Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

You sated:"The progenitors give up their authority to the child the second they give it up for adoption. I'm sorry to say that your conclusion is flawed in that regard. If you are not willing to or cannot take responsibility for maintaining a child and "give" it up for adoption, you lose all rights to that child. Hence the term "give him/her up for adoption". You must also note that the acceptance by society makes it an institution."My response:Your argument is an excellent example of the fallacy, self-refutation. The argument affirms in one statement that which it denies in another. You argument asserts that a progenitor gives up its authority to the child when the progenitor gives up the child for adoption. It therefore must be also true when state agencies give up children for adoption they too have no authority. Explain why the argument expresses the denial of authority for the progenitor in the case of adoption while consequently implying the affirmation of authority of state agencies that too seek adoption for a child. Whether your argument is willful deception or a logical error remains for you to decide.Next, reread the conclusion and you will find: ’ …..the choice as to whom the child can be adopted by must remain the sole authority of the progenitors of the child or relatives’…... The child remains under the authority of the parent until the child is adopted. You attempted to redefine that which was previously defined in the argument, and your argument is attempting to establish the straw-man fallacy.Again, you stated: 'You must also note that the acceptance by society makes it an institution.'Therefore in accord with that proposition the following is valid:Society accepts homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuality is an institution.Society accepts masturbation. Therefore, masturbation is an institution.Society accepts stupidity. Therefore, stupidity is an institution.Society accepts whatever. Therefore, whatever is an institution.Reductio ad absurdum!Again, you stated:'If you are not willing to or cannot take responsibility for maintaining a child and "give" it up for adoption, you lose all rights to that child. 'What do you mean by maintaining a child? Your arguments are validating my arguments.Parents maintain their cars, houses, lawns, toilets, tubs, sex toys, etc., but never can it be said that they maintain their children, unless of course they are alike janitors and maintenance personnel. Parents, through out the life of either themselves or their children, always strive to care for their progeny in whatever capacity is required at any given time and provide both tangible and abstract necessities. You assert: “I must lastly note that most of your first paragraph has no psychological validity in the nature of homosexuality.”Your final statement doesn’t challenge any assertion in paragraph one. Moreover, paragraph one of the argument is not a psychological description of any subject and hence cannot be psychologically valid or invalid. It is however an argument that is demonstratively evidenced by the deeds of homosexuals. No attempt was made in my argument to suggest a description of the mind or the thought processes of male or female homosexuals.And lastly, if homosexuals are that caring why would they adopt a baby that they cannot breast feed? For breastmilk is the best milk for infants. All companies that produce baby formula admit that their products are second best. The natural order of life among animals is predicated upon the breast milk of the mother. And just because female homosexuals can be made pregnant by methods contrary to nature doesn’t mean they should be a mother; for by reason of their nature they will not naturally become mothers.