Gay Adoption

I’m disappointed after being called out for copy and pasting my opponent repeats it. Lack of Organization/Plagiarism: I do my diligence when it comes to proper citation and organizing my arguments in a manner that is easier to read. Con prefers to copy/paste block quotes from sources even he himself can’t verify. The biggest problem is by doing these block quotes with little to no input from him his sources now need proper citation – looking at his Round 2 sources and argument in general Con uses 2 ‘studies’ both provided by the FRC, one from Loren Marks, and Mark Regnerus. What Con doesn't nor the FRC tell us is that Marks cites Regnerus in her study – so essentially my opponent has tried to pass of one debunked source as evidence under multiple links. His Round 3 source (2) is the same thing, quoting the FRC quoting a debunked source as if they have any interest in science. It should also be noted that when my opponent cites the FRC he cites a group that openly admits they are not interested in science, but advancing a Christian world view [6]. Another problem this creates is there are many unsubstantiated and irrelevant claims made that are passed off as creditable within the block quote when in fact they are just random quotes strung together to lead the reader into thinking they are related. For example in Round 3 Con quotes a source that quotes a homosexual news columnist - then separately makes the unverified claim 9 in 10 gay men cheat in an attempt to compare singles w/no intent to adopt against couples in a committed relationship. A news columnist is not representative and it’s clear there’s more anti-gay propaganda than actual science in his sources. The block quote by Timothy Dailey is the same as above, quoting a source that itself does not use sources, those are just normative claims made about gays - the bias is extreme as is ther est of my opponents sources. Debunked and Out of Context Sources: As mentioned before Con cites sources that cite Regernus, thus they are invalid. I do not dismiss Regnerus out of laziness or inability to talk about his data. But I have limited characters, and if the arguments of Regnerus are presented and dismissed by the Supreme Courts of Michigan and the US Government I have no reason to take these studies seriously either. Now to talk about his Round 3 source (1) – this is a PDF document talking about Rosie O’Donald, and it features a Gish Gallop of quoted statistics w/o context. It references high HIV and depression/suicide rates among gays yet attempts to imply that this is a matter of parenting – it ignores the fact that they are symptoms of cultural homophobia – the stigma against homosexuality itself causes these problems. As I said before it also uses many quotes from experts but like my opponent it doesn’t put them into a cohesive argument – it’s just a list of negative statistics to make gays look like diseased, irresponsible and sex crazed. One could easily use this technique to argue against interracial marriage/adoption. Just bring up a bunch of anti-black stats involving STDs and crime and say they represent all of that culture and future interactions with others. It’s hogwash and none or the arguments are directed at how homosexuals make unqualified parents – they merely look at symptoms of societal oppression like drug use and claim that’s what gays ‘are’ and thus should not be allowed to adopt. Source (3) mentions a study, but provides no links to the study itself. The article seems to suggest not much actual study was done – merely an examination of the people who write pro gay adoption studies, not the studies themselves. Source (4) actually helps my case – more later. Pro Argument: In reading my opponents sources I saw something very interesting: “.. to date, there is only one other gay parenting study that draws from a large, random sample, that of Michael Rosenfeld of Stanford University ..” I found the mentioned study, and it concludes that children raised by gay parents are nearly identical to those raised by heterosexual parents [7]. There is more evidence to suggest gays make equal parents, “Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. … adolescents with same-sex parents reported feeling more connected at school. Another study reported that children in gay and lesbian households are more likely to talk about emotionally difficult topics, and they are often more resilient, compassionate and tolerant.” [8] And as I mentioned before, the root cause of many aspects of the homosexual lifestyle, drug use, depression, suicide, are all symptoms of homophobia and are not reflective on the parenting of individuals – “Some differences [in parenting] may include adapting to different types of family forms, the impact of social stigma on the family, and dealing with extended family members who may not be supportive of same-sex parenting. One of the biggest challenges facing same-sex parented families is that they must live in a culture that supports heterosexist and homophobic attitudes and beliefs, which can affect these families in a variety of ways” [8] A quote from the abstract of another study: “Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. … Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. Paths to parenthood that include assisted reproductive techniques, adoption, and foster parenting should focus on competency of the parents rather than their sexual orientation.” [10] Again as I said in Round One, we should evaluate the issue based on how the sexuality of the parent influences the child. Furthermore there is reason to think gay parents may be better than straight ones – I don’t make a hard claim to this but hear out the logic. Gay parents are incapable of accidentally getting pregnant, if they want children they must plan for it – meaning they are prepared and have put thought into providing a good home. Among straight couples many are accidental, meaning that unprepared usually young people are forced to care for a life they did not expect. They could give their baby up for adoption to go to a household that actually wants them. Finally I will bring up Con’s source (4) this is merely international adoption stats. This makes my previous argument in round one stronger, this goes to show just how many hundreds of thousands of kids need good homes – by denying gays the right to adopt you are forcing children to wait or never be adopted at all. Clearly my opponent does not have the well being of orphans in mind. Conclusion: In short my opponent uses pseudo science [1][9] and contextless block quotes to cover it up. In academia, the part that hasn’t been discredited as fundamentalists [6] pretending to conduct science, the consensus is that gay parents are just as qualified to rear children [3][5][7][8]. The point is simple, orphans around the world need good homes and global overcrowding is real especially in the 3rd word; to limit the number of qualified adoptive parents is an attack on the children for unscientific religiously motivated reasons, not about the issue of weather homosexuals can make decent parents. Sources: [6] http://www.frc.org... [7] http://news.stanford.edu... [8] https://www.aamft.org... [9] http://www.theatlantic.com... [10] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...