn't mean that they're limited to the stuff that they do. People say it's a sin against nature. But the more kids that get adopted, the more lives of children become better. Being an orphan is not fun. You don't have a good education, and you don't have a good environment to live in most of the time. It could completely change lives if we would just allow same sex couples to adopt.
Cooldudebro

Con

I don't really feel like debating much today; but I'll put this together.

Case 1: Unwanted Traits In Children Raised By Homosexuals


"Both traditional and modern heterosexism predicted negative evaluations in the same-sex parenting conditions with modern heterosexism (denial of continued discrimination) explaining a larger portion of the variance in several outcome measures. It is suggested that differences in gender role expectations for men and women encourage excessive praise for men who interact with children and condemnation of women who disappoint unrealistic expectations." (1)


"The scientific fact is that children's health is endangered if they are adopted into households in which the adults—as a direct consequence of their homosexual behavior—experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, life-threatening disease, and premature death by up to 20 years. "The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write the editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders"—including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports: "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices. Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women." (Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999.) The Institute reports that "significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. ... Nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday." Is it healthy for children to be adopted by adults whose lifestyle is characterized by promiscuity and the medical hazards of multiple sex partners? A homosexual newsmagazine columnist in Detroit last month [February 2002] wrote regarding his partner: "This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships. ... A study I once read suggested that nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers" [emphasis added]. The Centers for Disease Control warns that men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases." Risk-Taking Adults How will being adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior affect the behavior of children themselves? Associated Press reported last June [2001] that a "new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents ... are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves ... (and) grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations." [emphasis added] A major Australian newspaper reported February 4 [2002] on a British sociologist's review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting: "Children raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a study into parenting has found. The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe claims children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and be confused about their sexuality." [emphasis added] Which means children adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior face not only secondhand exposure to the risks of such behavior by their "parents," but are more likely to suffer firsthand by engaging in the same high-risk behavior themselves. Young people who model the homosexual behavior of their adopted "parents" face other risks: The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published a study of 4,000 high school students by Harvard Medical School, which found that "gay-lesbian-bisexual youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors ... [from] engag[ing] in twice the mean number of risk behaviors as did the overall population." (Garofalo, Robert, et al, "The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based Sample of Adolescents," Pediatrics 101, no. 5, May 1998: 895-902.) "GLB [gay, lesbian, bisexual] orientation was associated with increased ... use of cocaine (and other illegal) drugs. GLB youth were more likely to report using tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine before 13 years of age. Among sexual risk behaviors, sexual intercourse before 13 years of age, sexual intercourse with four or more partners ... and sexual contact against one's will all were associated with GLB orientation." " (2)

Once I'm not lazy, I'll put more effort in.


Anime OP:
https://www.youtube.com...




1. http://www.tandfonline.com...
2. http://science.jburroughs.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
http.mrp

Pro

I've been taught my entire life to accept others. No matter what they are like. A sexual preference isn't controlled, it just happens. I can say as much as I would like that I am lesbian. But it's not true. I can say it, but I still don't feel it. If a couple who can't have kids want to have kids, they should be able to have them. The constitution says that everyone should have equal rights, no matter what. So clearly, by discriminating against homosexuals, we aren't following the constitution. Saying that same sex couples can't adopt, is like saying that gay kids can't get an education. They have every right to, but just because of something they can't control, they can't learn. Homosexuals shouldn't have to live in a world where they aren't accepted. It's not right.

And the reason why I took so long to post my argument is because I got my computer taken away, so sorry :(
Cooldudebro

Con

Children raised without a dad suffer many downsides.

"

‘Mice studies in the laboratory may therefore be clearer to interpret than human ones, where it is impossible to control all the influences during development.’

The brains of the fatherless mice developed differently, Dr Gobbi said, with the main impacts seen in the prefrontal cortex - the part of the brain which controls social and cognitive activity.

The study, published in the journal Cerebral Cortex, found that those mice raised without a father displayed signs of ‘abnormal social interactions’ and were far more aggressive than mice raised with both parents.

The difference was far more pronounced in daughters than in sons and females raised without fathers also had a greater sensitivity to the stimulant drug amphetamine.

Growing up without a father could permanently alter the structure of the brain

Growing up without a father could permanently alter the structure of the brain and produce children who are more aggressive and angry, scientists said

Dr Gobbi said: ‘The behavioural deficits we observed are consistent with human studies of children raised without a father.

‘These children have been shown to have an increased risk for deviant behaviour and in particular, girls have been shown to be at risk for substance abuse.

‘This suggests that these mice are a good model for understanding how these effects arise in humans.’ The report said the behaviour of the mice was ‘consistent with studies in children raised without a father, highlighting an increased risk for deviant behaviour and criminal activity, substance abuse, impoverished educational performance and mental illness’.

It added: ‘Our results emphasise the importance of the father during critical neurodevelopmental periods, and that father absence induces impairments in social behaviour that persist to adulthood.’ Dr Gobbi said the results suggested both parents are vital for children’s mental health development and hoped the findings would spur researchers to look more deeply into the role of fathers.

A separate report by the Centre for Social Justice, published in June this year, found that more than 1million British children currently live without a father and have no adult male role model, a figure that is rising by 20,000 a year." (1)

Children who grow up without a mom are worse off too.

"

A Mother's Importance

The mother is usually the first woman that a little boy loves and wholly cares about. Instantly this links a mother’s absence to possible problems with relating later on in life. Potentially, the lack of a mother figure could lead to a string of failed relationships and a higher chance of the child ending up alone. In his article on a world without mothers, Ph.D and Child Psychologist Kenneth Condrell says that much like a steady girlfriend or a wife, the mother acts as the boy’s companion and his encouragement until he is old enough to move on. As far as gender goes, boys who share a strong relationship with their mothers usually end up softer and more compassionate with the women in their lives, but never less manly.

Growing up Motherless

When a boy grows up without a mother, he often lacks the female influence which becomes essential later on in life. Mothers rarely emasculate their sons; they simply aid them in gaining a security around women, the masculine quality of looking after and taking care of the women in their lives. For the same reason, boys without mothers rarely end up more masculine, just less able to relate to the opposite sex. As you can imagine, this could end up as quite the problem, resulting in higher levels of aggression and less ability to confidently enter social situations." (2)

Rebuttals:

Just because you've been "taught" does not mean anything. Teaching can be wrong. It isn't discrimination. Sexuality is a choice. You don't have any evidence to show otherwise. We shouldn't allow them to adopt for the benefit of the children.

Homosexuality should not be accepted.






1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;
2. http://motherhood.modernmom.com...;

Debate Round No. 2
http.mrp

Pro

http.mrp forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
Fine, but if you want to debate with me again, please:

1.) Stop coming to false conclusions, 2.) Use stats that are not over a decade out of date, 3.) Stop citing sources which only contain claims, 4.) Stop citing already debunked people.
Posted by Cooldudebro 1 year ago
Cooldudebro
Let's just say you'll be up for a rude awakening.
Posted by Cooldudebro 1 year ago
Cooldudebro
Hm. We shall see.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
I look forward to your next response, if any.

Or your next debate on this topic!

Both will be equally amusing
Posted by Cooldudebro 1 year ago
Cooldudebro
If you would like to debate again, I'd consider it.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
So you're essentially saying:
"I'm intelligent, you're stupid."
Wow.
Great argument man, best so far!
All claims, no good evidence behind it.
Like all your arguments.

But if you're retreating, I don't blame you.
Posted by Cooldudebro 1 year ago
Cooldudebro
I don't want to extend this any further. As quoted by a wise man:

"You can't change stupid."
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
I look forward to your next comment.

I really do.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
I also find it funny how when I point out bias in your sources, you just say:
"You call my sources biased? Fine! I'll just call you biased!"
I called out the bias only when it was clear. The site you cited had a lot of biblical bias against homosexuality. Just because I point something out about your sources, it doesn't mean you can just say the same thing about me or my sources purely because you can't come up with arguments.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
"Even when I show your sources suck."
You try.
Pretty terribly too.
But from you, that doesn't surprise me.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
http.mrpCooldudebroTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited 1 round, but Con forfeited no rounds. Therefore, Con wins for conduct.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
http.mrpCooldudebroTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: (1) Arguments. The resolution uses the word "should" which implies that whichever side has a greater net benefit to society wins the debate. Neither side has a clear plan as to how to implement whatever they're suggesting, but that doesn't matter because the outcome is pretty clear. Pro's argument is that people have the right to choose to do things they want to do. In the next round, Pro also introduces the argument that not allowing adoptions is discriminatory and unjust. Con's argument is that the health of children is endangered by such adoptions. I didn't like that Con used huge quote-blocks without actually presenting arguments in their own words, but that didn't impact my decision. Con refutes the discrimination point by explaining that it is a bare assertion. I can buy that. Con drops Pro's first argument. Regardless, bad parenting outweighs liberty, since the latter is conditional and bad health is dangerous. Con wins. (2) Conduct. Pro forfeited R3, so conduct to Con.