Logic Final Project
Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.
PROS:
- Children
need the protection that goes along with having two legally recognized parents. (Jarvis)
- Children
could lose benefits for health insurance, veterans, disability, social
security, life insurance and worker compensation. (Jarvis)
- Reports
by [the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, and the American Pediatric Association] "find that there are no differences in the
parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. ("Ban Political Exploitation of Children")
- There
is no empirical evidence that would suggest that growing up with gay parents
would negatively impact their well-being. (Erich & Sioco)
- Child
psychology experts testified that there was no scientific evidence that would
support the state's ban on gay adoption, and that it would be in the children's
best interests if they stayed with Gill and his partner. (Erich & Sioco)
- Lesbian,
gay, and bisexual parents are as well suited to raise children as their
heterosexual counterparts. (Erich & Sioco)
- By
excluding gays and lesbians from the prospective resource parent pool, some
children will not be afforded the privilege of having a permanent home (Erich & Sioco)
- If
the sexual orientation of the parents was what would determine the sexual
orientation of the children, then presumably we won't have so many gay children
growing up in heterosexual homes. (Erich & Sioco)
- In
war-torn, impoverished countries there are starving orphans who would be better
off if they were adopted by carefully screened homosexual couples. (Dent)
- Same-sex
couples are more likely to adopt children who linger in the foster system, such
as minorities and kids who are older or have special needs (Pappas)
- Gay
and lesbian parents provide a unique environment that promotes
open-mindedness, tolerance, and gender equality. (Pappas)
- Gay
parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual
parents on average, because they chose to be parents." (Pappas).
- Gays
and lesbians are especially accepting of open adoptions, where the child
retains some contact with his or her birth parents. (Pappas)
- Birth parents often have no problem with their kids
being raised by same-sex couples. (Pappas)
- Kids of same-sex couples—both adopted and biological kids—fare no worse than
the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school
performance and a variety of other life-success measures. (Pappas)
- Children
of gay parents also reported feeling less stymied by gender stereotypes than
they would have been if raised in straight households. (Pappas)
- Without this legal status, he or she is unable to make medical decisions, sign school permission slips, and in some cases, provide health insurance (Willis 65)
- Once a child is 2 years old, his chances of being adopted drop significantly (Willis 67)
- Active, honest public recruitment of the gay and lesbian population would eliminate children lingering in foster care (Willis 67)
- All of this effort will be rendered unnecessary when gays and lesbians achieve marriage equality on a nationwide basis (Willis 68)
- Children raised by gay parents are as healthy and well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents (Williams 131)
- Children who have been adopted by one member of a same-sex couple should also be able to be adopted by the other member of the couple (Williams 131)
- Children adopted by homosexuals could grow up with the stability of having two legally recognized parents (Williams 131)
- There is no credible evidence that children raised in non-traditional families suffer from a lack of love, stability, or safety (Williams 133)
- An academy committee reviewed 20 years of research and concluded that children raised by homosexuals are just as well-adjusted as their counterparts reared by heterosexuals (Williams 133)
- The "large majority of children who grew up in lesbian households identified as heterosexual" (Williams 144)
CONS:
- Homosexuality would attract unnecessary social stigma to the children.(Erich & Sioco)
- Scientifically,
children could become homosexuals as well.
(Erich & Sioco)
- Homosexual
relationships were oftentimes unstable and insecure, thus likely prompting
depression. (Erich & Sioco)
- Children become gay because of having gay parents. (Erich & Sioco)
- Same-sex couples have been and are associated with practices that impair personal and parental effectiveness, such as high-risk sexual activities, including multiple sex partners, higher rates of emotional problems and substance abuse (Liberty Counsel)
- Children are denied biological ties with parents,
subjected to increased instability and high rates of abuse, denied
gender-specific nurturing from a mother or father, and are more likely to be
confused about their own sexuality. (Dent)
- There
is evidence that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to engage in
homosexuality and to feel confused about their sexual identity. (Dent)
- Homosexuals
are less inclined than heterosexuals to marry, and gays who do marry have a
high divorce rate. (Dent)
- Children
in these homes are more likely to witness conflict over infidelity and to see
it as a normal part of marriage (Dent)
- Same-sex marriage should not be
recognized by law, artificial reproduction should be permitted only to
traditional married couples, and adoption by same-sex couples should be allowed
only in limited circumstances. (Dent)
- It presumes (falsely) an equivalence in the character of heterosexual versus
homosexual relationships. (Haines)
- It
contributes to a deformation of the family. (Haines)
- Gays and lesbians want the "right" to adopt only to gratify themselves and not help the children (Willis 69)
- Major religious traditions require that a real family have both a father and a mother (Willis 69)
- It is an injustice to a child to allow him or her to be adopted into a family with same-gender parents (Willis 69)
- Although homosexuality has been normalized, it is not normal (Willis 70)
- Preventing homosexuals from adopting effectively protects children from being negatively influenced or even physically harmed by the adults who are supposed to protect them (Williams132)
- Youths need both a mother and a father to grow up to be stable and healthy adults (Williams 139)
- Children who grow up in homosexual households are more likely to try homosexuality, to be confused about their gender identity, and to be exposed to disease (Williams 139)
- A household that is missing an entire parental sex, that is, missing a mother or a father, is not equal to a married household (Williams 140)
- [Children] need the best situation. This is finding homes with a married mother and father (Williams 140)
- Children in single-mother homes can tell you that they don't crave another mom; they want a father. Kids in single-father homes don't crave another daddy; they want a mom (Williams 140)
- It is wrong to place a child in a deliberately motherless or fatherless household (Williams 141)
- Children with homosexual parents are considerably more apt to lose a parent to death (Williams 142)
- Mothers and fathers provide crucial things to children that cannot be duplicated in a same-sex household (Williams 142)
- The study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school, in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples (Williams 143)
- The gay parenting studies, as a whole, are extremely flawed (Williams 143)
- The conclusion that there are no significant differences in children reared by lesbian mothers versus heterosexual mothers is not supported by the published research data base (Williams 143)
- Studies show that girls are more likely to "be sexually adventurous and less chaste," including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have "fluid" conceptions of gender roles (Williams 144)
- Children raised in same-sex households are more likely to view homosexuality positively, try homosexuality themselves, or to suffer gender identity confusion (Williams 144)
- Those who had grown up in lesbian households were more likely to consider the possibility of having lesbian or gay relationships, and to actually do so (Williams 144)
- Growing up in a lesbian household's "accepting atmosphere" of homosexuality may "facilitate the development of a lesbian or gay sexual orientation for some individuals (Williams 144)
- Medical journals report drastically higher incidences of sexually transmitted diseases, shortened life spans, domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse, and psychological problems among homosexuals (Williams 145)
- Children need and want both a mother and a father (Williams 145)
- The needs of the children must be placed before the desires of adults (Williams 145)
WORKS CITED
Pappas, Stephanie. "Same-Sex Parenting Is Beneficial." GALE?CENGAGE. Cengage Learning, 2013. Web. 5 May 2014.
Issue: Same-Sex Couples Should Be Allowed to Adopt Children
- Con Reason 1: There is evidence that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to feel confused about their sexual identity. (Williams 144)
Sub-Pro Reason 1: Studies show that girls are more likely to "be sexually adventurous and less chaste," including being more likely to try lesbianism, and that boys are more likely to have "fluid" conceptions of gender roles (Williams 144)
Sub-Con Reason 1: Kids of same-sex couples—both adopted and biological kids—fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures. (Pappas)
- Con Reason 2: Preventing homosexuals from adopting effectively protects children from being negatively influenced or even physically harmed by the adults who are supposed to protect them (Williams 132)
Sub-Pro Reason 2: Same-sex couples have been and are associated with practices that impair personal and parental effectiveness, such as high-risk sexual activities, including multiple sex partners, higher rates of emotional problems and substance abuse (Liberty Counsel)
Sub-Con Reason 2: Reports by [the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, and the American Pediatric Association] "find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. ("Ban Political Exploitation of Children")
- Pro Reason 1: Active, honest public recruitment of the gay and lesbian population would eliminate children lingering in foster care (Willis 67).
Sub-Pro Reason 1: Same-sex couples are more likely to adopt children who linger in the foster system, such as minorities and kids who are older or have special needs (Pappas)
Con-Pro Reason 1: Gays and lesbians want the "right" to adopt only to gratify themselves and not help the children (Willis 69)
- Pro Reason 2: Gay and lesbian parents provide a unique environment that promotes open-mindedness, tolerance, and gender equality. (Pappas)
Sub-Pro Reason 2: Children of gay parents also reported feeling less stymied by gender stereotypes than they would have been if raised in straight households. (Pappas)
Sub-Con Reason 2: - It contributes to a deformation of the family. (Haines)
Labels: Introduction to Logic
Fallacies
Posted on March 4, 2014.
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Do_violent_video_games_cause_violence
Do violent video games cause violence?
This example is a false cause fallacy because in the false cause, the arguer illegitimately assumes that because event X preceded event Y, that X caused Y. In this example, the arguer is indicating that the decrease in youth violence is caused by the increase in violent video game popularity. However, this argument is far too simple and it does not consider other factors such as increased availability of mental illness services to the youth.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. The arguer assumes that the decree in juvenile crime in the U.S. is caused by the increased popularity in violent video games. His assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "There is a correlation between the decrease in juvenile violence and the increase in popularity of violent video games amongst juveniles."
Posted on March 11, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/extended-discussion/the-porn-industry/t.90900209_1/
The Porn Industry
GreenDisease said,
"It argues that the more you see something, and the more familiar you are with it, the more bored you become. It’s the idea behind “gate-way drugs”, except that in this case, you start out with “adult” porn, eventually progress to “BARELY LEGAL TEENS SPRING BREAK!!1!1!!1!1 awwww yeah”, and from there, its apparently just a small hop, skip and ass over tea-kettle tumble into the land of “felony child predation” and bunking with Bubba
This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, a variation of the false cause fallacy. It occurred on 3-11-14.
This example is a slippery slope because in the slippery slope fallacy the arguer assumes that a domino effect will occur but there is not enough evidence that one or more events in the domino effect will cause the others. In this example, GreenDisease is assuming that by watching regular adult porn, you will eventually end up watching barely legal, then child pornography, and then in jail. However, a person could watch regular adult porn and be repulsed by child pornography. Additionally, there are those who view regular adult porn in hopes of"spicing" up their own relationships. So, viewing adult porn does not mean you will end up in prison.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. GreenDisease assumes that watching adult porn eventually leads to watching child pornography and jail-time. Their assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could instead have stated, "Child pornography may cause a process of desensitization within the viewer."
Posted on January 29, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.ernya.com/vanishing-of-the-bees-t272971.html
Vanishing of the Bees
{Ember} said,
"Getting back to the topic...bees pollinate flowers, thus allowing their seeds to create new flowers. Without bees, vegetation will cease to reproduce and possibly throw the globe into a famine since the herbivores will have less to eat and die off from starvation eventually. And without the meat from animals we would down the road die off."
This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, a variation of the false cause fallacy. It occurred on 1-29-14.
This example is a slippery slope because in the slippery slope fallacy the arguer assumes that a chain reaction will occur but there is not enough evidence that one or more events in the chain will cause the others. In this example, {Ember} is assuming that if bees go missing, then plants would completely stop reproducing, which would kill off herbivores, and eventually us due to the lack of meat from the herbivores. There are other animals such as hummingbirds and butterflies that help with pollination, intentionally or not. Obviously, all vegetation will not cease to reproduce if bees disappear.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. {Ember} assumes that if there are no bees then vegetation would cease to reproduce. Their assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could instead have hedged her statement, "Without bees, vegetation may be severely hindered."
Posted on March 18, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/I_m_so_upset_right_now
Intangible said,
"But if we don't have war, then how will we sleep safely and soundly at night?
Besides...war is good for maintaining the natural order. If we stop having wars for too long, then the unvierses megamolagimic spectrum will diversify and everything as you know it will be torn asunder."
This is an example of the false dilemma fallacy. It occurred on 3-18-14.
This example is a false dilemma fallacy because in the false dilemma, the arguer gives you only a few choices to choose from while in reality there could be more. In this example, the arguer is indicating that we either kill them or we could stop and let them kill us. However, there are other options such as resolving a peace treaty or agreement.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumption. The arguer assumes that the only answer is violence. Their assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "Sometimes violence is necessary when peaceful solutions are not possible."
Posted on March 16, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_gays_just_change_the_word_marriage
SAXON said,
This is an example of the argument against the person or abusive ad hominem fallacy. It occurred on 3-16-14.
This example is a abusive ad hominem fallacy because in the ad hominem fallacy, the arguer attempts to discredit an argument or view by launching a direct personal attack. In this example, the arguer is attacking members of the LGBT. However, the personal attack does not support his argument which is against the redefinition of the word marriage.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of irrelevance. The arguer's personal attacks seem psychologically relevant; however, they are are logically irrelevant to the arguer's conclusion. Therefore, their argument is irrelevant.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have used more neutral language or avoided personal attacks all together. The arguer could rewrite it like this: "The LGBT community should not have the authority to redefine the term marriage because its meaning has been consistent for a lengthy amount of time."
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Christians_Should_hermaphrodites_have_the_right_to_a_marry_someone_of_either_sex
Christians: Should hermaphrodites have the right to a marry someone of either sex?
Intangible said,
"They are abominatural.
A real Christian would say no.
It was Adam and Eve, not Evam and Adeve ."
This is an example of the appeal to the people fallacy or ad populum fallacy. It occurred on 3-18-14.
This example is a ad populum fallacy because in the ad populum fallacy, the arguer attempts to persuade a person or group by appealing to the desire to be accepted or valued by others.
In this example, the arguer is trying to persuade readers to accept his view against hermaphrodites by stating that you are not a true Christian if you support the opposition's view. Clearly there are true Christians who feel strongly about everyone having equal rights, so this argument is unfair to them.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of irrelevance. The arguer's premise that "A real Christian would say no" seems irrelevant to the conclusion that "hermaphrodites should not have the right to marry someone of either sex." Thus, their argument is irrelevant.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have used more neutral language or avoided personal attacks all together. The arguer could rewrite it like this: "The LGBT community should not have the authority to redefine the term marriage because its meaning has been consistent for a lengthy amount of time."
Posted on March 2, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_women_be_allowed_to_walk_around_topless_in_public
Kazerian2001 said,
"Why is it okay for a Buff guy to walk around shirtless on a hot day. I thought this was a democratic country. If it's so democratic then we should give women more rights. If men can do it, why can't women."
This is an example of the equivocation fallacy. It occurred on 3-2-14.
This example is a equivocation fallacy because in the equivocation fallacy, the arguer uses a word with multiple meanings inconsistently in their argument. Though, it is required to have a single meaning in order to have validity. In this example, the arguer is stating that the United States is a democratic country. On the first use of the word, they arguer meant that the U.S. was a "freed" country. However, in the second usage of the word democratic, the arguer means "If [U.S.] is so equal then we should give women more rights." Thus, the argument is clearly invalid when the term democratic is substituted out with its meanings.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of ambiguity. The arguer uses multiple meanings of a word in his argument. Thus, their argument is ambiguous.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "I thought this was a equal country. If it's so equal then we should give women more rights."
Posted on March 19, 2014
crewe49 said,
“If capital punishment is such a good thing why is it hidden away from public view? Televise it so that millions could watch. Surely if people could see what happens to people who murder they would be less inclined to murder people themselves.
Could the real reason that it is not put on public view be that we know capital punishment is a barbarous act that is carried out in our name but we would rather not see it because if we did we would want it stopped.”
This example is a complex question fallacy because in the complex question fallacy, the arguer asks a question that illegitimately presupposes some conclusion alluded to in the question. In this example, the arguer is asking why capital punishment is hidden away from public view presupposing that capital punishment is good. And the arguer makes the assumption that a good thing should not be hidden from public view. However, not everything good should be known to the public. For example, defecation in regards to the human body is considered a good thing. That doesn't mean that it should be publicly viewed.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of unwarranted assumptions . The arguer presupposes the conclusion that capital punishment is a good thing and that good things should not be hidden from public view. Thus, their assumption is unwarranted.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "Capital punishment is not as good as many people believe it is."
Posted on March 17, 2014
Fallacy found at
Buddy Krupa said,
This is an example of the tu quoque fallacy. It occurred on 3-17-14.
This example is a tu quoque fallacy because in the tu quoque fallacy, the arguer tires to discredit an argument or view by suggesting that one's opponent is hypocritical. In this example, the arguer is saying that the new principle is not inclined to carry the Burton Pride since she doesn't even have pride in the school. Also, the arguer believes that the new principle is hypocritical. However, that is irrelevant to the conclusion that Burton School District should keep the previous principal, Dr. Pengilly.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of irrelevance . The arguer suggests that the opposing side is hypocritical . Thus, their argument is irrelevant.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have stated, "Many parents and students show a stronger preference to keep the previous principal instead of switching in a new one."
Posted on March 18, 2014
Fallacy found at
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373578/handing-over-keys-internet-charles-c-w-cooke
Dean57 said,
"Is the U.S gone completely crazy? Handing over the biggest part of free speech to a bunch of despots.
This is unbelievable. It is as bad as the UN handing over chairmanship of human rights activities to Libya.
Has common sense gone completely overboard by this administration.
Thank you Obama voters.
Your lack of common sense is once again on display by voting in this feckless President.
Shame on you!"
This is an example of the abusive against the person (ad hominem) fallacy. It occurred on 3-18-14.
This example is a abusive ad hominem fallacy because in the ad hominem fallacy, the arguer attempts to discredit an argument or view by launching a direct personal attack. In this example, the arguer is attacking the voters in the United States (specifically, those whom voted for President Obama.) However, the personal attack does not support their argument which is against handing over the "keys" to the internet.
The criterion of good argumentation that is violated here is that of irrelevance. The arguer's personal attacks seem psychologically relevant; however, they are are logically irrelevant to the arguer's conclusion. Thus, their argument is irrelevant.
To avoid the fallacy and still argue for the same position, the arguer could have used less biased phrases or personal attacks all together. The arguer could rewrite it like this: "The United States is considering a bad decision by handing over a crucial part of free speech. There should be some awareness that this is a bad idea. President Obama has shown his incompetence and those that voted him into office are indirectly responsible for that decision."
Labels: Introduction to Logic