Hey guys.

 

Well for my debate class, we chose 5 topics and if we should legalize/illegalize it in the state of Florida. We have to choose 2 of the 5 topics and write a 3-minute speech on the topic and if you are for it or against it.

 

5 Topics are:

- to illegalize abortion unless it was rape, blah blah blah

- to legalize gay adoption

- to lower the age of alcohol consumption to 18

- to abolish the FCAT

- to legalize street racing for a designated time and place

 

I chose to be the leader for the "Gay Adoption" topic so I had to write the bill that I want to pass in order to legalize gay adoption so I'm the first speakers for that topic and I have to read aloud the bill following my 3-minute speech why I'm for legalizing it.

 

We're gonna start doing our speeches Tuesday and I just wanted some opinions on what you guys thought of it, even if you are against Gay Adoption to be legalized...I wanna know why so I know what the opposing side is thinking.

 

For my other speech, I'm probably gonna go against illegalizing abortion, I think that'll be easy.

 

Well, feel free to say whatever you want.

Gay adoption is bad for the kid that gets adopted especially if it is a boy. He will get made fun of and will feel uncomfortable having friends over. It will be tough for him to have friends and his childhood life will most likely suck. Gay adoption is just wrong imo.

Btw, Florida is the only state that bans it.

You should have chosen the F-CAT topic. I could have writen your paper in one freakin' post.

go right ahead, lol. I have to choose 2 topics anyway.

Well, my take in a nutshell is that stundents get absolutely no education from being taught on the foundation of one test. I practically lost my entire eighth grade education in math because of it, good thing that I practcally knew it already and still scored in the 99th percentile for the state.

 

I'll expand my thoughts when I get home.

if you're debating, you'll be guaranteed to have a lot of angry rebuttals if you go with the abortion topic. if you pick another topic, you might be able to slide under the radar, if you know what i mean.

 

 

anyways, about gay adoption:

 

it's good because:

 

there is a shortage of people willing to adopt children. allowing gays to adopt will greatly increase the number of kids who can find adoptive homes.

 

it ensures equal rights for gay parents, who are unable to conceive children.

 

gay couples are typically higher on the socioeconomic rung than others (you probably shouldn't use this one), so they can provide a better life for these children.

 

it's better for a child to grow up in a gay parent household than to have to live in state custody for his entire childhood, adolescence, and teenage years. a home is better than no home.

 

 

reasons why it's bad:

 

no child should be forced to grow up in an abnormal family unit (a gay household).

 

growing up in a gay household may promote homosexuality of that child.

 

homosexuality is inappropriate and sinful, and thus the state should not be allowing children to grow up in a morally dubious household. the child should be protected from any immoral influence.

If you are trying to consider the "con" argument, then gay adoptions exclude the possibility of the child being raised in a legally-sanctioned 2-parent household (since gay marriage is not recognized by the state). . . not that I'm against gay adoption, just something to consider.

I would have taken number 3 and 5, mostly because numbers 1 and 2 will have alot of people either way anyways. Not that I don't have opinions on all 5 issues, but those are the two that are the best to do in a debate like this because there won't be much resistance either way. Oh, and I wouldn't ban the FCAT for the sole reason that we can chant "Pass the F-CAT!" during basketball games to other schools as long as it is in place.

 

For the alcohol consumption issue, you can basically look at it this way. Teenage drinking exists anyways, but that isn't the point, though it is rather obvious. The state has a blood alcohol limit above zero for determining DUI for those under 21 (stricter than the law on legal drinkers, obviously). But regardless of the fact that it happens or not, you have to look at the age limits for other things in this country. At 18 you can vote for president. At 18 you can be drafted to serve in the army (well, techinically, you can be drafted as early as 16 if there is a big enough emergency). At 18 you can smoke. Why not drink at 18 too? If smoking is worse for your health (arguable, because I'm a strong believer that alcohol is worse than some drugs, but yet alcohol remains legal in most all forms and all illicit drugs are illegal, not that I do either anyways) then why let people smoke but wait three extra years to have their first legal drink? This ammendment, when ratified, was put in with the voting limit also at 21. With nothing else left at 21, the age limit should be dropped to 18, or everything else should be raised to 21. No more double standards.

 

On legalizing street racing in limited situations, it probably isn't that bad of an idea. It'll cause the police less trouble, they can focus on other things. It'll make the races themselves safer, because the "avoiding the cops" factor will be eliminated. And the cars can be regulated, making them in turn safer as well. It'll probably save alot more lives, not just of the racers themselves but of other traffic and others being victimized while the police are wasting their time with street racers. Plus, it's fun .