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

Yes, you have rightly understood the conclusion of my recent argument with which you do not agree. Next, you stated in the second paragraph,” Now parenthood has many definitions and the ones that go into what I called "maintenance" is what I'm directly interested in.”My response:The premise posits that the term parenthood has, ’many definitions’. It also, propositionally, establishes that the argument is based upon multiple definitions of the same term. (This is a non- discreet way of using the fallacy of ambiguity to argue through to an ambiguous conclusion.) The introduction of ambiguity into a debate is nothing more than an attempt to redefine the key term/s of the debate to prove a predetermined a conclusion. And moreover, the explicit claim that more than one definition will be used for the same term invalidates the entirety of the argument. However, disregarding what your intent may or may not be, I will continue with my rebuttal of the remainder of your argument wherein we disagree.You stated:When adoption is going to take place the progenitor/parent/s of origin are giving up their responsibility of raising and nurturing said child. In that aspect, they give up their rights to parenthood. My response:If what you claim is true then let’s test the principle of that proposition by application of the principle. The principle: When a man or woman no longer wants to be responsible for that which is theirs, they no longer have rights to that which is theirs. (Lucidly stated for the debate)A. A husband and wife decide they want to get rid of their house; they no longer have a right to choose whom receives the house.B. A husband and wife decide to offer up their car for free; they no longer have a right to choose whom takes the car.C. A husband and wife decide to give up their animal pets; they no longer have a right to choose whom receives the pets.All three examples contradict the reality of the transfer of ownership. Albeit, a thief is more likely to agree with the examples than the common person. For the thief presumes it is now his/her property for the taking.All parents have the natural law of authority of ownership and must first transfer that authority unto another party before another party can rightfully claim the same authority over the respective property whether it is of children, vehicles, houses, or pets. Let’s move on to the next statement. You claimed: Since this, (to raise or nurture), is the most important aspect to "parenthood" then any human possible of possessing a nurturing or raising nature is a possible target to be a parent. My response:Children of the age 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9, demonstrate that it is possible for them to possess a nurturing or raising nature; therefore they are possible targets to be parents. Individuals who suffer from diseases of the mind also meet the same criteria. Should they too be allowed to adopt? Pedophiles exactly meet the criteria. Should they be allowed to adopt? The most hardened criminals meet the criteria. Should they be allowed to adopt?The ultimate conclusion, logically deduced from my arguments, is that no man, woman, or institution has authority to determine the recipient of the transfer of authority of that which is not theirs to begin with, including myself. No one in the world has a right to adopt. No institution in the world has a right to adopt. For if we argue that some have a right to adopt then we must reason that they have authority to steal that which belongs to another person.A homosexual has no right to adopt. However, the sister of a homosexual has the authority to transfer authority of her child to her homosexual sibling. No right is necessary. And the friend of the sister has no right to determine the recipient of the authority.Therefore, no gay has a right to adopt. Which is the actual question of the debate.