Gay Marriage

Thanks Pro. The last two sources from my last round didn't link correctly, but the fixed sources can be found in the comments section.R1. EconomyMy opponent argues that places where same-sex marriage is legal have better economies, although conceding that there are many factors that impact the economy. Essentially, Pro's argument follows this syllogism:P1: The economy is better in some areasP2: Same-sex marriage happens to be legal in those areasC1: Same-sex marriage is better for the economyImmediately we see that this logic is fallacious in nature. The fact that SSM is legal in the isolated examples Pro has provided does not validly follow up to the conclusion that SSM is the cause of economic benefits. The economy is impacted by interest rates, government intervention, currency strength, the environment, and overall economic health[1]. Since few homosexual couples actually marry[2], and only 2% of the population is homosexual[3] (in the US), then any economic benefits would be quite miniscule, and certainly wouldn't affect unemployment, standard of living, etc., as Pro is asserting. Thus, Pro's entire argument for same-sex marriage is false and easily refutable.R2. Infertile CouplesHeterosexual unions are still of the procreative type whether or not they can act upon that characteristic. Just encouraging these couples to enter into marriage create a likelier chance that procreation will occur, so that it can bring a benefit to society. The state wants to provide a view of what marriage really is, not just as a means to end. For example, if I went out into the forest to hunt for some animals, but came back empty, I would've still considered myself "hunting" regardless of whether or not I was successfful. We see a similar scenario in the American voting age limit, with people required to be 18 or older. Could minors vote efficiently? Sure, but we don't let them. Are some adults immature enough to vote improperly? Yes, but we don't exclude them. The reason for this is that general propositions are made on the connection between the established criteria and the behavior that is desired. And so it is with marriage.R3. Gay ParentingMy argument isn't that gay parents should not be able to adopt, but that heterosexual parents should be preferred to homosexual ones. I argue that children need both a mother and a father in order to do best in life. Even so, heterosexuals contain the intrinsic link to procreation that make them unique to all other unions. The Washington Post's article that Pro provided isn't specific about its claim, but just states that children's health and happiness were relatively similar, which begs the question: what is happiness being measured by? How is health better? The sample size of parents in the study add up to 315, which doesn't compare to studies such the one of Regnerus' which sampled 2,988 young adults. Since there is no link to the actual study, but just a news article, with no author or date of publication, I question its existence.Parents that are opposite genders make different contributions to children which are essential to the growth and learning of them. The American College of Pediatricians admits that, "There are significant innate differences between male and female that are mediated by genes and hormones and go well beyond basic anatomy. These biochemical differences are evident in the development of male and female brain anatomy, psyche, and even learning styles. Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child."[5] In addition to that, high school graduation rates are lower among kids raised by homosexual parents as opposed to heterosexual parents[4]. Pro states Regerus is unreliable, but just gives a link. The study is quite controversial, so just claiming that he was biased and flawed in his study doesn't necessarily bring much to the table. I'd argue that some who claim kids raised by gay parents are also biased, as that has just as much merit as saying Regnerus was too "anti-gay" to produce something significant.In sum, the revisionist view is too broad, and can easily be abused. It is better to align with the conjugal view, which is a more logical and accurate depiction of marriage in its true sense.[1] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...[2] http://www.marriagedebate.com...[3] http://m.huffpost.com...[4] http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu...[5] http://www.acpeds.org...