Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples.

Please excuse the many grammar errors/ lack of spaces in this rebuttal. I was forced to go over the 8000 character limit and I couldn't edit anything after pasting it, so a lot of things got messed up. "However again, this has nothing to do with the current resolution unless Con's point is to suggest that gay parents are likely (not more likely) to kill themselves." I concede this due to the difficulty of finding specific statistics. "The study Con presented (Exotic Becomes Erotic) explains the same thing, with the author noting that children's temperment is influenced by biological variables such as genetic factors that contribute to their childhood gender identity. Regardless, this is entirely irrelevant to the debate. What causes homosexuality is not up for question; whether or not gay people can be good parents is." I was trying to establish that homosexuality was unhealthy and a product of emotional and social abnormalities. Again, I must quote: "This is primarily to make the point that homosexuality is not "natural" in the sense that it is unavoidable or part of human instinct."Your argument was literally "homosexuality is not a disorder" so I'm not really seeing anything pointless about it. "If Con thinks that there are qualities or attributes that a straight person can posess that make them a good parent that gay people can NOT possess, he needs to include what those specific traits are. Otherwise this point is in favor of Pro." This debate is about whether or not same-sex couples are generally insufficient parents. Pro now seems to just be exploiting the wording of the debate. Mirza brought this up in the comments: "The wording of the resolution favors Pro. She only has to prove that homosexual couples *can* raise children well. This is obvious, since there are a few cases where homosexual couples have been on par with quality heterosexual parents." What's incredible to me is how you attacked him for pointing that out and then proceeded to exploit the same exact semantical loophole in your opening argument. Some of the more observant readers might notice thatI directly addressed this in the last round; you have not only ignored them but simply restated your argument. I am offended that you insist on exploiting basic semantics when you specifically said that they wouldn't even be an issue in this debate and despite the fact the you were warned about it in the comments and in the previous round. "2. PRO: Aparent's sexual endeavors have little to no impact on their ability to raise a child. -->Con dropped this, so the point goes to Pro." I can't understand why you think you've won anything here. My case has been about homosexual relationships (not necessarily who they have sex with)and the impact of not having a mother or a father. Irrelevant because I never even brought it up. "No, it's relevant because two gay parents can raise children just as well as two staight parents. I've included a psychological study that confirmed this. Con seems to agree. The point goes to Pro." I haveNEVER conceded that; I said that the economic benefits brought by a two parent marriage helped children. Not only is it irrelevant, but it seems to invoke the arguments SSM supporters make about how legalizing SSM would allow more children to be adopted. As the more observant readers may notice,thishas absolutely nothing to do with how effectively homosexual couples can parent. Pro seems to not even be debating the resolution here but rather reciting an unrelated argument supporting gay marriage. "4. PRO: Gay parents tend to exudegreater commitment and more involvement considering 50% of heterosexual's pregnancy's are unplanned. CON: "This is ridiculous; simply because it is a problem does not mean it is inherent in that entire style of relationship..." I don't understand my opponent's response here at all.Unintended pregnancy is linked to numerous maternal and child health problems, and it is certainly not an unavoidable risk in all heterosexual relationships. I am arguing that homosexual relationships cannot provide a child with a mother and a father. Both are inherent problems in that entire style of relationship. I don't know why Pro seems to think this is self-contradictory. "4. PRO: There are innumerable people raised by gay parents who turn out perfectly well adjusted, and note that they didn't miss out on any father/ mother figures in their life." Here my opponent uses the same basic fallacy that she has been repeatedly warned about in the comments and in previous rounds. Let's break down her reply: 1."The real purpose of this point was to combat the notion that children needed two opposite-sex parental figures in order to gain certain benefits." Again, just because someone *can* turn out well adjusted, it does not follow that most will. You havereached a generalizationbased on insufficient evidence. 2."In looking at the source from Con, there is absolutely nothing in there that explains why a child's biological father is necessary or even more valuable than having simply a male figure and role model around." Simply the fact that fathers are more dedicated to their children much more than anybody else would beby their own naturesas fathers(again, please do not use anecdotal evidence to argue this point). 3."For instance if one's biological father was a drug addict, they wouldn't be preferable male role models." This sentencedoes not follow from your previous one. Not only is it yet another fallacy of relying on anecdotal evidence; you were talking about how traditional parents were unecessary and now, out of the blue, you invented a scenario in which one of them randomly happened to be a drug addict. I don't understand how this helps your case. Moving on, your only response to my source about the effects of a natural father is one of your own sources. I grant that my source was obscure and undetailed, but I have demonstrated why your sources are unreliable, and thus my case still stands. I further point out thatmothers and fathers relate to their children differently: "Mothers tend to speak soothingly and softly in repetitive rhythms to their infants and snugly hold them. Fathers tend to provide more verbal and physical stimulation than mothers.As babies grow older, many come to prefer playing with their fathers who provide unpredictable, stimulating, and exciting interaction."[1.http://www.civitas.org.uk...] Recent evidence alsoshowsthat fathers differentially impact brain development. Without the father's spontaneous and energetic playing, the child's left hemisphere develops improperly [2. Schore & McIntosh, 2011]. "5. PRO: Environment in general plays a role in a child's upbringing; it's not limited specifically to the parents.Con must explain how a parent's sexuality, either homo or hetero, has a specific impact on a child's behavior. -->Con dropped this. The point goes to Pro." Again, you've avoided any real debate by strawmanning me. I have stated, very clearly, that it was an unhealthy relationship and the lack of a father or a mother that affected children. Sexual orientation in itself has nothing to do with it. Please stop this; I am on here to have a serious debate and your own resolution is being undermined by the fact that you cannot keep your arguments relevant. "My opponent pointed out that I copied and pasted a sentence from a source. Considering I sourced the sentence, that isn't remotely problematic." I may have overreacted here. However, I believe that directly copied phrases should at least have quotations around them. It's a slippery slope. "Con hasn't denied that the vast consensus ofALLstudies show that there is NO inherent harm in same-sex parenting. He hasn't denied that homosexuals can possess any quality a heterosexual can in terms of attributes that contribute to good parenting." Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence against the same-sex parenting studies. A 2012 study found that the conclusions reached by most studies on the subject did not take into account [3.http://www.sciencedirect.com...]These objections have been made clear already, so I'll just repeat them here. (1) homogeneous sampling (2) absence of comparison groups (3) comparison group characteristics (4) contradictory data (5) the limited scope of children's outcomes studied (6) paucity of long-term outcome data Let's take a look at the studies in theAmerican Psychological Association"Summary of Research Findings on Lesbian and Gay Parenting:" [4.http://www.debate.org...] I urge my opponent to take note of the Sarantakos (1996)study. It compares 58 children of heterosexual married parents, 58 children of heterosexual cohabiting couples, and 58 children living with homosexual couples that were all "matched according to socially significant criteria (e.g., age, number of children, education, occupation, and socio-economic status)." The combined sample size 174, which is the seventh-largest sample size in the research findings above. What's interesting is that all of the larger studies were all adult self-report studies, which means that the Sarantakos is the largest study that investigated the development of children. The results:[5.http://www.debate.org...] Here are some other results from a 2012 study thatdemonstrate that children of homosexual couple are significantly disadvantaged and why other studies fail to show it: [6.http://www.debate.org...] "Con's only rebuttal included the notion that fathers are important for rough and tumble play and to decrease the chances of teen pregnancy. I pointed out that you can have the benefits of male and female role models without having them be parents. It takes a village to raise a child, as indicated by my study that parents aren't the be-all and end-all in terms of development." My opponent makes a critical mistake in equating parental relationshipsand other social relationships and overlooks some basic fundamentals in developmental psychology. Rather than simply list twenty sources demonstrating the opposite, I challenge my opponent to even list one reliable source that supports her view of arbitrary role models taking the place of parents. I doubt that's what she really meant to say, she is committing yet another fallacy in assuming that since parental relationships by themselves are insufficient for proper development that parents must therefore not be critical to it. Conclusion My opponent has responded with numerous fallacies, strawmen, and has done little more to back up her point of view than cite a few mainstream sources. I'm throughly disappointed in the quality of her response. Anyway, let's see what she has to say.