The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Gay Adoption

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Nicholaspanda has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 490 times Debate No: 109841
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I'm looking for another christian to debate with me on this, so the bible may be used quite strongly as a source.

I am FOR gay adoptions.

Extra rules:

  • If either side curses, they lose right away.
  • No new arguments may be brought into the last round, only rebuttals. This counts in conduct.
  • Formatting counts for spelling and grammar in voting. Meaning both sides must make their argument look good and be easily readable.


I'm happy to be participating in such an interesting and important debate. Homosexuality has always been a touchy subject in the Christian community.

Biblical Support

My opponent, I believe, seems to be under the mistaken interpretation that the Bible mentions anything about "gay adoption". The Bible never directly address the issues of who should be allowed to adopt. So, while we can describe the ideal adoptive situation based on the Bible, a man and a woman; we cannot biblically support adoption being restricted to that ideal. [1] However, the Bible does show that God does not intend for same-sex couples to be married; and thus, they should be unable to adopt. Let's being:

Genesis 2:21-25 (NIV)

21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Here, God explicitly endorses that sex should be between man-and-women; not sex between a man-and-man. If God was okay for homosexuals to have a relationship, wouldn't you believe He would've written it down in the Bible?
Debate Round No. 1


Lets start out by stating my agreement: Yes, gay relationships are sinful.

I would of used different bible verses to support that however.

However sinful homosexual relationships are, that doesn't mean that gay adoption is. The bible at no point says that you must be married to raise children, it says that you must be married for sexual intercorse, but not to raise children.

An example for non-married child rearing being okay is actually found in god himself.

Though god mentions marriage to the church itself in revelation, that has not yet happened. Yet we are both adopted by god himself.

Romans 8:16

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

1 John 3:1

See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

Galatians 4:7
Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

All of us sin, and yet we are all expected to look after orphans.

James 1:27
Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

I look forward to your next argument.



Thank you for your rebuttal and your opening claims. I believe that you seem to agree with me on three basic Biblical values. Firstly, gay relationships are morally wrong; secondly, man and women are meant to be together in God's perspective; and thirdly, sexual intercourse should be between man and women. However, I have some issues with your opening claims. I'll address them here:


I'm confused on how any of your opening claims support your argument for "gay adoption". You merely address that yes, homosexual relationships are, in fact, disgraceful. I'm happy to concede that; however, you go off explaining that homosexuality has nothing to do with "gay adoption". I couldn't disagree more. Allow me to explain: If God, a mighty-all powerful creator, condemns homosexuality, why would He allow an exception for adopting a child? Gay adoption treats a gay “family” as equal to a heterosexual family, and that violates the biblical model of the family unit as ordained by God. [1] God's definition on a family is quite explicitly simple: God created a man (Adam) and a woman (Eve); this became the foundation for what we call 'family'.

Scientific Evidence

Studies have shown that fatherless children are twice as likely to become school dropouts, are significantly more likely to become victims of alcohol and drug abuse,[2]and are 4.3 times more likely to smoke than children growing up with fathers. [3] Few studies have been conducted on motherless homes, presumably because of their sparsity, but one study indicates that motherless homes are 56 percent more likely to produce daughters who experience teen pregnancy. [4]

3. Warren R. Stanton, Tian P.S. Oci, and Phil A. Silva, “Sociodemographic Characteristics of Adolescent Smokers,”
lad Phillips and William S. Comanor, “Study Finds Teen Pregnancy and Crime Levels Are Higher among Kids from Fatherless Homes"

Debate Round No. 2


For your rebuttal.

God condemns homosexual relationships true, but that doesn't mean he wants no good to come from them. If god himself adopted us, him being single, then there cannot be an issue with homosexuals adopting.

Adoption can clearly then happen inside or outside marriage, and four hands can still get more done than two, even if those four shouldn't be together.

No parent is perfect, some people have to raise their children alone, like my mother as my father died when I was young. Or in a different way, even those who have sinned through premarital sex are not in sin when taking responsibility and raising a child whom is conceived.

Just as pregnancy isn't a sin, rather premarital sex is, so adoption isn't a sin, homosexuality is. Sin doesn't make good evil.


Most of the time, a father and a mother is better than two fathers, two mothers, or one parent. However, More than 23,000 children age out of foster care a year. One parent or two parents of the same sex are better than none.

There are more than 100,000 kids available for adoption on a given day, and 400,000 in foster care. As it is, not nearly enough two parent households are willing to open up. Not everyone can have the best possible ending.

The avarage time for a child to spend in foster care is three years.

Less than a 3% chance for children who have aged out of foster care to earn a college degree at any point in their life.

7 out of 10 girls who age out of the foster care system will become pregnant before the age of 21.

25% who age out suffer from PTSD.

I'm running a tad low on space, but you get the idea. One parent is better than none.


I"m sending this from my phone, because I"m currently at a robotics convention in Lubbock, Tx. Due to the convention, I"ll be making a short statement and brief rebuttal. If my opponent would like me to clarify anything in the comments I"ll be happy to oblige.


Might I remind my friend that the topic at hand is over gay adoption. My opponent, as anyone can see, is going off into a non sequitur argument. He"s now defending the view that "one parent is better than none." But that doesn"t defend his case of gay adoption at all! Going back to round two and three: we described what a family is: a marriage between two people with an child. While we might disagree on whether both parents have to be heterosexual, we both agree that it"s between two people. His whole case is logically invalid and will not be considered as a rebuttal.


Not much to say here. My friend goes off again into a logically invalid argument that has no bearing on the topic at hand - which is gay adoption.
Debate Round No. 3


It seems I must use my last round to clarify.

My idea first off, is that gay adoption should be seen more along the lines of two single parents. That is why it is important to recognize adoption as being outside of marriage.

I do not recognize the union of two people with the same gender. However, it isn't necessary to have a dad and a mother in a single family, and having two dads or two mothers, is better than growing up in a group home or jumping between foster homes.

Because the outcome of being raised by two parents
that fill the same role is(Which I see as single parenting with extra hands) better than the outcome of having no parents at all. The strong need for homes for these kids to go to shows that we cannot have perfect homes for them.

So, in conclusion, gay couples should be seen as an acceptable, perhaps necessary, deviant.

Thank you for the debate.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Arganger 3 years ago

I tend to limit it to avoid rants, and to help myself be able to respond better because of my issues with executive function.
Posted by Nicholaspanda 3 years ago
I was going to add a whole section for scientific evidence, but I'm limited by character count. When you make a debate, please add the max character count next time. Thanks.
Posted by Arganger 3 years ago
opening claims
Posted by Nicholaspanda 3 years ago
@Arganger, would you like the first round to be for acceptance or would you like me to start off with my opening claims?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.