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

Before I begin, the following reminder is in order :In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and natural selection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EvolutionI suppose your reply is an attempt to rebut my assertions: "Bare in mind that homosexuals that adhere to the theory of evolution must also necessarily adhere to the principle of the theory which posits the propagation of the fittest sexually reproductive species; and consequently has damned the homosexual, for the homosexual doesn't propagate its species."; And that your reply is in favor of: "Homosexuals do not pass on their genes directly, however many studies have shown that they may make reproduction more likely for their siblings. In fact, the prevalence of homosexuality in other species makes it fairly obvious that homosexuality among a portion of the population, must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole. In addition, studies with humans have shown that those people with more older brothers are more likely to be homosexual.The problem with your argument is that you look at evolution from simplistic perspective. Evolution works on helping the individual survive, however in those organisms that reproduce sexually, species evolve in groups. Therefore any characteristic that allows the group to survive will be passed on. There is no definitive proof that homosexuality is one of these characteristics, but the possibility is a strong one.My response:Consider the consequences of supporting the opposition’s argument.If homosexuality is a consequence of evolution and such a consequence is for the purpose of the survival of a species; how does homosexuality benefit the survival of a group of its species? We can immediately infer that evolution has removed the homosexual from genetically contributing to its own species. And thus, the genetics of the homosexual are not conducive to the survival of the species, but are destructive of the survival of the species. Therefore, the answer to the question is: Evolution excludes certain individuals from genetic contribution to its species through homosexuality for the survival of the group for the survival of the species. Furthermore, evolution has eliminated certain genetic consequences from genetically multiplying with members of its own species.We can also infer that all groups of species are beneficiaries of the homosexuality of the individuals of their group. Is the author implying that in order for sexual reproduction to propagate the species more effectively, certain individuals must be homosexual so that others will not be homosexual? The author invalidly reasons: “In fact, the prevalence of homosexuality in other species makes it fairly obvious that homosexuality among a portion of the (human) population, must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.Either the author is attempting to insult the intelligence of the audience of this debate or is guilty of granting that which is unreasonable. (I don’t think the author intentionally does either one, but unintentionally accomplishes both.) If we were to reason according to the example by the author we can arrive at some very interesting conclusions. For example:The prevalence of inbreeding in other species makes it fairly obvious that inbreeding among a portion of the (human) population must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.The prevalence of cannibalism in other species makes it fairly obvious that cannibalism among a portion of the (human) population must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.The prevalence of random breeding in other species makes it fairly obvious that random breeding among a portion of the (human) population must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.The prevalence of vomit consumption in other species makes it fairly obvious that the consumption of vomit among a portion of the (human) population must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole.The prevalence of butt-licking in other species makes it fairly obvious that butt-licking among a portion of the (human) population must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole. Just because certain things are true of many other species doesn’t allow any man or woman to validly infer the same is true of another species. This is called in layman terms: jumping to conclusions.  If you were to reread and carefully consider the assertions of my original argument as re-posted above, you will see that the assertions are subjective on the behalf of the proponents of evolution. The propositions only indicate the inescapable conclusions that the theory supports. I did not assert that the theory of evolution accounts for all that is known of the processes of life’s continuity. Nor did I suggest one should embrace the theory.  I have simplistically explained some of the consequences of some of the supposed complexity of the theory of evolution. And by doing such, I have demonstrated that wherein I reference evolution, I can reduce the supposed complexity of that subject of the theory of evolution to its simple illogical conclusions. And for this reason I am not troubled by an accusation that I view evolution simplistically. (Albeit, my argument is particular, yet I was accused of an universal argument.) Another issue that I must address, before I am accused of neglecting it, is the matter of social contributions made by homosexuals, both tangible and intellectual. Whether a homosexual or any other person has made any tangible or intellectual contribution that enabled/s the survival of a species is purely fallacious. Speculations of what one person has or has not done that conclusively contributed to the survival or destruction of a species are of the fallacy, argumentum ad speculum. We can indefinitely speculate by hypothetical reasoning that which may have been or should have been. Yet, until there is conclusive evidence that would lend itself to the scrutiny of sound reasoning that concludes that any member, or group of any species is a necessary cause or consequence of/for the survival or death of a species, we should not speculate that it is obvious. Can we speculate that we would be ignorant of the law of gravity if Kepler and Newton were never born? Can we speculate that we are alive today because of that knowledge? Yes, we can speculate about anything, but we cannot rationally speculate unto a definitive conclusion that is reasonably useful.One last thing before I end this rebuttal; my rebuttals explain the wherefore of my propositions. Your rebuttals on the other hand evidence nothing that supports your argument. Your arguments seem to always come in the form of either a straw-man, ad hominem, or red-herring fallacy. In fact, there is no argument in your rebuttals. You simply assert whatever you think is ad populum. A little advice: if you are unwillingly to take the time to support your case, I suggest that you forego rebutting the arguments of someone who will take the time. However, I welcome your legitimate attempts to support your views that are contrary or contradictory to my arguments.