Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

When something is harmful to my society isn't it my business?You said if it is just harmful. You added especially harmful to society. But, homosexuality isn't harmful to society and you didn't refute that point, so it still isn't your business.I have not, because homosexuality is only part of the problem and is related to the breakdown of the family, the emasculation of men, the rise of feminism, and sexual liberation. Most people out there can pretty obviously see the degradation of our culture, just go surf peopleofwalmart.com for a couple minutes. Of course what you would say is that homosexuality is not related.You wouldn't be the first person to claim that society is falling about because of a change in values. Everyone complains about change, and our society is still going. These arguments are worthless.Open homosexuality is the end game of turning away from the traditional Christian nation we used to be. While the argument today is over homosexuality, it is still representative of the whole road that has led us to this point. Proponents of the homosexual agenda need to be made to defend the entirety of the sexual revolution before being granted further reforms of our culture. We need to be going in the opposite direction.What is so great about a Christian nation? Before all these changes that you complain about we didn't have internet. We didn't use to have planes. We didn't use to have cars. What is so great about the living conditions of the past?I didn't bring up methods.Neither did I. Apparently my example was too much for you, but I will listen to your rebuttal.The black community is unwilling to address problems within, and have been sold a false narrative by liberals blaming their problems on white racists. What I was trying to say the goal of rising blacks to an equal standing with everyone else is honorable, because being black qualifies as a suspect class. Blacks do not need to be elevated to an equal standing. Society needs to stop treating them differently.If sexual orientation is mutable. "Discriminating" against those who chose to be homosexual is perfectly valid. So the methods liberals typically use to get their way (supreme court rulings), because they can not get their way through the democratic process, would just be a gross violation of the people's right to govern themselves as they want. Of course if the people of the United States overwhelmingly decide homosexuality is ok then fine, that is the way it is. It doesn't matter if it is someone's choice or not. But unfortunately these issues are going to be forced into the supreme court by liberals. In there, the question of immutability is important...(of course what should be more important should be weather or not the constitution addresses homosexuals, which it doesn't... but unless Antonin Scalia is cloned 4 times and Scalia 2, 3, 4, and 5 are given seats on the court, that isn't going to happen. )Tell me, how many lawsuits have there been to try to re-ban gay marriage in the couple of states that actually voted to allow same sex marriage?So if a court can make same sex marriage legal, but never makes it illegal, how is it remotely fair for that decision to be made in court?We shouldn't ban gay marriage because one of the people was born a man instead of a woman. Under your logic it is ok to ban interracial marriage because you can choose to be sexually attracted to your race if you want. Someones gender is immutable. If the constitution doesn't spell out homosexual marriage, it is up to the court to decide how the constitutional would apply, so I am not sure what your problem is there. The court should be making everything it finds illegal illegal, and everything it finds legal legal. We don't want it any other way. If the court could make 2 different decisions on a topic there is something wrong. So, saying the court will always find it illegal doesn't make any sense.