Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

Lwerd- rebuttal #1 okay first of all, it is not advisable at all to be 'promiscuous' at all when being a parent. Alot of people think that they can do anything and there children will be just fine. What alot of people don't know, is that it affects there child more than anything. When a child sees a parent with many other people, how can they be sure love is real, when all they've seen is fake? Many people grow up seeing these same things, and it goes into their lives, because that's all they've learned. Children learn most everything they learn, from there parents. "a mother is god in the eyes of a child" They hear and watch everything you do because they want to be like you. If the parent is setting a bad example, then, the child will see this and think its great for them to do it to. It infringes upon the child's rights because they didn't CHOOSE the lifestyle they live in. They were thrust into a world of difference, and they don't get the same thing that others do. They may never have a mother, or a father depending on the scenario, and they will never know what it is like to have one in their life. And sure the gay couple can still provide for the child well. But is it truly the better option? Against their own will, they are forced into options they may not be comfortable with, or be able to grow comfortable with. Lwerd- rebuttal #2 Yes, It is possible for a father to be "girly" and a mother to have guy traits. But no matter what, mother is never going to be able to impact a child the same way as a father can, and a father is never going to be able to the way a mother can. Its not about being girly, or tomboyish, its about the bonds that humans share with each other. It's simple science, that girls develop stronger parental bonds with girls. The same goes for father and son. Is a girl more likely to tell all her problems to her dad or her mom? Do you think the father we be as understanding as a mother would be? Of course, pro will probably say yes to that, but the truth is, no he wouldn't be able to relate to her in the same way as a mother and a daughter would. Of course he could supprt her, and care for her, but he couldn't ever offer the same advice, and generally just be as supportive as a mother could be. Same for the mother and son. People tend to understand and feel the same things as those of their same gender do. Why do guys choose, mainly only friends who are guys to hang out with? Because they know they can talk to each other more about things that a female won't understand. The only way for a child to have the full objective of the parenting they need, is to have a mother and a father there. And you could pull up stories about people who have lived there life just fine with gay (or single for that matter) parents. But having grown up with only that in their life, that's all they know 'just fine' to be. For example, you could ask someone who has been enslaved their whole life, how their life has been, and they could tell you its good. But is it really? well they certainly won't know because they've lived there whole life that way. So, dear audience, what is better for adopted children? Lwerd- "Con states that he does not believe in children being raised by single parents either. However, that is irrelevant to this discussion, as being a single parent is perfectly legal (whereas gay adoption is not)." I'd like to remind pro how she brought up how 1/3 of our childrens population was raised in a home with single parents, using that as comparison to how many children don't even have homes with two parents. My argument to that was that neither is right, and that every child deserves to have two parents consisting of one mother, and one father. I'd say that is very relevant to this discussion. Whether it is legal or not is not the issue. It's whether it is right or wrong. Thus the purpose of this debate Lwerd- "Moreover, regardless of Con's opinion on what he thinks SHOULD be the norm, the reality is that it's simply not the case in society. People die, and people get divorced. Likewise, people are gay" first of all this is a debate site. Meaning we debate our opinions. Is that not permissable anymore on this site? It is my opinion that gays should not be able to adopt. Your arguing that gays should adopt, ans as of right now that is illegal. So i am confused on how i am not allowed to have an opinion on what should be the norm, but you can? Lwerd- fourth point my opponent talk about discriminating gays, by not letting them adopt orphans. At the beginning of this debate, i thought i made sure to point out that its not about the gay couple, its about the child. thererfore how can that be discriminating? Yes there are plenty of orphan who still need homes. And by a gay couple adopting them, when instead a straight couple can, everything, i said previously still applies. And as for the children who don't care about the sexuality of their parents, then that is their own choice. However, that is not to say that they won't be affected the same as the rest. and the third point, about it being 'unfair' for orphanges to pay money. That i believe is totally wrong, if money if more important than child development. If that is the case, then something needs to be done seriously. Lwerd- fifth point If you didn't understand the whole sources argument, my reasons for not posting a story is because it is pointless seeing as there is stories for both sides, and it would go literally nowhere. I can post some in the comment box if you request, however, puttingt hat same point of veiw where we can easily clash that same argument would be meaningless. Wheel chair? mental dis-order? The main issue is that the child get proper care. I am not saying all straight parents are perfect. My goal in this debate is to prove that it is better than gay adoption. And i'm afraid you didn't quite understand the missing out part. again that is what i refer to as bonds that can only be shared with a certain parent. Read above Lwerd- sixth point I Did say that sources are important. However in a debate such as this where it is opinionated, sources are unreliable. And the source i did provide was from a professional oppinion. You cannot argue that my source is incalid on an opinionated debate. There is simply no right or wrong fact on this situation, no matter how OFFICIAL, you think your sources are. Lwerd- "In fact, most of his argument stems from things that he says and does not back up, such as the notion that a child simply should have a mother and a father. The point of this debate is for him to prove to us WHY this should be the case - not merely assert it to be true." hahahahahah. Yeah this whole time i have just been talking nonsense! Don't mind any of the stuff i wrote above, because non of that is telling you why gay adoption is in-appropriate. Just for the sake of Lwerd's annoyance at my not posting statistics, (as irrelevant as it is) I will supply a source with all the statistics. Here is a story regarding one of many cases where gay parents have been abusive http://www.rpvnetwork.org... here's another with evidence of a commonly known abuse situation from gay parents and more evidence against gay adoption http://www.orlandoweekly.com... Lwerd- "I would have been more comfortable being born into a rich family, but I wasn't. This made me very uncomfortable" What a poor attempt at the correlation between this and the point i was making. You knew exactly what i meant, but two can play the sarcasm game. And as to your third response, i do believe a posted a big long paragraph in my last debate concerning that exact point. Re-read maybe? Just a thought. I am not going to attempt to tell you veiwers to vote con. I already know who popular demand lies with.