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

It's too late for him to reply to dropped arguments. My opponent begins, “I was trying to establish that homosexuality was unhealthy and a product of emotional and social abnormalities… Homosexuality is not ‘natural’ in the sense that it is unavoidable. .. " Homosexuality is found in 1500+ animal species [8]. They did not make the conscious choice to have a same-sex attraction given their extremely limited cognitive abilities. Con’s own source admits that sexuality is a byproduct of biology. There is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality, and Con never proved that there is (he rightfully dropped the point about suicide). Now onto my points… 1. There are no parenting traits a heterosexual can possess that a gay person can not. Con wasted space saying I was exploiting the word “can” in the resolution (based on Mirza’s comments). My point is that any quality or trait you associate with good parenting - i. e. , responsible, caring, loving, etc. - can be possessed by gay people. Ergo, good parenting qualities or techniques are not limited to heterosexual parents. Con never negated this idea; he dropped this contention and chose to whine about something irrelevant. 2. Whether a parent has sex with a man or woman doesn't affect their parental judgment. Con dropped this in R2, and in R3 responded that it's “irrelevant. ” Clearly it isn’t – it proves that one's sexuality doesn’t impact their ability to parent effectively. 3. While 2 parents are better than one (Con agrees), it doesn’t matter if those parents are same-sex (Con disagrees). I included a study validating that 2 same-sex parents provide the same benefits to parenting that 2 heterosexual parents do: double the resources, emotional support, etc. Con said this too was irrelevant, but it proves that what parents provide and not their sexuality is what matters. 4A. I dropped the point that statistically, gay people tend to make better parents given the fact that they choose to become parents and therefore don't have an unwanted or unexpected responsibility imposed upon them like many heterosexual couples. 4B. I explained that kids with gay parents can turn out perfectly well-adjusted and why. Let’s break down Con’s rebuttal… a) Just because someone CAN turn out well adjusted doesn't mean that most will. You have reached a generalization based on insufficient evidence. --> The exact same comment can be applied to kids with heterosexual parents. They CAN turn out fine, but there are no guarantees. I included a plethora of evidence indicating that the vast majority of kids with gay parents turn out just fine. b) Fathers are more dedicated to their children much more than anybody else… --> Con never mentioned this before, let alone proved it. We have no reason to accept it as a legitimate fact. c) You can’t rely on anecdotal evidence like drug addict fathers… --> I never said that a single example should dictate the norm, so Con is wrong to suggest that I used fallacious reasoning. There was nothing in Con’s source that explained why a child's biological father is necessary or more valuable than having a positive male figure around. For instance, if one's biological father was a drug addict, they wouldn't be a preferable role model just because they shared DNA (this is an example - NOT a generalization). Having a positive figure in general is far more important than biological ties to the child. 5. Pro: Environment in general plays a role in a child's upbringing; it's not limited to parents (indicating the importance of role models). Con’s reply: You've avoided any real debate by straw manning me. I have stated 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. First, because Con didn't respond to several arguments when I typed my last round (notably 2, 5, 6 and 7), I assumed he wasn’t going to challenge them due to agreeing with me rather than exhibiting poor conduct by ignoring them. That's why I suggested he agreed - I wasn't straw manning. Con hasn't proven these reasons as remotely being legitimate causes of homosexuality, and neither have his sources. Also, it seems that by saying “Sexual orientation in itself has nothing to do with it,” that Con has basically conceded the entire debate. But back to Con’s reply… Nowhere did he establish that biological ties to parents were significantly important. He presented a study that demonstrated the quality of care infants receive affecting their development. This source never said that the care had to come from biological parents. The same thing applies to Con’s other sources-- the study indicating the benefits of rough and tumble play never mentioned the importance of the father figure’s DNA. Instead it noted the benefits of the interaction, but did not discount the same benefits from similar interaction experienced by kids with two moms or two dads. 6. Just because the child may get teased has nothing to do with a homosexual's ability to parent. Con dropped this contention twice, therefore the point stands. 7. Innumerable studies confirm that kids with gay parents show no differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures of success. Research also indicates that there are benefits to same-sex parenting which Con never challenged or denied. Con brings up several objections my studies; however, never specifies which study he is referring to that is allegedly flawed. He mentions the absence of comparison groups and their statistics as a problem, but clearly that is not true of all studies - ones I've brought up already and others [9 - 16]. These criticisms come directly lifted from Science Journal’s critique of studies from the American Psychological Association. However, my sources included studies other than the ones utilized by the APA. I never used any of the sources listed as problematic on the chart. As such, none of Con’s proposed faults apply and the results of my presented studies must be acknowledged by the audience. Con didn't present any studies indicating harms attributed to gay parenting, which is good because I could have easily discounted those based on bias, faulty sampling and other mistakes. But all we've seen in this debate are studies affirming the resolution. Sources: . http://www.debate.org...--------CONCLUSION1. Gay people are not any less likely to exhibit good parenting traits.2. What parents do in the bedroom doesn't affect their ability to parent.3. The care the child receives is important – not the sex or sexuality of the caretaker. None of Con's sources proved that biological ties are necessary in order to be positive role models, or that kids of gay parents are missing those role models. 4. The majority of every study done on gay parenting indicates no negative discrepancies in parenting styles or ability. I've included many sources; Con hasn't (and can not) discredit them all. 5. At best, research indicates that intact families are superior for raising children. Non-intact families are inferior regardless of the sexual preferences of the parents. Again, sexual preference is irrelevant to good parenting. Arguments: PRO Sources: Some of Con's sources were irrelevant. Others helped establish my case. He cited the same source 3x in the last round, and failed to provide the correct sources for his claims which inhibited my ability to respond. S/G: Con had inferior s/g by his own admission, and a hard to read/understand format that didn't align correctly with my arguments. Conduct: Wrongly accusing me of using fallacious reasoning multiple times resulted in my opponent's own red herrings. Further, completely unnecessary comments like "I'm throughly disappointed in the quality of [Pro's] response" is rude and borderline ad hominem - insulting me in general as opposed to dissecting the arguments.