New Gay Marriage Debate

Note: After reading through my opponent’s argument, I would like to note that instead of my opponent actually giving substantial evidence against me, he often times disregards what I say by calling me a homophobe and how all my sources are anti-gay propaganda and even goes as far as to attack the morals of my religion. To clear up any confusion we have caused on this debate about the use of the definition of marriage: This debate is not about how marriage is defined. This debate is about how marriage should be defined. I am arguing that marriage should be defined between only man and woman, and you are arguing that marriage should be defined between two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation. My opponent attempts to refute The Journal of Human Sexuality by simply calling it a homophobic source. He talks about how me using scientific evidence to prove my claims is just fuel for my ignorance and anti-gay agenda. I’ve already explained in our last debate that there is no homophobia in my arguments; I simply want to define marriage in a way that best benefits society. Any unjust discrimination against homosexuals is uncalled for and should be stopped. Other than this, my opponent completely fails to show any scientific evidence as to why the Journal of Human Sexuality is not an adequate source. Please elaborate on what "Look and you will see" is. At this point my opponent ignores every single other argument I made and goes straight to arguing how homosexuals can adopt children. He didn’t even present his own arguments; instead he just seems to have copy/pasted an article then submitted it as his argument. First off, I have already explained that even if homosexuals could raise children properly, that still isn’t enough to allow them to marry. I will explain again: Homosexuals cannot pursue a relationship that naturally beings children into the world through a loving relationship. Heterosexual relationships naturally through their loving relationship produce children for society to be properly raised by that couple. Homosexuals do not have this special connection to children, so even if they could raise them properly, that does not justify allowing them to be married. “The ability to raise children on its own is not a marriage. Roommates raising children is not a marriage. This presumes that marriage is only a material good, when marriage itself has an inherent good. Being able to raise children is not a requirement for marriage, but being in a union suited for and oriented to having children is.”(1) This right here basically refutes Pro’s entire article. I have shown why the ability to adopt is completely irrelevant. Even if homosexuals are more likely to adopt children, this still doesn’t mean they can raise them properly. My opponent does post one thing that says that research shows homosexual parent just as well as heterosexuals. However, it has been scientifically shown that studies who have a large number of random participants, will come to the conclusion that homosexuals do not parent as well as heterosexuals, and that studies that have a small number of non-random participants will usually conclude that their parenting is the same. “A persistent claim by those supporting same-sex marriages is that there is “no difference” in the outcomes of children raised by a biological mother and father and those who have been raised by two women or two men. That claim was made to the courts below, and will no doubt be made to this Court by associations like the American Psychological Association (“APA”). But as recent scholarship indicates, the claim is difficult to support because nearly all of the studies upon which the “no difference” assertion is based are rather limited, involving non-random, non representative samples, often with relatively few participants. Specifically, the vast majority of the studies were based on samples of fewer than 100 parents (or children), and typically representative only of well-educated, white women (parents), often with elevated incomes. These are hardly representative samples of the lesbian and gay population raising children, and therefore not a sufficient basis to make broad claims about child outcomes of same-sex parenting structures.”(2) After my opponent finishes copy/pasting he talks about how all of my arguments are opinion based, has no scientific facts to support them, and then attacks my moral code. Lol. He then simply disregards my procreation argument because he feels like it. Conclusion Let’s take a look at all of the arguments my opponent dropped shall we? My opponent drops the procreation argument. My opponent concedes that heterosexuals have a special relationship that homosexuals cannot pursue. My opponent does not even attempt to refute my points on how heterosexual marriage benefits society. My opponent concedes that the government needs to draw the line where marriage best benefits society, and that that line should be drawn at heterosexual marriage. My opponent drops a plethora of other smaller arguments. In fact, my opponent dropped every single argument except how homosexuals can still adopt children. Instead of actually responding to the bulk of my argument, my opponent instead disregards all my arguments then calls me a homophobe. I await my opponent’s response. (1) http://weare1776.org... (2) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...