Gay Marriage

David_Debates makes two arguments in his favor: that gay marriage is immoral, and that gay marriage hurts children. I will respond to those contentions within the defense of my proactive arguments. 1. My first contention was that people want to get married to strengthen their relationships. I've explained how marriage accomplishes this, and Con does not deny that social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity. Instead, Con scrutinizes my source and critiques comments that the author has made. However, I am in no way whatsoever obligated to defend all of the content within my source. Con does not contest my actual claims that I have cited from the source. My point was that marriage strengthens relationships, and Con lifts a quote from the source suggesting that lesbians couple prematurely. Con has lifted the quotes out of context. The book discusses the longevity of lesbian relationships, and has found that coupling prematurely may lead to less desirable sex and problematic relationships. First, this is not limited to lesbian couples - this book just so happens to be about lesbians. Second, the same page goes on to explain that the social sanctioning of relationships (marriage) does in fact protect marriage. The two claims are not mutually exclusive. This is a moot point, and Con must either accept my point -- that marriage strengthens relationships -- or challenge this point, specifically. If Con does not deny that marriage strengthens relationships, then extend all of my arguments on why gay couples would benefit from having their relationships sanctioned by the government. 2. Note that my opponent does not deny that gay relationships will exist regardless of whether or not they are recognized by government. I have asked Con to distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is beneficial for only straight couples, which he was not able to do. Furthermore, I asked Con to explain why gay relationships shouldn't be fostered with legal protection, but Con dropped this point as well.3. Con writes, "I am arguing that homosexual marriages ought to not adopt children, and that they ought to not exist because of moral reasons. " First, this debate is about gay marriage, not gay adoption. Second, my opponent cites "moral reasons" for opposing gay marriage yet does not offer a sufficient standard of morality for comparison. Nonetheless, the government does not exist to legislate morality but to protect rights. Gay relationships are consensual between loving and committed adults. There is nothing inherently immoral about that. Any moral proposition Con might suggest would be either subjective based on his personal preferences, or religious in nature which is 100% irrelevant to government. Indeed we have a separation of church and state in this country, that makes it illegal for the government to promote religious values by law. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. .. " [1]. Citizens of this country have different religious beliefs and should not be subjected to the beliefs of one particular group. It would be unfair and illegal to use religious doctrine as the basis for legal morality. Almost 1/4 of Americans are not affiliated with any religion [2]. While morality is arguably subjective - or at least citizens have different values - the majority of Americans support gay marriage [3]. The Constitution exists to protect people's individual rights regardless of the moral preferences of others.4A. My opponent says that all gay parents have adopted a child which is patently false. Gay people are perfectly capable of reproducing. First, some gay people have had opposite-sex relationships or sexual relations that have yielded biological children. Second, gay couples have children through in vitro fertilization or surrogacy all the time [4]. It is completely possible and in fact popular for gay couples to have children including their own biological children.4B. Con failed to cite a single factor (quality or trait) that is limited to heterosexuality, and/or that a gay parent could not provide their child. Con must explain why gay parents are either incapable or more unlikely to provide things like financial security, empathy and other factors that are actually relevant to parenting. In reality, the factors that most determine a good parent have nothing to do with sexuality.4C. In the largest study ever done on gay parenting, research found that children from same-sex families scored on average 6% better on two key measures - general health and family cohesion - even when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income [5]. 4D. "A five-year review of 81% of parenting studies reported that children raised by same sex parents are 'statistically indistinguishable' from those raised by straight parents in terms of self-esteem, academics and social adjustment. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association all agree that same-sex couples are just as fit to parent as their heterosexual counterparts" [6]. The Williams Institute measured aspects of the pre- and post-adoptive contexts in relation to child adjustment. It included 120 two-parent adoptive families: 40 female same-sex, 35 male same-sex, and 45 different-sex couples who adopted their children. The key findings note that parental success and child happiness were NOT relevant to the sex of the parents, but instead what was relevant were factors like stability, preparation and happiness [7]. While my opponent will presumably offer some research of his own, unfortunately I will not be able to respond (and it's against debate standard conduct to offer any new arguments in the final round). Con should have included more research showing that gay marriage is specifically harmful to children so I could have responded. Indeed the vast majority of research indicating problems with gay parents are flawed and biased. Con sourced data from one source, the CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA. Catholics are against gay marriage; it's quite obvious that these statistics are drawn from confirmation bias rooted in problematic research. Con cites research from David Sullins - a fellow of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, a project of the anti-LGBT Family Research Council. The first major flaw of his research is the fact that Sullins has no information about whether the same-sex couples were actually married. "No conclusions can actually be drawn about the impacts of legalizing same-sex marriage because the study, by its own admission, collected no data about same-sex marriage or its effect on children" [8]. Moreover, "Sullins notes that many of the children had a biological connection to one of the same-sex parents, but it’s unknown if these are from prior relationships, which would suggest their negative outcomes are related to a broken home instead of having two parents of the same sex" [8]. Con mentions Sullins' large sample study, but a recent large study from Australia with a similarly-sized pool of same-sex parents (who had actually raised children together as couples) found that the children have quite positive outcomes [9]. Indeed, there are ample studies that consistently justify the medical community’s support for same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage.5. Divorce is rampant and supporting the traditional family are not legal prerequisites for marriage. Heterosexual couples arguably engage in "immoral" activities and relationships, yet we do not discriminate against heterosexuals in general. Christianity and other religions are also against divorce, adultery, sex before marriage, etc. yet heterosexuals who engage in all of these behaviors are still legally allowed to wed. 6. Gay people are forced to pay taxes like everybody else, regardless of whether or not they agree with policy. It is immoral and arguably tyrannical of government to single out this demographic as undeserving of the legal benefits and protections that are given to heterosexual couples, while still requiring of them the same obligations of citizenship. If gay adults are required to participate in and help fund government, then they should by extension be afforded the same benefits and protections. Con suggests that robbery is immoral and compares this to gay relationships. First and foremost, this is not remotely analogous as robbery requires a VICTIM. Theft means someone's (property) rights are being violated. On the contrary, nobody's rights are being violated in gay relationships. There is no victim; the relationship is voluntary and consensual. In fact, since there are many health and social benefits of committed relationships [8] then these partnerships are actually beneficial. Second, thieves and other immoral straight people can still get married. In fact criminals can even get married when they are in prison [9]. Therefore Con is arguing against gay marriage on moral grounds - even though he hasn't proven gay marriage to be immoral, and the government allows immoral straight people (like criminals) to get married regardless.7. On the legal arguments, extend every single one of my contentions noting that the government does not exist to legislate morality but to protect rights. Ergo, the First Amendment, Supremacy Clause, Supreme Court rulings, and all other legal precedent I have mentioned is perfectly valid at legitimizing gay marriage from a legal standpoint. The legal standard exists to protect what is morally just: protecting rights, including minority rights. SOURCES: . http://www.debate.org...