Resolved: The US Federal government should legalize same - sex adoption

OBV 1 My opponent has cited Canadian statistics, which may apply, yet I would like to remind my opponent that we are debating whether the US should legalize same sex adoption, not Canada. Rebuttal 1: “Bad lifestyle” My opponent claims that there could be problems as homosexuals are supposedly worse parents than those who are straight. However, I have shown with my case that this is false. Let us look toward Simon Crouch, a lead investigator into the subject when he reports that children of same-sex couples scored 6% higher on general health and family cohesion (1). Not only this, but the sooner we get these children out of the already flawed system of foster care into loving families, the better. Remember, the Christian Science Monitor estimates in 2010 that only 6% of former foster children studied received a college degree and 60% ended up convicted of a crime (2). This is a direct result of the foster care system showing its wear and tear trying to accommodate for so many people in the foster care system while still trying to provide important services. So, regardless of whether a homosexual couple will not be able to become parents, we need to affirm the resolution and stop the degradation of the children in foster care. Next, my opponent claims that homosexual males and lesbians are more likely to suffer health risks and die at a younger age. I will go down the health risks in the order provided. 1. Lifespan According to my opponent, gay men live 8 to 20 years less than heterosexual men. This is from a study in Vancouver that suggested the same thing that is stated by my opponent. However, according to Politifact, the actual story is much different. When delegate Bob Marshall stated that homosexual behavior cuts life expectancy by 20 years, the authors responded by saying that the claim was a gross representation of their work (3). Not only this, but the authors claimed that in the status quo, this is quite different as AIDS and HIV declined after 1996, which was not taken into account in the study. We can also see, from the Center for Disease Control that the same thing happened in the US as deaths from HIV peaked in 1995 at 36.3 deaths per 100,000 people, and decreased in 2010 to 2.7 per 100,000 people. Ergo, we see this point having no more bearing on the debate. Even if you do not by that argument, my opponent has not yet offered the significance of why this matters when it comes to caring for children. 2. Homosexual sex means more HIV I am not saying this is not true, but this has become meaningless. Mostly because this can be solved in the post fiat world. Currently, there are many barriers to health care for same-sex couples due to their own orientation. In fact, according to the National Women’s Law Center approximately 8% of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were rejected outright when they needed healthcare (4). This also extends to 20% of HIV positive individuals (4). However, in the post fiat world people would be more open and accepting of homosexuality so people can get the treatment they need. After all, about 1/5 LGBT people are actually withholding information about their sexual practice from their doctors, out of fear of refusal (4). This can be addressed, yet this entire argument is in the wrong as it implicitly assumes that receiving AIDS was a rational choice and should result in people not being able to care for children, which my opponent has not supported. In other words, this argument is not topical in addressing the needs of the children who are still suffering in the broken foster care system. 3. Domestic violence This entire argument is quite untrue. If we were to turn toward the NCBI in recent years, we can see that there are no significant differences between domestic violence from same-sex couples or heterosexual couples in terms in terms of physical, or sexual abuse (5). Even if you do not buy that argument, let us ask ourselves why a phenomenon as described by my opponent would exist. If we were to look toward Mr. Carroll of Northwestern University, we would find that internal and external stressors could be the cause of supposed increases in domestic violence among homosexual couples due to being marginalization (6). However, we are becoming a more progressive society that values the individual and people’s choices. This means that these rates will certainly shrink as we pass this resolution as it solidifies a precedent in acceptance of people. Not only this, but there have been no recent examples my opponent has cited showing that the removal of state barriers to facilitate same-sex adoption caused extreme harm to children in the past. 4. Women having sex with women health risk There is no link to the resolution why sexual activity that can lead to health risks should ever be a metric for allowing someone to parent or not. Rebuttal 2: Acculturation No, I do not think that children who are raised by homosexuals are at any way disadvantaged. I think that children who are in the foster care system are, but I have proven otherwise. The main argument that my opponent poses is the concept of biomimicry. I have shown real statistics that prove otherwise including Simon Crouch who estimates that children living with same-sex couples rank 6% higher on health and family cohesion (1). Biomimicry is simply a philosophical theory that my opponent has not yet proven. The rest of the argument he has provided holds nothing on today’s debate since my opponent is attacking the gay movement, not the issue at hand, which is whether children are better off in the foster care system or in a gay household. The only part of the argument I will address at the end is my opponent’s question. He, (condescendingly,) asks if I affirm the resolution because I want equity with sexual orientation as well if I am thinking of these children as “guinea pigs” in a social experiment. No, I am affirming this resolution to address the fact that currently children are suffering in the foster care system and that this is a solution to the problem. Rebuttal 3: Counter plan My opponent has brought up a counter plan that involves prioritizing the family, and addressing 4 arbitrary factors for heterosexual couples. This is vague, which causes a problem since my opponent cannot specifically tell me his plan. However, I will address the one thing he has stated that seems to be somewhat specific, which is helping biological families keep their children. This is fine, in fact I would encourage it. Here is the thing though, it is not a counter plan. This is because it can be used in conjunction with the resolution at hand. My opponent has still not shown what makes this plan of his work, or what specifically we would do to enact said plan. My opponent has not even shown the impacts of the counter plan he has provided and has limited his argument to the bare minimum. Conclusion My opponent must prove to me that any of his theoretical arguments apply despite the statistics I offer to the contrary. Not only this, but my opponent has to prove net harms to passing the resolution, which he has yet to do as well and has assumed that I would implicitly see his impacts. For instance, my opponent claims that domestic violence in higher with same-sex couples, yet does not link the argument by saying how this will impact the children. This seems to be the only one that is topical as the other arguments in the section I referenced had little to do with the competence of parenting skill for same sex couples. Sources 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...)