CreateDebate


Debate Info

312
308
Yes because NO because
Debate Score:620
Arguments:286
Total Votes:875
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes because (152)
 
 NO because (126)

Debate Creator

goodmale(1459) pic



Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?

Yes because

Side Score: 312
VS.

NO because

Side Score: 308
8 points

That's what they are good for.

Side: Yes because
0 points

I like Hitler. I agree with what Hitler says. Hitler is my ally :)

Side: Yes because
4 points

I don't see the issue, I don't see how the sexuality, or the gender pairing of the parents has any effect on the child's upbringing nor on the parenting skills of the couple.

Side: Yes because
Awesome1202 Disputed
0 points

I don't see the issue, I don't see how the sexuality, or the gender pairing of the parents has any effect on the child's upbringing nor on the parenting skills of the couple.

Homosexuality is a perversion..... and you think they aren't going to corrupt the kids? It is a well known fact that homosexuals were sexually abused as children.... Gays have a significantly higher chance of illegal activity which is why over HALF are in prison.

Side: NO because
Cartman(18192) Disputed
3 points

It is a well known fact that homosexuals were sexually abused as children

Not actually true. Some were, some weren't, just like non homosexuals. Plus, that doesn't mean they will abuse their kids.

Gays have a significantly higher chance of illegal activity which is why over HALF are in prison.

This isn't something people say. Wow, you came up with a new reason to hate gays. While you are at it, why not just make up other stuff. You should make up a specific lie about homosexuals that shows they are bad around kids.

Side: Yes because
3 points

Homosexuality isa mental disorder. Its a disease. Would you risk innocent children to be exposed to potential abuse and very big possibility to be infected as well...

Side: NO because
zephyr20x6(2386) Disputed
2 points

It is a well known fact that homosexuals were sexually abused as children....

All of them, or a majority of them? Because heterosexuals get abused to...

Gays have a significantly higher chance of illegal activity which is why over HALF are in prison.

You have a study to back that up? Even if that were true, that doesn't mean the cause of their illegal activity is from them being gay, it could be from a third variable. For example, society oppresses gay people, and thus influences them towards illegal activity. As for the homosexuals are in prison, yes, a lot of men in prison fuck other men, it's not because they are particularly attracted to men, it is because they are desperate... I mean talk about being locked up in a cage for years, with no hope of female attention, and being mentally unbalanced and having... needs... to contribute to that mental unbalance.

Side: Yes because
Jilligan(5) Disputed
0 points

Oh my goodness - that is the most backwards comment I have heard.

Gay's are not a product of an abused childhood, nor are they more likely to be involved in illegal activity.

Your sexual preference bears no impact on your ability to parent a child.

Goodness - give yourself a shake.

Side: Yes because

Last time I checked this is a Country of democracy. Who cares if the parent are the same sex. That doesn't matter, the way they treat the children matters.

Side: Yes because
Awesome1202 Disputed
2 points

Last time I checked this is a Country of democracy. Who cares if the parent are the same sex. That doesn't matter, the way they treat the children matters.

Homosexuality is a sin

Side: NO because
Awesome1202 Disputed
1 point

Last time I checked this is a Country of democracy. Who cares if the parent are the same sex. That doesn't matter, the way they treat the children matters.

Homosexuality is a sin

Side: NO because
FlaMie(5) Disputed
1 point

In the name of 'democracy', many things and issues are skewed in favour of personal choice and freedom.

While homosexuality does not physically 'harm' a child, it psychologically brings about the wrong message to the child. Such relationships are not to be encouraged because it is not normal human behaviour. It is a choice that some people make. It is inappropriate and the child (while he may be loved) will be confused with the social order of things.

Side: NO because
2 points

Your a Fuckface. Not everyone should be raised to be heterosexual. I guess raising a child with two parents is brainwashing. Just like raising a child to be Christians. Your killing their freedom of religion rights and not allowing them to discover religion and guidance in their own, which is worse than having two parents.

Side: Yes because
Awesome1202 Disputed
0 points

Last time I checked this is a Country of democracy. Who cares if the parent are the same sex. That doesn't matter, the way they treat the children matters.

Homosexuality is a sin

Side: NO because
Awesome1202 Disputed
0 points

Last time I checked this is a Country of democracy. Who cares if the parent are the same sex. That doesn't matter, the way they treat the children matters.

Homosexuality is a sin

Side: NO because
2 points

Just like God told Abraham to kill Isaac, and last time I checked Killing is a way worse sin than being homosexual. So what's your fucking point. And also, the assholes who written the bible were homophobes.

Side: Yes because
2 points

As long as the person is competent and not a child molester I don't see why they can't have children.

Side: Yes because
2 points

The debate should be framed around the child, who is clearly better off with gay parents than in some institution. Conservatives who "believe in family" or "protect family values" should be the first proponents of gay adoption, but it would seem to me that some of them they're too desperate to show the extent of their bigotry and hypocrisy.

Side: Yes because
2 points

I don't see why not...

Side: Yes because
2 points

Gays have as much rights as straigth people. Some people might say that children need a mother figure in their life but a teacher, grandma or friend can also fulfill this.

Side: Yes because
2 points

You know what- Fuck you all, the amount of times I have seen you bullshit assholes on here bitching about " Gays should rot in hell, it's a sin, immoral, sick, mental disorder" e.t.c. makes me wanna punch the fucking computer screen. At the same time, more and more of these degenerates come on the site with names such as "gaytruth" or "gaylies", obviously with one goal- to troll the site with anti-gay propaganda, and no one does a thing. Are there not site moderators? This is a debate site, not a site of decadence where people just insult each other and say obscene things for the sake of boredom.

Side: Yes because
3 points

Jesus Christ Jungel-boy! Calm down. Jc has admitted to having over 40 accounts... all of them ant-gay. So almost every single anti-gay person is really just Jc. Also.... Are there not site moderators? No, not really. Just Andy who has a full time job and kids. He doesn't have time to moderate all the shit you don't like.

Side: Yes because
Jungelson(3925) Disputed
0 points

Oh douchebag Hellno says calm-down so I guess I must, eh? Well fuck you too Mr. Control Freak you too can go to hell for all I care.

Side: NO because
CreateSome1(29) Disputed
2 points

Got this from Bigoats a createdebater so all credit goes to him

Latest research shows the fallacy of the widespread claims about "children raised in gay families statistically are no worse off than those raised in traditional families".

This "information" is usually backed by the corrupt APA (American Psychological Association). However, a detailed investigation has shown that out of 59 studies sited by APA in support of this claim, only 4 meet the APA's own standard:

Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751;

As documented by Lorens Marks, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children." Therefore, not one of these studies contains scientific proof of the claims made.

Mark Regnerus, a sociologist from the University of Texas, has recently conducted a careful, rigorous, and scientifically sound study, which was free of the methodological flaws found in preceding research.

Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012).

Below are some of the most important findings:

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

•Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)

•Have lower educational attainment

•Report less safety and security in their family of origin

•Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin

•Are more likely to suffer from depression

•Have been arrested more often

•If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

Children of lesbian mothers:

•Are more likely to be currently cohabiting

•Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance

•Are less likely to be currently employed full-time

•Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed

•Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual

•Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting

•Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."

•Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will

•Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others

•Use marijuana more frequently

•Smoke more frequently

•Watch TV for long periods more frequently

•Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).

The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.

Source: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF12F01

Also the average homosexual lives to 44 years old.

Side: NO because
Hellno(17752) Disputed
2 points

You lost me at: Got this from Bigoats

Side: Yes because
2 points

Are there not site moderators?

Not really. These trolls drive me crazy too. Of course, not as much as they must do to you. I hope you can put up with it.

Side: Yes because

I honestly don't think this should even be a question. There is no viable argument against this.

Someone's sexual orientation has no impact on their ability to be a parent. I'm having a hard time coming up with more things to say here because it's common sense. Society already accepts single parents, infertile couples, and straight couples to adopt... how are gay couples any different from these?

Side: Yes because
FlaMie(5) Disputed
3 points

Inappropriate sexual orientation will have an impact on children while it does not mean that they do not have the ability to be good parents. Providing the essential environment for the child to grow up is paramount for the overall well-being of the child. Do we want to teach the child to accept homosexuality and that it is something 'normal'? Then a male and female couple becomes 'abnormal'?

I do not agree that gay couples are similar to infertile couples. Infertile couples don't have a choice... it could be due to some biological problems but gay is a choice. They choose to have same sex relationship leading to their inability to have children. If they want to have children, choose the right partner.

Side: NO because
Larchmont(22) Disputed
1 point

There is nothing inappropriate about homosexuality. It's natural.

Side: Yes because
-1 points

Study after study after study has show that who you are sexually attracted to IS NOT A CHOICE. You're claiming that if two people love eachother, are naturally attracted to eachother, and want children, they can't be with eachother and still have kids?

Side: Yes because
pirateelfdog(2654) Clarified
-2 points
2 points

If you make a statement that goes against the Bible or supports homosexuality this troll known as JC comes around with one of his fake accounts and just downvotes to make himself look "better." You didn't say anything bad. Right now he is the awesome1202 account.

Side: Yes because
1 point

Sure! As long as they don't like fucking animals or nasty stuff like that.

Side: Yes because
Awesome1202 Disputed
2 points

Sure! As long as they don't like fucking animals or nasty stuff like that.

Gays are worse

Side: NO because
Hellno(17752) Disputed
2 points

Your avatar is a little gay sooooooo....

Side: Yes because
Ligaspaka(29) Disputed
0 points

Homosexuality isa mental disorder. Its a disease. Would you risk innocent children to be exposed to potential abuse and very big possibility to be infected as well...

Side: NO because
Hellno(17752) Disputed
0 points

Well, that is a stoooopid argument.

Side: Yes because

Of course. There is nothing wrong with being gay. .

Side: Yes because
Awesome1202 Disputed
1 point

Of course. There is nothing wrong with being gay. .

Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26 etc.....

Side: NO because
1 point

That is your religious interpretation of texts written over 2000 years ago, not fact. The law should not be based on religious opinions or delusions.

Side: Yes because
Awesome1202 Disputed
1 point

Of course. There is nothing wrong with being gay.

Read your bible.....

Side: NO because
1 point

Read your as well. i prefer the NKJV personally. .

Side: Yes because
Ligaspaka(29) Disputed
0 points

There is...Homosexuality is a mental disorder. Its a disease. Would you risk innocent children to be exposed to potential abuse and very big possibility to be infected as well...

Side: NO because

Why wouldn't they be allowed to adopt? A child will still grow and mature properly with gay parents.

Side: Yes because
1 point

What does sexuality have to do with the ability to take care of children?

Side: Yes because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Everything.

Are homosexuals able to natrually reproduce? If nature determined a homosexual relationship is a valid setting to raise a child it probably would have made concessions for them.

Side: NO because
MuckaMcCaw(1967) Disputed
2 points

Are homosexuals able to natrually reproduce?

Yes they are. They are gay, not impotent.

Side: Yes because
1 point

Yes, why not? They are just like us straight people-except they love their own type so yeah sure they arent aliens or anything

Side: Yes because
1 point

why shouldn't they their just like humans like we are but choos the same gender it shouldn't even matter it's their life not yours

Side: Yes because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Yes, it is their choice what they want to do.... Except they are dragging a third person in the middle of it.

Side: NO because

If they can provide for the needs of the child and be able to shape them into good individuals then they are eligible to do so.

Side: Yes because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

All liberals lack that ability, especially homosexuals. You lack the ability to teach ethics that actually have meaning.

Side: NO because
1 point

Sexuality is only a small factor in teaching ethics. Maturity, educational attainment, experience and the like play a bigger role in teaching ethics. Would you rather have an illiterate straight couple rather than an educated homosexual couple who can provide you what you need?

Side: Yes because
1 point

I don't see why not. It doesn't matter if your bisexual or what ever y'all call it. I believe its ok and there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to.

Side: Yes because
1 point

Yes, because Hitler is good and will always be good

h i t l e r

Side: Yes because

Yes, I believe homosexuals should be able to adopt children because they can live their own lives, and if they feel that they are ready to deal with a child long-term, then absolutely. It's really the same decision as woman-man marriage, except that they have the ability to produce their own child with their DNA, but that should not discourage a couple of the same sex. All hail decisions.

Side: Yes because
1 point

Yes because just like others they are human beings we cannot just judge them on who they love. We have no right stop two people who are gay from loving each other. Just because they are gay does this mean they are not allowed to adopt a child. Every human being is equal in this world so why should we differentiate the fact that these people are gay and cannot adopt a child!!!!

Side: Yes because
1 point

There are many people in the world who are against adoption at all. There are tons of homosexual couples that could adopt and give the children a loving home. I'm not sure why some places don't allow that. Basically, they're denying that child a safe and loving home which could be an even better home than the orphanage or foster home.

Side: Yes because
1 point

Affection of love is love no matter who shows it hence the reason that people adopt instead of having their own children. Example Oliver Twist

Tom sawyer n many more

Side: Yes because

All that matters is that some child has two loving parents who love he or she.

Side: Yes because
6 points

Homosexuality isa mental disorder. Its a disease. Would you risk innocent children to be exposed to potential abuse and very big possibility to be infected as well...

Side: NO because
Verukter(44) Disputed
5 points

The level of moronity in your argument is actually impressive.

Side: Yes because
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
1 point

And your proof is where?....................................

Side: Yes because
6 points

Homosexuals live 20 years less than the average normal heterosexual male*

Side: NO because
Larchmont(22) Disputed
3 points

If that's a statistic, then I have a number of arguments against it. Although my main counter argument to your point is that even if this were true, how does this relate to the stance against homosexuals being allowed to adopt?

Side: Yes because
Intangible(4933) Disputed
1 point

His point was, that the Gays would die so soon, that the adopted kids would be put back up for adoption anyway.

Side: NO because
HaleyT(7) Disputed
2 points

Source for this statistic? And explain to me how this statistic knew that men who stayed in the closet were gay so that they could include them in this stat.

Side: Yes because
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
1 point

So what?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Side: Yes because
5 points

Latest research shows the fallacy of the widespread claims about "children raised in gay families statistically are no worse off than those raised in traditional families".

This "information" is usually backed by the corrupt APA (American Psychological Association). However, a detailed investigation has shown that out of 59 studies sited by APA in support of this claim, only 4 meet the APA's own standard:

Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751;

As documented by Lorens Marks, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children." Therefore, not one of these studies contains scientific proof of the claims made.

Mark Regnerus, a sociologist from the University of Texas, has recently conducted a careful, rigorous, and scientifically sound study, which was free of the methodological flaws found in preceding research.

Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012).

Below are some of the most important findings:

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

•Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)

•Have lower educational attainment

•Report less safety and security in their family of origin

•Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin

•Are more likely to suffer from depression

•Have been arrested more often

•If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

Children of lesbian mothers:

•Are more likely to be currently cohabiting

•Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance

•Are less likely to be currently employed full-time

•Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed

•Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual

•Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting

•Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."

•Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will

•Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others

•Use marijuana more frequently

•Smoke more frequently

•Watch TV for long periods more frequently

•Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).

The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.

Source: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF12F01

Side: NO because
5 points

Is downvoting your only argument?

..............................

Side: NO because
Atrag(5439) Disputed
4 points

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF)

This is the flaw. It is clear that children with adoptive parents are more likely to suffer than those from traditional families. Children are adopted when taken into care. They are taken into care for a reason and are often damaged by things that they have suffered at the hands of their parents.

Side: Yes because
4 points

Your source, The Family Research Council (AKA Focus on the Family) and Mark Regnerus are well known for their dishonesty and manipulation of the facts. They have actually been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of their "propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people . . . that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities." They don't just look for data that supports their views and ignore the counter evidence, they actually take the counter evidence and twist it to make it look like it supports their view. The people whose publications have been misrepresented by them have even contacted them telling them to stop misrepresenting their data, but they still continue to do it. Here is one of those letters.

-

"Dear Dr. Dobson:

I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.

From what I understand, this is not the first time you have manipulated research in pursuit of your goals. This practice is not in the best interest of scientific inquiry, nor does bearing false witness serve your purpose of furthering morality and strengthening the family.

Finally, there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article. My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can’t raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.

I trust that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family.

Sincerely,

Carol Gilligan, PhD

New York University, Professor"

-

Here are a few quotes from other letters.

“The research has been hijacked for somebody’s political purposes or ideological purposes and that’s worrisome.”

“It’s a complete misrepresentation of what the research actually says,”

"It has come to my attention that my book 'The Trouble with Boys' has been seriously misrepresented in writings by James Dobson."

"You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes... There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions."

-

The following website has videos of the researchers saying Focus on the Family misrepresented their data, and on the bottom of each page is the letter they sent to Focus on the Family. http://respectmyresearch.org/anti-gay-activists/focus-on-the-family/

Now about the "study" by Mark Regnerus. "Mark Regnerus’ flawed paper in the journal Social Science Research claiming that gay parenting harms children has been widely criticized by major medical organizations and over 200 professors across the country, while hate groups and ex-gay ministries have defended it. There are many indications that the paper was published as a political calculation, and the University of Texas has agreed to investigate whether it constitutes scientific misconduct. Now, a member of the journal’s editorial board has completed an internal audit of the study and found it to be 'bullshit.'"

This page explain why it's bullshit:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/27/596251/gay-parenting-bullshit/

Here's more info about the Family Research Council for those who are interested.

http://justiceforall.firedoglake.com/2013/12/10/family-research-council-distorts-researchers-work-a-decade-after-he-demanded-a-retraction/

http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2011/02/peter-sprigg-proves-family-research.html

http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2010/12/family-research-council-defends-itself.html

http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot. com/2011/06/family-research-council-sneaking.html

Side: Yes because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

All of your sources just sound like well qualified critics who didn't like what the article said... I clicked through your links and links of links and didn't find anyone disputing the data. The only possibly valid criticism is that parents who simply had a gay relationship at some time were considered gay parents... What is so wrong with that? The results still show that they were unfit parents and the optimal situation for a child is to live with their own mother and their own father who are married... Find me a study to dispute that, instead of people upset that their own studies run contrary to their worldview.

Side: NO because
4 points

Couldn't of put it better another great article from the Family Research Center!

Side: NO because
2 points

There is no proof of your accusations. You need to come up with a neutral source.

Side: Yes because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

4 real... who would you call a neutral source? From my point of view almost all medical and educational institutions have completely bought in to the gay agenda. Anyone who speaks out against the gay agenda from within those institutions are instantly purged.

Side: NO because
4 points

Homosexuality disgusts me and they have a mental problem and they need help!

Side: NO because
5 points

You need to debate with logic, and not emotion. .

Side: Yes because
Awesome1202 Disputed
5 points

You need to debate with logic, and not emotion. .

The bible is logic

Side: NO because
goodmale(1459) Disputed
0 points

Says the one that didn't use logic on my other topic !!! hypocrite !!!

Side: NO because
2 points

Um, ok, that statement sort of disgusts me because of the ignorance behind it, but regardless of that:

How does that make it so they cannot be allowed to adopt? There are plenty of people with mental problems (I'm not saying homosexuals have a mental problem, they don't) who may adopt already...

Side: Yes because
Awesome1202 Disputed
2 points

Your ignorant of the gospel

Romans 1:25-27 (King James Version)

Page Options

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email

>>

Show resources

Add parallel

Romans 1:25-27

King James Version (KJV)

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Side: NO because
Larchmont(22) Disputed
2 points

Your personal disgust at homosexuality doesn't relate to the argument of gay people being allowed to adopt, whilst your view that homosexuality is a mental problem is simply wrong. I'd like to know how you define mental problems.

Side: Yes because
4 points

GAYS AND THEIR LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

Side: NO because
1 point

And what exactly have the gays lied about?

I mean, do you have any specifics?

Side: Yes because
Awesome1202 Disputed
6 points

That being a perverted homosexual should be allowed and tolerated without shame or penalty.

Side: NO because
4 points

Gays should not be allowed to adopt because:

1) the world is created for a male and a female to become a couple. From there, they will procreate and extends the existence of the humankind. Gays cannot procreate unless they receive the help of Science. Thus, by allowing adoption, are we encouraging such relationships?

2) The child(ren) will not grow up in a wholesome family to understand straight human relationships. While I am not against homosexuality, it is a matter of choice, I do not encourage it. How should the child(ren) be taught to address the parents; as father or mother or simply fathers / mothers? The child(ren) will likely grow up to face social pressures. While we cannot for sure say that gays will bring up gays, I am not confident to say that the child(ren) will not be influenced by his / their gay parents towards their own sexual orientation.

3) Adoption should be an option for couples who have failed to have children. This is entirely different from people who simply cannot because of their sexual orientation.

Side: NO because
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
1 point

Have fun proving your crap......................................................................................

Side: Yes because
3 points

Homosexuals disgust me and their perverts and are disgusting...............

Side: NO because
4 points

Very true.Homosexuality isa mental disorder. Its a disease. Would you risk innocent children to be exposed to potential abuse and very big possibility to be infected as well...

Side: NO because
SexyBanana(306) Disputed
1 point

Gays raise the best kids...................................................

Side: Yes because
HaleyT(7) Disputed
1 point

An entire population of people shouldn't be oppressed because of something you find icky.

Side: Yes because
3 points

Homosexuality is a sin per the bible and Leviticus and Romans and other verses so to allow it is wrong. The bible clearly states homosexuals are to be put to death.

Side: NO because
1 point

This is a list of everyone who the Bible commands must be put to death:

1. People who don't listen to Priests.

2. Witches

3. Homosexuals

4. Fortune-tellers

5. Anyone who hits their father or mother

6. Anyone who curses at their father or mother

7. Anyone who cheats on a spouse

8. Anyone who commits fornication

9. ANYONE WHO IS NOT CHRISTIAN

10. Atheists

11. False Prophets

12. The entire population of any town if one person within the town worships

another god.

13. Anyone who is not a virgin before marriage.

14. Anyone who commits Blasphemy.

15. Anyone who works on the Sabbath

God Himself also killed many, and I assume you would believe that the crimes they committed are wrong:

16. Any child of a sinner

17. The death of all the first born in Egypt

There are more and more, check out the link at the end of this page. The source is truly the Bible, so I believe you will find this an acceptable argument.

Source: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm and you know, the Bible

Side: Yes because
GuitarGuy(6105) Clarified
3 points

9. ANYONE WHO IS NOT CHRISTIAN

I think you mean Jewish, because New Testament doesn't command anyone to be put to death, that I know of.

People should realize that there is a reason why OT and NT are so much different.

Side: Yes because
QuestionMan(603) Disputed
1 point

ANYONE WHO IS NOT CHRISTIAN

How can you be Christian if it was before Jesus Christ was born in 4 BC?

Side: Yes because
3 points

Hooray!!!!!!

First man on the moonbat................

Side: NO because
1 point

no dey have no such xperience dat can help dem to handle da child

Side: NO because
1 point

dey cant breastfeed which is vry imp for phsical development of kids

Side: NO because
HaleyT(7) Disputed
1 point

Okay so the inability to breastfeed means they can not adopt children who are older than infants?

Side: Yes because
1 point

Even though this arguement has nothing to do with your ability to be a parent, I don't think they should. I have nothing against them, I'm fine with it because it isn't my business, but, if they adopt think about the impact happening on the child thing adopt. That child may face bullying because of this and may be treated differently, I have heard of cases that the child is treated as dirt by both kids and PARENTS, particularly in high school and college when the child is more independent and alone in the world. This may lead to suicide for the child.

Side: NO because
Verukter(44) Disputed
2 points

child may face bullying because of this and may be treated differently

Well then why don't you teach your shitty kids not to bully someone for being different?

Side: Yes because
HaleyT(7) Disputed
1 point

That's like saying we shouldn't allow women in the military because they may be raped. Stop blaming the victims and work on fixing the antagonists.

Side: Yes because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

We shouldn't allow women in the military because THEY DO get raped. One in three females in the military have been sexually assaulted. If your worldview breaks down whenever it is challenged you should change it.

Side: NO because

No because no.

Side: NO because
Verukter(44) Disputed
2 points

I wish a moderate would delete your response because it's not even an argument.

Side: Yes because
1 point

Why should I? So I can get in to a long debate with someone who won't change there mind? Fuck off!

Side: NO because
1 point

Here are some well-known facts:

1. Male homosexuals make up for about 3% of the population.

2. In about 30% of child molestation cases, the victim is a boy.

3. 97% of all child molestation is committed by men.

The consequence:

Male homosexuals are at least 10 times more likely to molest boys than other population groups.

It is not normal that this sexual minority is allowed to adopt children.

Side: NO because
Atrag(5439) Disputed
3 points

2. In about 30% of child molestation cases, the victim is a boy.

You may be interested to know the majority of people that sexually abuse boys are heterosexual in terms of their sexual relationships with children. Being that its often the father that sexual abuses children, it is not surprising that he is straight.

You are probably the most intelligent anti-gay person I've encountered and sometimes I find your arguments quite convincing. However when I read how you twist statistics to your own end I find it disappointing. You're intelligent enough to realise that they don't support your arguments which leads me to believe they're your deliberately misrepresenting statistics.

Side: Yes because
BigOats(929) Disputed
0 points

You may be interested to know the majority of people that sexually abuse boys are heterosexual in terms of their sexual relationships with children.

Yes, this is the best defense LGBT activists have been able to put up on this subject: That men who molest boys are heterosexual. If you look closely at this pseudo-theoretical claim, you will soon see just how absurd it is. Of course they are homosexual, or at least bisexual. The victim's age does not change that fact at all.

You are probably the most intelligent anti-gay person I've encountered and sometimes I find your arguments quite convincing.

Thank you. I feel I must treat this subject seriously, because for me this is more about being pro-human rights than anti-gay. In my view, the LGBT movement is discrediting the very concept of human rights. This is very bad for my country, because it gives a green light to political nutcases who disrespect that concept in principle.

However when I read how you twist statistics to your own end I find it disappointing

I was not trying to twist statistics. If you have arguments in favor of the idea that some of the men who molest boys are straight, I am ready to listen and I can change my point of view if I see the truth is on your side.

Side: NO because
HaleyT(7) Disputed
1 point

You're username should probably ditch the "a" and the "s".

97% of child molestation is committed by men? Last I knew there were men in heterosexual couples to, and single fathers.

In about 30% of molestation cases, the victim is a boy? That contradicts your argument because 70% are females or unreported....

And what does gays being 3% of the population have to do with anything? So they are made to be the minority?

You also site no sources.

Side: Yes because
BigOats(929) Disputed
1 point

You're username should probably ditch the "a" and the "s".

So what if I'm a Bigot?

97% of child molestation is committed by men? Last I knew there were men in heterosexual couples to, and single fathers.

How is the second sentence related to the first one?

In about 30% of molestation cases, the victim is a boy? That contradicts your argument because 70% are females or unreported....

Are you dorked? In 30% cases, the VICTIM is a boy, in the remaining 70% the victim is a GIRL. What's so hard to understand here?

And what does gays being 3% of the population have to do with anything? So they are made to be the minority?

It has to do with the essense of the question. Only 3% of male population accounts for 28% of all man-boy molestation. That means gay men are several times likely to be pedophiles.

This information is well-known.

Side: NO because
1 point

Being Gay is not, and will never be normal. Not a good foundation for a child to be raised on.

Side: NO because
HaleyT(7) Disputed
1 point

Are fucking stupid? If you were born gay I'm sure you'd think differently... can you list any study that shows being gay is wrong in anyway. Not from the bible (;

Side: Yes because
SAXON(16) Disputed
1 point

But, he WASN'T born gay. There is nothing normal about faggotry. There is a reason why it has been vilified for thousands of years.

Side: NO because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

There is hardly any measure of right or wrong the two sides of this debate would agree on. Your question is invalid.

The same scientific communities that have so heavily invested into the idea that you are born gay are finding that pedophiles have a similar drive towards sex with children. If so, are you willing to fight all social mores against pedophilia? Are you willing to not only legalize pedophilia, but advocate it? I am guessing not.

Pedophilia causes medical harm, so do homosexual males.

Pedophilia is not conducive towards reproduction, homosexuality certainly is not.

Pedophilia is corrosive to the family, so is homosexuality.

Side: NO because
1 point

a child needs to grow up with a male and female role model

Side: NO because
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
2 points

So? A man can't be maternal? A woman can't be paternal?

Side: Yes because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

No. Believe it or not a man can not be a woman and a woman can not be a man.

Side: NO because
HaleyT(7) Disputed
1 point

How do you feel about single parents? Also do you have any study that shows the repercussions to back up your claim?

Side: Yes because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

The optimal, and only parental situation that should be encouraged, is a child being raised with their own mother and their own father who are married. Here are just a few statistics to back that up....

Supporting Evidence: Facts on Fatherless kids. (www.photius.com)
Side: NO because
1 point

Most definitely they should not. Fags/Dykes are not a normal part of society, as their very makeup is an abomination of humanity. Children should NEVER be exposed to such a sickness. We wish our children to experience a normal, healthy upbringing.

Side: NO because
1 point

Gutuftyctuctucghhgfcghcugchghvhgchgvhtvhgv vgvutvhvvghhgctgfg cghc

Side: NO because

No because they can poop on the couch and I dont want to clean that up, get what im saying?

Side: NO because

No, because, a child needs a man figure and a woman figure not two of each.

Side: NO because
0 points

I'm going to pay devils advocate a little because I don't think anyone else who isn't a completely homophobe will post on this side... homosexuality is, by definition, a sexual perversion. Its a sexual interest that goes against sexual taboos. I personally worry what other sexual taboos would they be willing to mentally overcome. Would they find some children sexually attractive?

Side: NO because
Cartman(18192) Disputed
3 points

Homosexuality is not a perversion, it is just a different mindset. Finding children sexually attractive is pedophiles, and that happens with straight people.

Side: Yes because
Awesome1202 Disputed
5 points

Homosexuality is not a perversion, it is just a different mindset. Finding children sexually attractive is pedophiles, and that happens with straight people.

Please read Leviticus 20:13

Side: NO because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Perversion - the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

Is a man's anus intended or designed for intercourse?

Side: NO because
3 points

homosexuality is, by definition, a sexual perversion.

According to an study called "Is Homosexuality a Paraphilia" (basically a perversion)

"At least, if homosexuality were deemed a paraphilia, it would be relatively unique among them, taxonometrically speaking."

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310132/

So, basically, while homosexuality may have been considered a sexual perversion by Freud, it certainly is very different from all other sexual perversions. It is completely separate. Also, sexual perversion is not necessarily something that should restrict adoption rights.

Homosexuality would in no way inhibit someone's parental capacity. It's not a sexual perversion, if it even is that, that would affect parenthood.

Its a sexual interest that goes against sexual taboos. I personally worry what other sexual taboos would they be willing to mentally overcome.

...So you're basically saying that because someone is different in one way, they'd be ok with being different in more ways?

You've claimed that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, which is genetic. If you have one genetic disorder (again, not saying homosexuality is a genetic disorder) it doesn't mean you are just like "Well, I've got one, lets pick another one." There is no evidence of people who are homosexual developing more sexual perversions than anyone who is straight.

Would they find some children sexually attractive?

Of your arguments, this one seems the least-well thought out.

Are straight mothers sexually attracted to their sons? Are straight fathers sexually attracted to their daughters? Of course not! Well, unless they have a very odd sexual perversion, which has no relation to being gay.

Side: Yes because
Atrag(5439) Disputed
0 points

So, basically, while homosexuality may have been considered a sexual perversion by Freud, it certainly is very different from all other sexual perversions. It is completely separate. Also, sexual perversion is not necessarily something that should restrict adoption rights.

Okay it is a sexual perversion different from some others.

So you're basically saying that because someone is different in one way, they'd be ok with being different in more ways?

I'm saying that it takes a lot of strength to go against a social taboo. Although some people may find the same sex attractive, because the taboo exists through our conditioning that causes repulsion to the idea of same sex relationships.

My last question was poorly worded. What I meant to say was: if an individual can overcome the social taboo of same sex relations, then are they able to overcome the taboo of adult-child relations? The fact is there are a lot of men that would find young teenagers (or even children) attractive but it is due to a taboo, and repulsion, that they don't allow that idea to come to the forefront of their minds. If a gay person, had those feelings, they would be more likely for it to become a overt sexual feeling.

So its not that pedophilic feelings are more prevalent in homosexuals it is more that if those feelings were there, they'd be more liking to go along with them, allowing themselves to feel an overt sexual feeling, and ultimately act on that feeling.

Side: NO because
HaleyT(7) Disputed
1 point

1ho·mo·sex·u·al adjective \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\

: sexually attracted to people of the same sex

: based on or showing a sexual attraction to people of the same sex

Be careful with the term "by definition"

Side: Yes because
Atrag(5439) Disputed
1 point

Be careful about patronising when you don't understand what they mean. Define: perversion. Put it in Google.

Side: NO because
Awesome1202 Disputed
3 points

Slippery slope fallacy was made up by liberals to discredit conservatives.

It is well known fact that gays become that way due to them being abused as young children.

Side: NO because
Atrag(5439) Disputed
3 points

Look, can you stop quoting these logical fallacies. You clearly don't understand them. I didn't suggest that society allowing one thing would lead to society allowing another.

Side: NO because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

The slippery slope at work for you. Women are banned in the bible from being pastors or bishops. In fact, they are banned from being in any position where they teach or have authority over men in the church. Of course this regulation does not apply to the business world or education etc. etc, just in the church.

Such a rule does not fit in with our egalitarian world, so many major protestant denominations changed the rules in the 1960's and 1970's. Essentially all of those denominations embrace homosexuality today. The argument was made at the time that allowing female pastors would lead to other things, arguments that were probably dismissed by people like you.

Supporting Evidence: Female pastors = homosexual acceptance (www.uscongregations.org)
Side: NO because
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Have you signed the petition to legalize zophilia yet? ...................................................................................................

Side: NO because