Gay Marriage

1. My opponent starts out with anecdotal evidence. In public policy, it is best to look at what is good for the overall society. I am not saying some gays are not fit to parent, but the overall average is that homosexuals raise, on balance, less adjusted children. Public policy should look at the good of society, not specific examples. Gay marriage will inevitably lead to more gay parenting, which should be discouraged. For example, my opponent states gays cannot have accidental children. But accidental children do have worse outcomes, and it is generally discouraged and the state has not subsidized that behavior (like marriage is subsidized today). Research indicates children are worse off than those raised by heterosexuals, and that behavior should be discouraged [1]. Also, it is possible for lesbians to have children through in-vitro insemination, but unlike marriage procreation children from artificial insemination have many developmental problems. About half of those raised in these homes think about how they were born like this each week, and about 45% say their conception method (insemination) worries them. 46% cannot function properly: they think people they love intimately might be related to them, and 58% think when they see people that resemble them they wonder if they are related. Not only to these children face a host of problems, the fathers generally have other issues and think they were treated like animals for their sperm [2]. Now, homosexuals don’t necessarily force homosexuality upon their children, but saying they have no influence is foolish. Even pro-gay researchers come to the conclusion children raised by homosexuals are more likely to be homosexual. Their results show their children are 4 – 10 times more likely to be gay than the general population [3]. “... it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display a somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents.”[4] Indeed, gays are, on balance, less likely to be “good” parents compared heterosexuals. 2. I agree, religion is not going to be included in this debate. 3. This statement is completely untrue, even the APA has changed their views. Three percent of the current heterosexual population admits to being formerly homosexual – but their change has been totally natural [5]. With this in mind, this also means therapy could also increase success rates. Many researchers at the APA, that has a pro-gay bias, have actually been leaving the APA and endorsing mission statements by NARTH [6]. Most studies find gay-therapy causes people to change, genes play little to no role in homosexuality, and that environmental factors are predominant [7]. This point is false. The public purpose of marriage By public I hardly mean societies interest, as legal issues and society don’t always add together, rather I am arguing the states interest in marriage as well as the intrinsic value heterosexual unions have. Essentially what I am arguing is what is marriage, and what is the states current interest in regulating this institution? How my opponent and myself answer this will drastically alter the conclusion on whether or not the state should legalize, and fundamentally change, the institution we currently deem marriage. To defend my contention, something that would be legally worthy as well, would be to prove heterosexual unions serve a specific purpose in which is special to heterosexuals. If heterosexuals had nothing to differ from homosexuals, logically no government’s interest would exist. Therefore I need to prove the differences heterosexuals have. Heterosexual unions can procreate; they are therefore complimentary of each other’s actions. This procreation is responsible for societies existence. Therefore are holds a special social value in which homosexuals can never obtain. The government obviously holds an interest in regulating these unions for the simple fact it promotes a healthy environment in which new citizens are produced. The government has an interest in heterosexuals, and therefore has little interest in promoting homosexual relationships that serve little value to the state through marriage. This is the public function of marriage, even if it is not ones personal reason for the decision [8]. 1. A. Dean Byrd. “Dual Gender Parenting for Optimal Child Development” Journal of Human Sexuality (2010). 2. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... 3. http://www.drtraycehansen.com... 4. http://www.drtraycehansen.com... 5. http://www.narth.com... 6. http://narth.com... 7. http://www.mygenes.co.nz... 8. http://tech.mit.edu...;