Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

Thankyou Lwerd for challenging me to this debate. I want to appolagize early, i will most likely not be able to respond each argument quickly, due to my frequent busy schedule, but i will do my best to get my arguments up in the time given. I will debate this in my usual style, by negating specific quotes from my opponent at a time, which will pose as my arguments. Lwerd- first point In essence, there is nothing wrong with a gay couple joining with each other, for it is their personal decision, in whom they "love". However when it infringes upon the innocence of another, that is when a line should be drawn. So i will be arguing on point of gay adoption infringing upon the innocence of the youth being affected. There is no doubt that gays can hold these same qualites (Responsible; Capable; Loving; Trustworthy) however, a male can never possess the same loving, always caring, motherdom that a female can. A father also possesses his same qualities, that only a father can provide, that the mother cannot. Although either of the parents may possess some the others, it would never be the same as it would if the child had a normal set of parents. Lwerd- second point I accept your facts representing children not raised in a two-parents household. It is true, that alot of children live without the availability of having two loving parents. However i am not saying that children living in a house with only one parent is a good thing either. I believe that every child deserves one loving mother, and caring father. This is a commonly used arguments when it comes to gay adoption. saadly enough it is true that some children do live like that due to divorce, or death, etc. I do not support or condone, one person parenting, the same as i would not for gay adoption. children who fall under these circumstances, i believe, need the same as any child who is up for adoption do. A father and a mother, not of the same sex. I think there is room for change in this category. In this case, two negative situations don't make a positive one. Lwerd- third point Lwerd- "Again, Con has the burden of proving that this is a better option than allowing gay parents to adopt. Furthermore, even on a CBA (cost benefit analysis), it would be more appropriate for these orphans to be placed into homes, as they currently tax the state in order to care for these unfortunate children." Actually con's burden is to prove the affirrmative wrong. I strongly believe that every child, no matter what, needs one loving, caring, mother, and one responsible, dependent, father. As for the orphans being put into homes, i totally support that. However, It would be best for the child to be adopted by a loving pair of parents, who naturally obtain the qualities essential to raise a child properly. Lwerd- fourth point I could easily find just as many stories with negative responses to gay adoption. However, that's not the point here. whether the child has grown up happy or not, that child will always be missing something that they would have normally learned with a regular set parents. Sure the gay couple can teach them things, but do you really think a couple with two dads would be able to take his daughter cloth shopping, talk about the girl things in her life etc? would it really be the same? Or what about two moms. Would it be the same having them teach their son the facts of life, fixing cars, playing catch, etc? Man and women were put on this earth to be together. To raise a Family, and to Love and support each other always. And sure a gay couple can love their children, and grow up happy. But being the child who has not experienced what is it like to have the other gender parent, its all they know to be happy. Happiness can be making the best of what we have, or it can be taking advantage of our full availabilites in life and making life more than whats on the table in front of us. gay adoption is slowly destroying the chain of whats was supposed to be the ultimate plan of happiness, that any married couple who've endured the struggles of life long enough til the end, can tell you. Lwerd- fifth point being con, I don't need to have sources, just combatting arguments. But i saw fit to make an example of this and post a source of my own. here is a qoute from the interview Dale O'Leary, a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association. "I asked how could so many same-sex couples qualify, given the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological and other problems than married heterosexual couples. She replied that it appeared to her that many of the same-sex couples who adopted had psychological and other problems that would have disqualified a married man and woman from adoption." [1] the point here is that, There are many conflicting sources in the world, all providing different growth and population rates for these kinds of debate statistics. How would anyone know which one is true? well they research the one they already believe and post the statistics as facts. You see, i could have done the same thing with the previous statistics, but my goal there was to show you the double negatives don't always make a positive, and to show you that the issue being debated is not single child homes, but whether or not gay adoption is right or wrong. So all in all, if there is different statistics for both sides of an argument, how can one be accepted as fact over the other? Now i am not saying that sources aren't good to have in a debate, because they most definitally are. However in serious debate issues such as this, there are many influenced changes to either side. However i still did find some interesting points to leach off of your source, that i'd wish to share. i would first like to point out something that supports con in your source. source pointer- " They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school" first problem with that, is that 'discipline' is included in that sentence. Without the normal male and the female, there to balance each other out, it is proven that gay relationships, can be more abusive in most situations. Here, i could use a source, providing information backing this situation [1], however i will not hold that into my argument seeing as we have already proved that sources can be conflicting. Yes, in alot of gay relationships, there is molestation, abuse, and phychological problems. There is this same problem with normal families too. Ah, and that, is where the source battle comes in. Now onto my arguments. CHILD RIGHTS 1st- children being adopted by a gay couple, get no option in having a different lifestyle than the others. Just like being orphaned, they are thrust into an abnormal world, into where they don't get to experience the same thing as other children do. See, now if they are at an age where they can personally decide they want this, then there is no reason not to! however, most children are thrust into an enviroment they may not be comfortable with against there free will. Is this fair? 2nd- The child starts to grow and develop an understanding that their parents are different from others parents, and suddenly they are thrust into a world, where they are bullied, and ridiculed for something they have no control over. Conclusion- Again, i am a strong believer in child choice rights. I don't beleive a child should grow up or live in an enviroment that's abnormal, from what was meant to be. I believe we need to provide them with the proper route, that will lead to the ultimate path of happiness. By keeping gay adoption legal, we are infringing upon rights of the people most important in this world, the people who will one day be the ones who alter the world into something beautiful and great. Our children and youth! source http://www.zenit.org... P.S. yours is too. :p