Each state should allow same sex couples to adopt children.

Opponent>>> "The main purpose of adoption is not for the satisfaction of a couple, regardless of homosexual or heterosexual, but is for the well-being of the adopted child. " Me>>> This is certainly true and much respected. I have proven that foster care is a home that often comes with child abuse, child neglect, and child molestation and rape. A government is not better parents than actual loving parents, obviously. All studies show that gay and straight parents do an equal job at raising children. Studies also show that foster care does a significantly worse job at raising children than gay or straight parents. [. http://www.window.state.tx.us...] [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] [. http://www.apa.org...] Opponent>>> "My opponent points out the Constitutional statement that states, "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " However, the "any person" does not include same sex couples because the concept of homosexual was not present in the past when this consitutional statement was written in the Constitution. Therefore, my opponent will have to come up with a new statement that was written after the concept of gay couple had been represented in the society. " Me>>> My opponent says that gay people do not count as people because the concept of homosexuality was not existent in 1868 when the amendment was ratified. Well, this is stupid. Homosexuality has been around for as long as heterosexuality. There is no official date known for the first homosexual person, but we are quite certain that homosexuality existed before 1868. To prove this I have found on the Internet a gay couple from 1868: Eduard van der Nï¿½ll (1812-1868) and August Sicard von Sicardsburg (1813-1868). There homosexuals existed before 1868. .. [. http://www.gaytravelnews.com...] The first anti-sodomy laws were established in the 1600s during colonial times. Homosexuality is older than 1868. [. http://www.planetout.com...] >>> Even if homosexuals popped up somehow post-1868, the Constitution would still have to recognize them. There is no place in the Constitution that states that the Constitution only applies to things that are known during and before the ratification of the amendment. There are many new things that the Supreme Court has to look into. Courts are obviously not limited to things that happened during or before the amendment ratification. Opponent>>> "Thomas Jefferson too, was unaware of the concept of homosexual in his time; therefore, "all men" does not refer to gay couple who were actually created differently, having different sexual orientation from other men, who were referred by the Declaration of Independence. Me>>> This is a just simply incorrect. I'm quite certain that Jefferson knew that homosexuality existed. The thought that homosexuality was created post-Jefferson is incorrect. The first anti-sodomy laws were established in the 1600s during colonial times. [. http://www.planetout.com...] Homosexuality is older than Thomas Jefferson. >>> These are the words Thomas Jefferson, who I believe would support gay adoption, said from the Virginia "Bill of Establishing Religious Freedom": "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry. " Opponent>>> "The American Psychological Association and all respectable, unbiased psychological organizations agree that gay couples are just as good parents as straight couples. " is a false statement; Me>>> This is a true statement. These are a few links to back it up. American Academy of Pschiatrics=[. http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...] American Psychological Association= [. http://www.apa.org...] American Psychiatric Association= [www. apa. org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgparenting. pdf] Opponent>>> 'Gays are given lower priority of adoption to married couples and single indivudals. ' [. http://www.associatedcontent.com......] Me>>> This may be true in some prejudicial areas, but this proves nothing except that people are hesitant of gay adoption. This does not prove that gays are less adequate in any way. Studies prove they are equally adequate to raise children. >>> This is also from an unreliable source called The Associated Content, which is a group of bloggers' opinions. The individual who authored this piece is Steve Tucker who has absolutely no credentials which would equip him to write this piece. Opponent>>> "Furthermore, the problems of foster care system cannot be the reason that the adoption for gay couple should be constitutional. " Me>>> It is not. The reason is that the 14th Amendment says, 'no state can deny equal protection under the laws. " That makes anti-gay adoption laws unconstitutional. Opponent>>> "It is another issue that should be treated with other solutions, such as supporting the foster care system with more funding, and with more care. " Me>>> This has been tried. The fact is that the individuals who raise these children only have a motivation from a low salary. Parents actually love their children and care. Parents have been proven to do a better job. Opponent>>> "My opponent did not provide any source that confirms his hypothesis, which states every orphan want to be rather adopted by gay family than staying. " Me>>> I'm not saying that every orphan would prefer gay parents over abusive foster care. I'm saying that the vast majority would prefer this and should be allowed it. Also, I do not need a source because this is common sense. [. http://community.pflag.org...] Opponent>>> "The biased view of anti-gay people can be harshier for children than the bad conditions of foster care system, because children are more vulnerable to psychological insults than physical abuses. " Me>>> It is obvious that foster care's sexual and physical abuses are far worse mentally, physically, and permanently than gay adoption's potential and occasional verbal remarks. Opponent>>> In the present Constitution, marriage is in the United States only consists of the union of a man and a woman. Me>>> Marriage is never in the Constitution. Opponent>>> "Since marriage is the issue that can not be separated from the issue of adoption. "Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. " This amendment directly states that it is not constitutional for the gay people to have the right to marry, which means that it is also unconstitutional for them to adopt children, that adoption needs marriage beforehand in order to provide the adopted child a better environment to live, and more promissing commitment for the child. " Me>>> This amendment never passed Congress. Even many Republicans voted against it. Therefore, it does not apply to the Constitution. You should know what the Constitution says as an American citizen. [. http://www.govtrack.us...] Opponent>>> At last, the mal conditions of foster care system cannot be the reason that gay people's adoption should be constitutional, and homosexuals are not protected by neither the The Constitution's 14th Amendment, nor The Declaration of Independence, in the matter of the right of adopting children Me>>> The reason that anti-gay adoption legislation is unconstitutional is because ofthe 14th Amendment not the bad foster care system. I have proven that foster care is dangerous, unloving, abusive and neglectufl. Gay adoption has been proven to work. The Constitution forces gay adoption (14th Amendment).