Gay Adoption

If Con thinks it’s enjoyable to debate in a dishonest and lazy manner to disparage minorities using unscientific propaganda - then I’m glad I could participate in making it unenjoyable for him. The FRC and Christian Bias My opponent quotes the FRC several times – yet claims they are credible despite their frequent sourcing of junk scientists like Mark Regnerus and Loren Marks. He acknowledges their primary interest isn’t science (the word isn’t even hinted at in either mission or vision statements) but forwarding a Christian world view. Con even points out exactly why his own sources are invalid “.. they [FRC] mainly want to promote a Christian view of the world. Thus, the studies they post will likely be studies they find valid that support their position.” This is the text book definition of cherry picking and selection bias. Like my opponent the FRC isn’t interested in the data or the science; they only want what they can use to justify their prejudice. Speaking of Loren Marks: who is cited by Con a few times (and also cites Regnerus in his own papers): In 2010 Marks admitted “he had considered no research that actually evaluated gay and lesbian parents, and that his bias against same-sex families predated any of his scholarly research.” [12] Every one of Con’s sources is filtered through a Christian lens; undoubtedly Con couldn’t find much useful info directly from actual scientific sources. Use of ‘Experts’ I’ve already pointed out how Con’s use of quotation and ‘experts’ is biased and done in a way to deliver half truths and Christian propaganda. His source 1, the PDF for example is not evidence for his case – That block of author names and list of 6 ‘claims’ is misleading because these experts do not support his claim their Fundamental Conclusions (pg 9) are: Marriage is an important social good Marriage is an important public good. The benefits of marriage extend to poor and minority communities. The study does not address parental sexuality, merely the importance of having 2 married parents compared to single and cohabitations. The paper is 26 separate studies, thus they each got a credit for the overall work. There is no mention of the sex of the marriage or its assumed heterosexual. Con is a charlatan using block quotes to mislead and to cover up junk science from being formally sourced in this debate. He also cites sources that are before gay marriage/adoption was legal and when the AID crisis was at its peak (much has changed since then) - all the factors that say kids need married parents couldn’t be applied back then because it was because of Christian fundamentalists that Con represents that made it illegal for gays to marry in the first place. He does the same thing with Con 3. For example as its 4th source it cites a Swedish study about fatherhood, however that study had nothing to do with gay fathers, they only accounted for fathers and male figures in heterosexual households – again they did not account for the sexual preference of the fathers in question – only their Socio-Economic State [11]. These findings and other misleading conclusions Con purports are irrelevant to the debate. Con only sources authors who in turn cite authorities like the CDC, Con never directly appeals to their data because he knows it was not written in a way to directly disparage gays. But I’ll briefly address the data the CDC mentions as a 4th party citation. Yes it’s true gays are more prone to depression, suicide and STDs, but as already mentioned before these are common reactions, even among straight people, as a coping mechanism against society – Con is a perfect example of how hate is used. Furthermore the same type of gay couple that is seeking to adopt probably isn’t the same gay guy that wants to party and have anon sex. Circular Logic Con repeatedly cites that children who grow up with gay parents are more likely to be gay themselves or at least engage in the activity; this is only an argument against adoption if you hold the pre-existing belief that homosexuality is inherently wrong – I do not hold such view. When considering that most if not all homosexuals exist because of heterosexual ‘unions’ – if straight parents are allowed to produce gay kids why can’t gays? Pro Argument In the US the debate is mostly over, both sides of the argument have been heard at the Supreme Court and it has been decided gays have the right to marry; married couples deserve the right to adopt just as much as other married couples. I’ve already shown why Cons arguments are garbage, and the courts have agreed. And as already noted by me and Con there are hundreds of thousands of kids across the world in need of good homes and gays can provide those homes in equal skill to straight parents [7]. Conclusion Con as cited several dated/broken and biased sources, frankly he has no argument. He has no semblance of care for the orphans who are at the heart of this discussion. All he has done it cite bigots or misrepresented sources to his own end. There are thousands of children in need of adoption, stable 2 parent households provide those necessary opportunities to kids, to deny gays the opportunity to adopt denies children those opportunities at a better life. Vote Pro! Sources [11] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [12] http://www.glaad.org...