Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

1. Con's first assertion is that children are above all influenced by their parents. On the contrary, "Evidence indicates that parents have little or no long term effect on their children's personality, intelligence, or mental health. The environment definitely has an effect on how children turn out, but it's not the home environment. It's not the nurture they do or don't get from their parents" [1]. In other words, it is one's peers who most influence a child - not their parents. Regardless of this fact, in no way did I ever promote parental promiscuity. What I did say was that the sexual endeavors of one's parents should have no legal bearing on child custody. Instead, what should be taken into consideration is the care that the child receives. Con responded to this assertion with, "And sure the gay couple can still provide for the child well. But is it truly the better option? Against their own will, they are forced into options they may not be comfortable with, or be able to grow comfortable with." My answer is ABSOLUTELY YES - It is a better option for a child to be raised in a loving and caring home with two gay parents than the alternative (an orphanage). Again, Con seems to think that this is "unfair" to the child because they may be uncomfortable with their parent's sexuality. However, the child really has no say in their parent's sexuality! This is true of every child, and no different from a presumably straight parent suddenly coming out of the closet. Does this parent lose custody of the child? No. Instead, this is something that the child would have to get over and deal with, the same way parents with homosexual children are often uncomfortable or disappointed with this reality, but likewise there is nothing they can do but get over with it and/or deal with it. One's sexuality cannot be helped (there is a plethora of scientific and psychological studies indicating this fact). When the child is 18, they have the option of abandoning their parents the same way every parent/child has that same option once that magical age is reached. However, until then, the child will inevitably have to learn to cope with the various obstacles and realities that life throws at you. Additionally, I'd argue that living with two gay parents is much preferable than living in an orphanage. If an orphaned child were of a reasonable age to make this choice, at the very least this should be an option given to them. Of course in that case, gay adoption would have to be legal in general, making my affirmation of the resolution still stand. 2. Next Con talks about parental bonds. First, this is not a matter of "simple science" as my opponent would like you to believe. There are indeed psychological bonds that children have with parents, and those bonds are strained and/or disappear entirely through adolescence depending on the individual(s). That is a scientific fact having to do with ones own maturity, growth and identity among other social implications. However, the idea that parents of two genders are necessary for "optimal" bonding with a child is simply rooted in my opponent's OPINION with absolutely no factual evidence to support it. He says, "Of course (a father) could support (a daughter) and care for her, but he couldn't ever offer the same advice, and generally just be as supportive as a mother could be." If that's not a gross mass generalization rooted in assumptions of gender bias, I don't know what is. 3. In terms of single parents, Con maintains that both being raised by a single parent or living with two gay parents is simply (morally) wrong. He attributes any satisfactory sentiments of someone living in this situation as being an ignorant testimony of one who "doesn't know any better" i.e. not knowing what they're missing. What a hypocritical argument to make. I can very easily turn the tables and ask Con how he knows that HE'S not the one who is missing out, based on the fact that HE doesn't know what it's like to live in a different situation. Again, this is not an issue merely rooted in opinion as Con tries to make it appear. The truth is that there are FACTS - legitimate psychological studies given by doctors - to illustrate otherwise. As I've said, innumerable tests reveal that often kids with two gay parents EXCEL in very many ways! Still, Con has yet to address this reality. The fact is that whether one child has a mom and a dad or two mom's really is irrelevant; every situation is unique and defendant upon the individual love, care and attention in that particular household. 4. I maintain that discriminating against gay adoption is pure bigotry. Con says that it's not about the parents and instead about the child; however, let's look at the facts. When someone gets pregnant, does anybody ask: Is this person a stable individual? Do they have a job? Will the child be raised in a decent home? No. Unfortunately, any idiot can become a parent. In terms of adoption, the government is able to impose certain guidelines to ensure that the child is brought into as decent of a home as possible. Still, I fail to see how the sexuality of an individual inhibits the child's personal growth, self esteem, ability to bond, have a decent childhood, etc., in ANY WAY. Simply saying they'd miss out on the experience of living in a 2-gender parent household seems very insufficient to support the Con position. I'll repeat for a final time that ORPHANS NEED HOMES. Con talks about these "potential straight people" adopting them; however, in reality that is simply not the case... or else there still wouldn't be so many orphans! There are many kids who would be FORTUNATE to be adopted by gay parents, instead of being born into less than stellar 2-gender households, or adopted by a straight couple. What Con is doing is assuming that a straight couple would make better parents than a gay couple. There is NO evidence to support this, and evidence to support the contrary! 5/6. That brings me very conveniently to my next point: Sources. Con writes, "In a debate such as this where it is opinionated, sources are unreliable. And the source i did provide was from a professional opinion." First off, it depends on your source and what you're trying to prove. Con's so-called professional opinion is not from a professional at all. In a court of law, you have to have a certain amount of credibility in order for one to be considered an expert witness, for example. This includes a PhD, a plethora of experience, etc. Con's "professional opinion" comes from a Catholic researcher... far from credible. My facts and statistics from licensed, UNBIASED professionals with no agenda (such as working for the Catholic Family Protection group, for instance). So, contrary to Con's point, I haven't provided any OPINIONS via my sources. Any opinion of mine was supported through FACTS. And here's another one from the government's childwelfare.gov: "Nontraditional families have unique strengths that make them excellent, and in some cases, the best homes for certain children." Now, in response to Con's posted sources about cases of abusive gay parents, those entire stories are irrelevant as they can be easily negated by me posting about stories regarding abusive heterosexual parents, like this [2], [3], etc. I'm out of characters, so I'll end this debate right here. I'd like to say in conclusion, however, that I don't think it's fair that Con presumes I will win based on popular opinion. That assumption is unfair both to me and the readers/voters. I stand by my performance and arguments in this debate. Sources: [1] Wierson, M., & R. Forehand. (1994). Parent behavioral training for child noncompliance: Rationale, concepts, and effectiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, pp 146-150. -- Referenced in "You Are Being Lied To" interview with Judith Rich [2] http://adoption.about.com... [3] http://www.highbeam.co...