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

"Homosexuality is found in 1500+ animal species. 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). " Here Pro tries to divert attention away from my actual argument. I never said anything about a conscious choice. She has brought it up for no reason other than that it is a common anti-gay sentiment. Again, classic strawman. While different species may have blurry gender roles (male starfish become pregnant), there is no evidence to suggest that it was beneficial to humans. Pro makes a bizarre claim that my own source proves that homosexuality is a "byproduct of biology" and thus cannot be harmful. I don't understand what this means at all. By this logic depression is not harmful because it is merely a byproduct of biology (it did evolve for a specific purpose. Evolution simply implanted the imprinting process itself into the species rather than the specific content of what needs to be imprinted. Since human nature ensures that boys and girls will see each other as exotic, it would be sufficient for evolution to implant exotic-becomes-erotic processes into our species rather than genetically determined "orientations. " You also linked to a source talking about Evelyn Hooker's study in 1957. However, it isn't a random sample; she found the homosexuals in the study through a homosexual organization called the Mattachine Society [1], meaning it is very likely that the selection was biased. While I did intend to press the issue by citing statistics on homosexuals in very gay-friendly cities or countries, I thought of the idea too late and was forced to let it go. Unfortunately, I cannot do it now because it is the last round (although I urge readers to do the research themselves). "1. Con never negated [the fact the gays can possess the same attributes as straights]; he dropped this contention and chose to whine about something irrelevant. " We were discussing if homosexuality was harmful and whether children needed a mother and a father. Simply because homosexuals CAN possess those attributes does not mean that they necessarily will, and it completely ignores the fact that the capability of having those attributes does not mean that a proportionate number of them WILL have those attributes. Notice how she dismisses Mirza's criticism but never even explains why it is irrelevant. I've explained this before and I'm tired of it. "2. Clearly it isn't – it proves that one's sexuality doesn't impact their ability to parent effectively. " I called it irrelevant, but unecessary might have been a better word. Homosexuality does not equal a same-sex relationship or raising children in a SS household. "3. 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. " Let's look at the source: "The Cowan's data suggests that there is a visible benefit to having a two-parent family, regardless of whether the couple is married, heterosexual, or same-sex. " It was made very clear that the study compared two-parent vs one-parent families. It does not equate SS families with tradtional ones, and I think it's pretty obvious that a SS family would have more resources than a single-parent one. I repeat myself: Pro is not directly showing that what SS families provide is equivalent to what traditional ones provide. And if she isn't doing that, then she isn't arguing the resolution. As you may remember, I provided evidence that mothers and father differed in their behaviors towards their children. Pro has not contested this whatsoever. "4A. I dropped the point" You did because you said it invalidated my own arguments. I responded to you but it seems you've decided to ignore me. 4B. "a) I included a plethora of evidence indicating that the vast majority of kids with gay parents turn out just fine. " The study you cited (nllfs) is flawed. [7] "b) Con never mentioned [that fathers are dedicated more than another role model] before, let alone proved it. We have no reason to accept it as a legitimate fact. " You take this out of context. I was responding to your argument that any arbitrary male role model could take the place of a father in a two-mother family. Same for two-father families. "c) 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. " Your *conclusion* was a generalization. You said that IF someone's father was not a good role model the it would be better to have them raised in a SS family. This irrelevant to whether SS families are as good as traditional ones in general. Furthermore, the biological ties part is simply another strawman. I am arguing for a mother and father family structure, and I don't recall saying that they needed to be the biological parents anywhere in my previous rounds. "5. Con didn't respond to several arguments when I typed my last round (notably 2, 5, 6 and 7. )" My previous submission lacked formal structure but I have indeed addressed all of them. All readers, please go over the claims she makes in those arguments and then my submission for Round 3. I have not neglected or ignored anything. "by saying "Sexual orientation in itself has nothing to do with it," Con basically has conceded the entire debate. " I'm getting sick of this. I was establishing that there was a difference between being gay and having a gay relationship or raising kids in a SS home. I was avoiding semantics, and I was wise to do it, because you literally said "Con must explain how a parent's sexuality, either homo or hetero, has a specific impact on a child's behavior. " "Nowhere did he establish that biological ties to parents were significantly important. " This has nothing to do with "biological ties," but rather SS families vs traditional ones. This is the last time I will repeat myself. "[Con's source] 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. " The source specifically establishes that there are differences between a mother's and a father's method of parenting. I don't think Pro even clicked on on the link. "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. " Of course it stands. It's a complete strawman. I never brought it up; you did in the first round and pretended that it was essential to my case. "Con 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]. " I have given links of my own (2-7) that contradict your sources (not including the downloads). I also ask all readers to compare them to each other when voting on sources. "I never used any of the sources listed as problematic on the chart. " Yes, but it proves that there are problems with these studies and more importantly, it proves that the APA distorted the facts. Furthermore, I have pointed out flaws some of the studies you cited previously. "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. " This is an outright lie. I pointed out the Sarantakos study, which found considerable disadvantages in children from SS families and I provided a graph that showed worse outcomes from those children. I mean, I literally provided the entire study, with fourteen different categories (it even differentiated between two-mother and two-father families) with all of the statistics that were significantly different bolded for convenience. "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. " I posted three links to my three graphs, which happened to be on the same page and could be confused with each other. I posted the along with the corresponding numbers for each graph (4, 5, 6) so that readers would know what I wanted to cite. What's really sad is why anyone would consider that grounds for a point loss. It seems YOU got confused, because you apparently didn't bother to scroll down and see the different studies. "Con had inferior s/g by his own admission, and a hard to read/understand format that didn't align correctly with my arguments. " I was forced to surpass the 8000 character limit. I told you so right at the beginning. You type it out in rich text, then switch to regular text and send it. You can't use B/I/U and it messes up your spacing. You cannot edit it without it detecting the character limit. "unnecessary comments like "I'm throughly disappointed in the quality of [Pro's] response" is rude and borderline ad hominem. " I do go over the line sometimes (such as in my debate with WSA on Islam) but he never even called me out on it. You are demanding the conduct point because I made a general statement about your response. Are you serious? This is a debate. I'm not reviewing a research paper. Conclusion Pro has simply justified her semantic tactics and given no legitimate reason as to why her own sources were free from the mistakes I pointed out. She completely ignored my graphs, took phrases out of context, and topped it off with a bizarre attempt to discredit my conduct, sources, and spelling. Unlike my opponent, I will not ask you to vote on vague claims and lawyering, but rather on the graphs, evidence, and sources I provided. Sources: [. http://www.debate.org...] The resolution is negated.