Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

[ Rebuttal to Pro's Arguments ] 1. Con's first assertion is that it is fine to be gay; however, when it "infringes upon the rights of another," that is when it does not become okay. The problem here is that one's sexual endeavors do NOT infringe upon the rights of another, including their children. What if one child's parent chooses to be promiscuous? What they do sexually has no bearing on their child's life, and homosexuality is not illegal or harmful to boot. What matters is how the parents or their parents' partners treat the children... and as you can see, Con has offered no evidence that children with gay parents would be treated negatively at all whatsoever. 2. Con's next point is that only a mother and father can provide certain qualities. This is absurd. What qualities would those be, exactly? Con has cited that a male can never possess the same loving and always caring qualities that a mother can. That's ridiculous. Both males and females are both capable of love and responsibility. Moreover, gender and sex are not the same thing. A male can be extremely effeminate and a woman can be very masculine. In other words, while it is traditionally the father who teaches their son how to play baseball, in no way whatsoever is this limited to the male gender; females can teach their kids the very same thing. Similarly, a gay man might even be MORE willing to do "girly" things with their child, such as cooking and shopping, making my opponent's point that two dads would not be able to do these things just entirely untrue. The point here is that it is insanely ignorant to assume that only males and only females can offer certain qualities and/or life lessons. 3. 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). 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. Why should windows, single parents (often abandoned) or gay people not be allowed to have children when they are perfectly capable of doing so? If this were detrimental to a child's well being, that would be one thing... however, as my many sources have proven, that is simply not the case for children with gay parents. 4. My opponent says that he supports orphans being adopted; however, only by heterosexual parents. My question was whether or not this was beneficial both to the children, to the parents and to the state (tax payers). The reality is that there are 16+ million double orphans in the world who need homes. Even more realistically, these children will NOT all be adopted. So, my points still stand: First, discriminating against gays in terms of adoption is blatant bigotry and discrimination; Second, it is unfair to the children who don't care about the sexuality of their parents - just that they are adopted into good homes; And third, it is unfair to the tax paying citizens who have to continue supporting these orphans instead of allowing them to be raised by willing, capable and loving parents. Con has done absolutely nothing to response to these three topics - he merely stated that he still opposes gay adoption. 5. Con begins by saying, "I could easily find just as many stories with negative responses to gay adoption." Okay then, go ahead! I encouraged Con to look up stories of children with gay parents. He merely stated that he could find these negative stories; however, has not provided any for his argument. Con continues, "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." This is ludicrous. A child's happiness is indeed of utmost importance, as well as their well being. A child with a parent in a wheelchair, or with a mental deficiency, or with a workaholic parent, etc, would all be "missing something" and again these things are perfectly legal. What exactly would a child be missing out on? It can be argued that every child is "missing out" on something. Both of my parents hate sports and I love sports - Am I missing out? Should this be illegal? What Con is doing is playing up the stereotypical gender roles of guys being taught to play sports, fix cars, etc. However - it's the 21st century. Gender roles are no longer (and should no longer) be this rigid and backwards. 6. In terms of sources, Con should absolutely have sources (I don't know where he got the idea that Con doesn't have to provide them; that is simply untrue in any debate). However, these sources should be as accurate and unbiased as possible. Con's sole source is from a writer of the Catholic Medical Association... clearly not an unbiased source! This man is NOT a doctor, not a licensed psychological researcher (doing legitimate studies), etc. Additionally, the sentence directly after the assertion that Con provided (stating that homosexuals tend to suffer from psychological disorders that would disqualify heterosexuals from adopting), the man making the statement notes, "This, of course, is ONLY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, but well-designed studies that compare persons with same-sex attractions with the general public have found that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders." Note that the latter part of this statement is irrelevant; just because as a whole homosexual individuals tend to suffer from additional psychological burdens than heterosexuals, this is not necessarily true of homosexuals looking to ADOPT. As I've mentioned, there is criteria for which people willing to adopt have to pass, and one of them is being medically sound. Moreover, the reason many homosexuals suffer from these burdens is because they experience things like depression and anxiety due to the circumstances regarding their lifestyle, i.e. being denounced by their own family, being forced to remain closeted, etc. Furthermore on this issue, I welcome any and all statistics and research that Con wishes to supply (again, assuming that it's from an unbiased non-religious organization, unlike his last source). He states that research in this area conflicts; however, has not proven that this is the case. 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. [ Con's Arguments ] 1. Con argues that there is a greater chance of violence in gay relationships than straight ones. My source disagrees: The rates of domestic violence in same-gender relationships is roughly the same as domestic violence against heterosexual women [1]. Plus, minorities are said to endure greater physical violence in relationships than Caucasians - Should it be illegal for minorities to adopt children as well? 2. "Most children are thrust into an environment they may not be comfortable with against there free will. Is this fair?" Absolutely it's fair. I would have been more comfortable being born into a rich family, but I wasn't. This made me very uncomfortable. Too bad for me! The points that should be considered here are safety, care-taking, love and discipline. 3. Con concludes by saying that he believes in "child choice rights." However, these rights don't exist! We don't have a choice of whether we grow up "abnormally" or not. Not to mention that CON FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE FACT THAT CHILDREN OF GAY PARENTS *EXCELLED* AS OPPOSED TO SUFFERING FROM LACK OF SELF-ESTEEM OR BULLYING; THEY ALSO HAVE LESS PSYCHOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES. This has gone undisputed. All of Con's points are null and void. Source: [1] http://www.aardvarc.org...