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

Con begins his round by trying to establish that sexual orientation is not hereditary and subject to a large number of variables. While I do think that biology plays a part in sexual orientation, I definitely agree that nature AND nurture play a role. The study Con presented (Exotic Becomes Erotic) explains the same thing, with the author noting that children's temperment is influenced by biological variables such as genetic factors that contribute to their childhood gender identity. Regardless, this is entirely irrelevant to the debate. What causes homosexuality is not up for question; whether or not gay people can be good parents is. As such, I don't need to respond to any of this unless Con explains why it's relevant. Con tries to divert attention away from the resolution and focus on other anti-gay sentiments, such as suggesting that gay people have a higher suicide rate than others, and then demanding I prove that social stigmas aren't to blame. Let me be clear: If Con really wants to debate why the suicide rate for LGBT people is higher - in other words, if he thinks discrimination and social stigmas aren't to blame - I would love the opportunity to inundate him with fact after fact from innumerable sources explaining why he'd be embarrasingly wrong. Let's debate that next. However again, this has nothing to do with the current resolution unless Con's point is to suggest that gay parents are likely (not more likely) to kill themselves. In that case, I welcome him to find cases where gay parents committed suicide, and include them as sources in his next round. I will address them then. Otherwise, this has been a complete waste of time and character space.Now let's move on to my contentions and I'll highlight my opponent's rebuttals. 1. PRO: Gay people are functioning members of society... None of the qualities associated with good parents are exclusive to heterosexuals. CON: That is generally not the case... --> If Con thinks that there are qualities or attributes that a straight person can posess that make them a good parent that gay people can NOT possess, he needs to include what those specific traits are. Otherwise this point is in favor of Pro. 2. PRO: A parent's sexual endeavors have little to no impact on their ability to raise a child.--> Con dropped this, so the point goes to Pro. 3. PRO: Two parents are better than one - it doesn't matter if the parents are gay (study confirms). CON: "Of course having a two-parent family is better than one. The economic benefits alone help children. Irrelevant."--> No, it's relevant because two gay parents can raise children just as well as two staight parents. I've included a psychological study that confirmed this. Con seems to agree. The point goes to Pro. 4. PRO: Gay parents tend to exude greater commitment and more involvement considering 50% of heterosexual's pregnancy's are unplanned.CON: "This is ridiculous; simply because it is a problem does not mean it is inherent in that entire style of relationship..."--> Basically Con just negated the entire idea that gays would make subpar parents due to potential depression (as he insinuated at the beginning of the debate). If Con doesn't think we should consider this fact, then Con cannot take anecdotal instances of depression or any negative factor and apply it to gay parenting as a whole. Instead, we must look at how one's sexuality in general affects the ability to parent. I will agree to drop this contention on the basis that Con's response to it has negated several of his own arguments anyhow. Also, I messed up with numbering in previous rounds, so let's drop this and move on to the other #4...4. PRO: There are innumerable people raised by gay parents who turn out perfectly well adjusted, and note that they didn't miss out on any father/ mother figures in their life.CON: "Anecdotal evidence doesn't matter." Fathers and mothers are not interchangable... --> The real purpose of this point was to combat the notion that children needed two opposite-sex parental figures in order to gain certain benefits. Con mentioned that "rough and tumble" play with their fathers provides children with a variable resource. In looking at the source from Con, there is absolutely nothing in there that explains why a child's biological father is necessary or even more valuable than having simply a male figure and role model around. For instance if one's biological father was a drug addict, they wouldn't be preferable male role models. Con also notes that "presence of the natural father was the most significant factor in reducing rates of early sexual activity and rates of teenage pregnancy in girls." However other studies note that compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They also have higher self-esteem and confidence, and tend to break rules less, indicating that teen pregnancy is likely not in the cards [7]. This debate is about one's sexual orientation affecting their ability to parent - not whether or not you can have the same biological ties to someone who is not related to you (obviously not). As such, I haven't seen any evidence that fathers and mothers aren't interchangeable insofar as being positive male/ female role models. 5. PRO: Environment in general plays a role in a child's upbringing; it's not limited specifically to the parents. Con must explain how a parent's sexuality, either homo or hetero, has a specific impact on a child's behavior.--> Con dropped this. The point goes to Pro.6. PRO: Potentially teasing the kids is a terrible and irrelevant contention... --> Con dropped this, so he must agree. 7. PRO: "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..." I included multiple sources noting that just about every study on gay parenting found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents. CON: "Copied and pasted from source." --> My opponent pointed out that I copied and pasted a sentence from a source. Considering I sourced the sentence, that isn't remotely problematic. On the other hand, it's really sad that Con dropped every single study and every single fact backing up my case for no apparent reason. As we can see, these studies are the meat and potatoes of the debate. My opponent cannot compete with the fact that science and psychology are on my side. [ CONCLUSION ] Con hasn't denied that the vast consensus of ALL studies show that there is NO inherent harm in same-sex parenting. He hasn't denied that homosexuals can possess any quality a heterosexual can in terms of attributes that contribute to good parenting. He hasn't remotely contested the legitimacy of the studies, considering there are dozens that take into account hundreds of cases of kids with gay parents. Ergo, Con acknowledges that research indicates that kids of gay parents show no differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures. Meanwhile, the research also incidcates that there are BENEFITS to same-sex parenting. Con's only rebuttal included the notion that fathers are important for rough and tumble play and to decrease the chances of teen pregnancy. I pointed out that you can have the benefits of male and female role models without having them be parents. It takes a village to raise a child, as indicated by my study that parents aren't the be-all and end-all in terms of development. The resolution has been affirmed.[7] http://www.care2.com...