Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.

I accept Pro's proposed definitions. [ Rebuttal ] A) Pro's first argument is that nature's "norm" is for offspring to be raised by their mother and father. I have two distinct and valid arguments against this. First, there are plenty animals in nature (including humans) where this is not the case. For instance, mother hamsters, pandas and sharks often eat their own young. Some fish spawn by simply releasing streams of their sperm into the general vicinity of fish eggs; in other words just chancing whether or not they will succeed in mating (and then the males don't stick around to raise their fish babies, etc). The point here is that if Pro wishes to relate humans to animals in the nature sense, then he must acknowledge that not all animal parents are "good" parents by typical moral standards to humans. I submit that humans are held to a higher, more advanced standard and way of thinking. Moreover, who is to say what is "natural?" The reality is that everything we do is natural. If it weren't, we wouldn't do it. For instance, air conditioning isn't natural i.e. occurring in nature without human interference. And yet because we have created and implemented this thing into our society and lifestyle, it has therefore become natural as in something humans do for comfort/protection/etc. A good analogy for this phenomenon is to think of a beaver dam. Random sticks aren't just lying around to provide shelter for these animals -- meaning they're not natural -- and yet beavers build these things to benefit themselves and thus the act has made beaver dams a part of nature. Similarly, if humans decide to allow gay adoption to benefit themselves, this too would become natural. On a final note to this point, the obvious fact here is that not all parenting occurs between a mother and a father. In fact, ONE THIRD of children in America are not raised in two-parent households [1]. Plus, the 2000 U. S. Census reports that 33% of lesbian couples, and 22% of gay male couples have at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home [2]. With numbers that high, it can be argued that in fact this trend has become or is becoming what is natural. However, I think it'd be more appropriate to say that because humans are more cognitively advanced than other animals, our norms are different and more transient as opposed to others in the animal kingdom. To re-cap on this point, (1) It would be illogical to compare humans to other animal species in every aspect, including parenting (2) Everything that humans do is natural (3) What is natural has the potential to become the norm and often does... or at least very popular. B) The idea that gay people shouldn't have children because they may be subject to ridicule is absolutely absurd. Children are cruel, and the fact of the matter is that children from all backgrounds and at all ages are often ridiculed at certain points in their life for certain things. For instance, a child with over-weight parents might be made fun of because their parents are fat; the kid who dresses humbly may be tormented for being considered poor; a child with red hair may be teased constantly for being a "ginger" -- etc. The point here is obviously that it is IMPOSSIBLE to shelter children from being teased. Even if extensive measures are taken to do so, the reality is that kids will find things specifically to bother others about, even including their name or last name. Not to mention that just as homophobia is still alive and well today, so are things like nationalism and racism. Should we restrict certain ethnicities or races from having children too? There is one statistic that proclaims 100% of black people have been called the N-word at least once in their lives. So, by your standard, black people should not have children as statistically speaking they will DEFINITELY be made fun of for such a ridiculous (and uncontrollable) reason. Additionally, your argument that homophobia "still" exists actually works in my favor. How do you think that stereotypes and bigotry are overcome in society? The answer is simple: exposure. If people - especially children - are not exposed to various lifestyles or cultures, then of course they're going to rebel against it or see it as threatening or bizarre. Sociologically speaking, humans are always looking for an Other; someone who is different from them to ostracize and stigmatize to scapegoat or just out of internal natural prejudice. The only way to combat this homophobia is to show children and society at large that homosexuals are just as capable, worthy and deserving of equal rights as heterosexuals. C) Pro's final point is equally absurd. First of all, what evidence is there to support the notion that the sexual orientation of one's parents has any bearing on their own sexuality? Just as not all heterosexuals raise heterosexual children, not all homosexuals would raise homosexual children. I'd like for Pro to explain what "distorted" view of sexuality these children would be exposed to. It appears as if the only thing they'd be exposed to is the fact that there are different kinds of families with different kinds of lifestyles. Homosexuality has been present for thousands of generations and isn't going anywhere anytime soon, meaning that it'd actually be beneficial for this exposure to children... more about this later. Furthermore, Pro talks about a female being raised by two men. Stereotypically speaking, aren't gay men very effeminate? In that case, his declaration that they wouldn't be exposed to a feminine influence is wrong. Not to mention that Pro fails to mention the fact that children have various influences in their lives outside of their parents; in other words, a girl in that situation may have an older female such as an aunt to look up to. Note that Pro also failed to explain why parents of two genders are necessary or even beneficial. In fact, "Evidence indicates that parents have little or no long term effect on their children's personality, intelligence, or mental health. The environment definitely has an effect on how children turn out, but it's not the home environment. It's not the nurture they do or don't get from their parents [3]." The point here is that it is one's peers who most influence a child - not their parents. [ Arguments ] A) Contrary to Pro's belief, children growing up in same-sex parental households do not have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes. Dr. Ellen Perrin reveals: "The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way -- In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures -- They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school [2]." The same source also notes two other large studies finding that same-sex parents also had contact with extended family, social support, and had a more equitable division of labor in the home which led to a better up-bringing for the child. I will expand on this and my following point when I have more characters available to do so in the next round. B) My second point is that Pro will have the burden of proving that children are better off in orphanages than with gay parents (as this would be and IS the case). I'll also expand on qualifications for parenting further in Round 2. Sources: [1] http://www.childstats.gov... [2] http://www.webmd.com... [3] Wierson, M., & R. Forehand. (1994). Parent behavioral training for child noncompliance: Rationale, concepts, and effectiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, pp 146-150. -- Referenced in "You Are Being Lied To" interview with Judith Rich