Gay Adoption

Response to Case 5: Ben Carson has not provided one shed of conclusive proof for his claims. He has claimed many people go into prison straight and come out gay. Therefore, he says, homosexuality is a choice. That is quite literally all he has done. No conclusive evidence has been raised to support his claim. Moreover, you insinuate that heterosexuality is a choice, just like homosexuality. Those are both sexual attractions, as we all know. Sexual attraction is involuntary, that is something we all learn in Biology. There has been ZERO evidence to show that homosexuality is a choice. Some very religious families has LGBTQ teens, these teens are then kicked out by their families for being "sinful". Why, I ask, would a teen choose to be homosexual despite the prejudice they would face? http://www.rollingstone.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Africa is a continent that is full of homophobia. Why would one choose to be gay when they know they face an immense amount of prejudice? http://www.theguardian.com... Using your reasoning, I could turn gay right now. But I can't. Because it's not a choice. When did you choose between females and males? When (and how) did you decide what you'd be attracted to? Since you think sexual attraction is a choice, you should know. Response to your response to case 1: Why would evidence FOR gay adoptions suffer limitations whereas evidence AGAINST would not? Both parties are fishing their evidence from the similar pools. Therefore, if evidence FOR is limited, evidence AGAINST is also limited. Moreover, the definition of "opinion": a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Therefore, by your own words, your point isn't necessarily based on fact or knowledge, thus it wouldn't fit in a debate. Response to your response to case 2: You don't seem to understand the study. Mark's FOCUS for the research was adults who had been RAISED by gay parents. However, the majority of the adults he focused on didn't even fit into that category, so the entire thing was cocked up. It's like me doing research focusing on people between the ages of 20 and 25 doing drugs, but then over half of the people I am analysing are 30 to 35. It renders his research invalid. Response to your response to case 3: Relating to this: http://science.jburroughs.org... You did not give any link to the newsletter you claimed contained the information. You later said that this link was the source you got that information from. There's just a problem... All this link does is reiterate your point. It does not contain any of the actual statistics in the newsletter. All it does is make a claim. "The entire human psych didn't morph into a totally new thing in a decade." You say that all these problems are caused by homosexuality and homosexuality alone. By saying this quote (the one I've put above), you are implying that someone's sexual attraction is the entirety of the human psych, which is just absurd. "before acknowledging that gay people have higher depression and suicide rates." You're just reiterating what you said before. Reiterating something doesn't make it true. These problems are not caused by homosexuality itself, but by the bullying and prejudice homosexuals are faced with. If you were bullied constantly for something you couldn't change, you would feel pretty terrible too. Before you say anything about "sexual orientation is a choice!", please prove it. Ben Carson's claims do not count. Moreover, the source you cite here requires that I pay $19 to view. Did you pay nearly 20 dollars to view this? The source cannot be viewed, therefore it has no part in this debate. "However, if we assume that it's because of stigma, that's one more reason wy kids becoming homosexual isn't a good thng." What? The issue lies not with homosexuality, but with bullying. Yet you think the problem is homosexuality, not bullying. Instead of not letting gay people adopt, why don't we just teach people NOT TO BULLY? "It still applies to gay adoption. In fact, in advocates heterosexuality. It refers to: "Mothers an fathers."" Correction, it refers to "BIOLOGICAL mothers and fathers". Hence, the source applies to heterosexual adopters as well as homosexual ones. Therefore, it is against ADOPTION, not GAY ADOPTION specifically. Gay adoption is included in adoption, but so is straight adoption. Why do I need to repeat this to you? "19% to 29% of gay and lesbian students and 18% to 28% of bisexual students experienced dating violence in the prior year." The authors of the study are against you. Here is what the authors of YOUR SOURCE said about their findings: "Study authors say lack of acceptance from friends and family is the likely culprit. Discrimination, disapproval from families and social rejection at school can all contribute to these outcomes, said Laura Kann of the CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health, and lead author of the report." So, as I have previously mentioned, the problems homosexuals and bisexuals face is NOT a result of their sexuality itself, but rather the stigma against their sexuality. This supports my point and goes against yours, which is weird, considering it is YOUR source. "14% to 31% of gay and lesbian students and 17% to 32% of bisexual students had been forced to have sexual intercourse at some point in their lives."" Since this is a point against homosexuality, you are essentially implying that it was the rape victims sexuality that led to them being raped. If you could prove that, I would genuinely be surprised. How does the victims sexuality lead to them being raped? Response to response to case 4: Taking a quote from the link: ""Whereas heterosexual life is largely grounded in marriage and childbearing, the lack of legal marriage for same-sex couples and greater difficulty having children means that there is not a logical end point for same-sex relationships (Strohm et al., 2009)."" This only applies if same-sex couples cannot get married (it clearly states that). The funny thing is, same-sex marriage is actually legal as of last year in America. Many other countries legalised it before then. Oh my... I've got another quote. It's how the author of that study concluded the study: "Lau concludes his study by methodically pointing out its deficiencies""reliance on self-report data, small samples, and lack of data on attitudes and values," which he says "point to directions for future research and the need for more data on same-sex couples." " He admitted his own research was flawed. Therefore it's not the best source to use in a debate. "The date doesn't change its reliability." In this case, yes it does. "It was analyzed over a long period of time; thus showing a trend." A trend that may not be present today. "However, a number of researchers have pointed out significant methodological problems with the research that would cast doubt on the conclusiveness of the "no difference" findings. Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date" Following your reiteration, I will reiterate my response: "Why would evidence FOR gay adoptions suffer limitations whereas evidence AGAINST would not? Both parties are fishing their evidence from the similar pools. Therefore, if evidence FOR is limited, evidence AGAINST is also limited." PRO-GAY ADOPTION ARGUMENT http://www.livescience.com... According to this link, wherein a study in 2011 is mentioned (the study being released by Oxford University Press), research suggests that homosexuals were more likely to adopt older children, children with special needs, and minority children than heterosexuals. Also, reports say that an estimated 2 million gay people are interested in adoption, a huge amount of potential, loving parents who could take the kids out of "the instability of the foster system". Moreover, there was evidence to suggest that gays are more accepting of open adoptions than heterosexuals (an open adoption being where the child retains some contact with their birth parents). There are many other reasons in that link apart from the ones I have just recited. Conclusion: In conclusion, my opponents sources were either unable to be viewed, debunked, flawed in methods of research or contained no actual science, just claims, or out of date. One of his sources even supported me, not him, as the source pointed out that the fault was in the stigma against homosexuals, not homosexuals themselves. A writer of one of his sources even admitted that the research was limited, thus the study being inconclusive, thus not supporting my opponent one iota. Another source wasn't even specifically against gay adoption; it was against adoption in general (since this INCLUDED heterosexual adopters, it is not a very good source against homosexuality). Moreover, he tries to refute my evidence by reiterating an already debunked claim; that all research for gays is limited, whereas research against gays is not. This was refuted via my explanation that they both collected their information in similar ways. That concludes this round, and for round 4, I would like there to be no new sources brought to the table (by this I mean completely new points; new sources which are used to debunk already made points are allowed). Because he posted 2, I feel obliged.