Same-Sex Marriage

A final refutation of the negative arguments: Marriage and Procreation: The negative makes the mistake, yet again, of claiming that marriage should be solely about procreation and the proper raising of children, and still failing to give the voters a single reason as to why these claims should be accepted. In the last round, I not only gave a definition of what marriage should really be about, but I also was able to give good reasons to accept these claims. My opponent has failed to do so. Reasons to reject this argument: Throughout the entire round, my opponent made no effort to explain why his definition of marriage should be accepted over mine. I have given enough reason and thought for the voters to accept my definition of marriage, which was given in the last argument I made, and my opponent has made no attempt to refute this. Premise 1 falls. Marriage between a Man and a Woman: This argument rests on the idea that marriage between men and women are the only way to go because of procreation and the proper raising of children. I have already explained that procreation is still possible with homosexual marriage, and my opponent has made no attempt to refute this. As far as the proper raising of children goes, this claim depends on my opponent’s attachment to the Journal of Human Sexuality, which I will completely and thoroughly refute later on. Reasons to reject this argument: My opponent has still been unable to explain why procreation and the proper raising of children are the only benefits from a marriage that actually matter. My opponent has failed to refute the argument I made about artificial insemination, and depends on the Journal of Human Sexuality to hold up his claim of the proper raising of children. Premise 2 falls. Government and Marriage: My opponent recognized that my argument that the government drawing the line somewhere will result in the same involvement in the institution of marriage, and yet failed to refute it. My opponent continues to repeat himself saying that the government needs to draw the line at marriage between men and women only, yet fails to back up this claim, only telling the readers to refer to his previous arguments. Reasons to reject this argument: My opponent fails to refute the counter-argument I made, saying that the government’s involvement will be the same regardless of where they draw the line. My opponent again claims that the government must draw the line at marriage between men and women and fails to explain why, deferring to his previous arguments, which have all fallen. Premise 3 falls. Homosexuals and Parenting: It would appear that my opponent did not even completely read the counter-argument that I offered. Let me re-iterate why the Journal of Human Sexuality should be completely disregarded when evaluating this argument: Like I said in my original counter-argument, the Journal of Human Sexuality is simply just a compilation of different studies between 10-20 years old that make claims that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental disorders, or have a higher chance at raising homosexuals, etc. Nowhere in the entire study is any real empirical evidence given that has anything to do with parenting. There is not even a single piece of evidence to be found that says anything about a homosexual’s competency as a parent. All the study is effectively doing is saying “Hey, homosexuals are more likely to raise a homosexual, and they have a higher rate of mental disorders, this will probably lead to bad parenting”, but nowhere is this connection ever established with any sort of acceptable evidence. This is why the Journal of Human Sexuality should be completely disregarded. (note: none of what I am saying now is new content, I have said all of this in my previous argument, and my opponent either failed to read it or failed to respond to it). Next, my opponent makes a weak attempt at discrediting the evidence that I have offered by saying that, like his evidence, it is just a compilation of studies that point to a different conclusion. This is blatantly wrong. My evidence, like I have said twice now, is a longitudinal study done over the course of 30 years with over a hundred participants. A longitudinal study, in case my opponent is unaware, is a correlational research study that involves repeated observations of the same variables over long periods of time. Even though this study does reference other studies to help derive to the same conclusion, the core of the data comes from a longitudinal study which focuses on observation of children of homosexual couples over the time span of 30 years. This is why my study is credible, because it uses actual data that answers the question “Can homosexuals be good parents?” with an answer that can be backed up using actual evidence. To finalize my opponent’s defense of his argument, he cites two snippets from the study he has offered, both of which are perfect examples of the kind of evidence that does not answer the question he is asking. Boys being less masculine and less sexually adventurous has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, and certainly do not demonstrate whether or not homosexuals are good parents. The negative claims that my study is biased, which is ironic, seeing a the study he cited was created by NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), which is infamous for its use of outdated and bad science, along with its extreme stance on homosexuality. Reasons to reject this argument: This argument, and by extension, my opponent’s entire case, rests upon a paper that does not actually give any sort of empirical evidence that demonstrates whether or not homosexuals are fit or unfit parents. The study I have posted gives actual evidence that supports the conclusion that homosexuals are just as good, if not, better parents than heterosexuals. Premise 4 falls. Why my argument should be accepted: Like I said originally, my point is that marriage is not all about procreation or about raising children; it’s about an official recognition of the love two people share together. That’s it. I have explained my reasoning by stating that people do not have to get married to procreate and raise a child, and people who are married do not always choose to procreate and raise a child. My opponent has said absolutely nothing about this, it goes unrefuted throughout the round. All my opponent does to criticize my argument is by saying that his definition of marriage is better, but again, offers absolutely no reason to accept this claim. Marriage is obviously about the love and the commitment people share for each other. When two people get married, they aren’t doing it solely to procreate and raise children, they’re doing it so they can officially proclaim to the world that they’re in love and they are happy with each other. Wedding vows always mention something about love and commitment, which is definitive proof of these statements. The argument boils down to this: There is no reason that homosexuals should be treated like second-class citizens that do not deserve the right to marry the person they love. Reasons to accept my argument: It goes completely unrefuted throughout the round. I give a definition of what real marriage is about and an explanation about why my definition should be accepted, and why my opponent’s should not. My opponent has failed to acknowledge that his position treats homosexuals like second-class citizens that do not deserve equal and fair treatment under the law. Conclusion: My stance is and always will be that homosexuals are human beings too, who deserve equal and fair treatment under the law. My opponent has not given enough justification to treat homosexuals, roughly 3.4% of the population, like second-class citizens. All of the negative’s arguments have been sufficiently refuted, and the negative has failed to refute the argument on the affirmative side. With that being said, I urge a vote for the affirmative.