Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.

A) While I agree that it is "natural" for a human child to be raised by their mother and father, I also submit that it is "natural" for a human child to be raised by someone other than their mother and father. Proof is that this is not only done all the time, but actually becoming quite common. You cannot say that because a majority of children are raised by their mother and father that it is necessarily the right way, as that implies the ad populum fallacy. Likewise, you cannot say that because it is customary to be the case that it is necessarly the "right" way, because that gives way to the appeal to traditional fallacy. In other words, Pro's burden here is proving that a child must always be raised by their mother and father in order to be considered acceptable parenting. This includes being against adoption in general (as adopted children are not raised by their bioogical parents). B) My opponent proposes that something is not natural if it involves a choice. This is simply not true. Sex is a choice; one chooses whether or not they would like to have sex, and yet sex is considered natural. Diabetes is natural and yet it may be the result of choices (i.e. poor diet). A better example might be a mental illness such as schizophrenia. It is natural as in occurs due to wiring/chemicals in the brain and yet one does not have a choice whether or not to have this disease. I think these examples are sufficient enough in proving that my opponent's proposed standard for what should be considered natural is absurd. C) Pro asserts that because only 1% of households in the U.S. contain children with gay parents (nowhere was that statistic cited, by the way... plus it's more like 3% , but I digress), and therefore this is proof that it is not natural. However, note that given my analysis of what is considered natural and Pro's rebuttal - or lack thereof - we can see that this clearly isn't the case, nor is it relevant. D) Pro has made a blatntly false claim in stating that I don't care about the welfare of adopted children. That is a ridiculous thing to say with absolutely no basis. While indeed I do not want innocent children to suffer, the point that I made is that innocent children suffering is a fact of life and we cannot exclude homosexuality in the adoption process because of that fact. You cannot prove that a child will be a victim of violence just because their parents are gay, nor should you assume so. Moreover, I can just as easily argue that it is Pro who does not care about the welfare of children. For instance, he would rather needy children (orphans) remain in homeless shelters with no family, rather than be adopted by gay parents who will have met all of the necessary criteria adoption agencies establish in order to complete the process. In other words, he would rather punish innocent children by preventing them to enter a welcoming (and probably stable and loving) home. Conclusion: Pro failed to respond to ALL of these arguments of mine: - Nature is transient; not permanent - Exposure is the cure to homophobia - Studies show that children with gay parents don't suffer; they EXCEL - Kids with gay parents still have same-sex role models - Etc. As such, all of my arguments stand. I have refuted Pro's meager arguments and established even MORE credible ones of my own which have been cited by government and other reputable sources, whereas Pro's are rooted only in opinion with no factual basis or logical backing.