Same Sex Marriage

Parenting Thanks for clarifying. And, anyway, the rebuttal has no ground gained for you. I highly doubt your source writer read the study based on that argument, and he merely took equality matters argument as golden. However, the study has a whole section with control variables in order to control for inequalities. Even when the marriage factor was added no major difference occurred. In sum, the argument fails to refute the study as the study already dealt with the situation through regressions. My opponent’s next rebuttal is that homosexuals are stable. I never said all homosexuals where unstable, however they are on balance much less stable then married heterosexual couples. This indicates, on average, homosexual parenting is not as “good” as heterosexual parenting [1]. As we can see the study is not flawed. Further, a 1996 study reached similar results. Other then the study I have been citing for much of this debate, it has the largest sample size that looks into children reported statistics (not merely asking the parents). The children where moved into various groups based on parental marriage status, income, age, etc. The results for school performance were provided through the child’s teacher. The reason they got data from one of the parents and the teachers and the children was to avoid self reporting bias as the parent will likely have different results (likely inflated) in order to show how good they are at parenting. The results where children raised by biological married couples did the best, those raised by homosexuals did the worst. The study concluded, “Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school, in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples.”[2] My opponents point is empirically false and he has failed to give his own evidence. I showed it had methodological errors in round 1 and he has not brought it up since. Benefit to society My opponents point here is marriage stabilizes couples and can, therefore, get rid of the homosexuals are not good parents point. However, as explained above, I have shown the study done by Regnerus controlled for these variables to make sure they where not the factor in the situation. He actually found if he takes away the marriage factor he finds similar results to his original hypothesis [1]. This point is empirically a moot. My opponent has cited monetary benefits. My opponent must agree, then, all marriages have some economic benefit to society. However, marriage rates have fallen after SSM is allowed and most homosexuals don’t get married. The homosexual marriage rate is so low it has not evened out the decrease in marriage rates and, therefore, the marriage benefit decreases after SSM [3]. Further, the state gives out millions of dollars in benefits to married couples (that’s why the states interest in procreation exists and pays for it), and homosexuals do not add onto this… increase in value (don’t know how to say it)... meaning millions of government dollars are lost increasing deficits, and therefore hurt the economy [4]. Constitution My opponent point is we define marriage therefore this is not valid. Actually, the point of the argument was the government defines rights, and currently marriage is defined as a man and a woman. As gay “marriage” is in reality not marriage they cannot obtain “equal” rights. Its like gun rights (analogy used before). These rights only include law-abiding citizens and, therefore, do not apply to felons. The right of marriage only applies to heterosexuals as true or real marriages only occur and consummate through procreation. In other words, the only reason the right to marriage exists is because the value of heterosexuality, and homosexuals do not fit the label. The state only needs to enforce marriage, “real” marriage, and homosexuals are not marriage. Adding gay to marriage should look like this: Gay marriage. Procreation This is like the infertility objection. This argument confuses procreation type acts and those of procreative effect. What’s interesting is that historically the state would mandate procreative type act in order to encourage procreation. The government’s interest is not to make or force procreation, however make an environment in which it occurs. The government only wants gender complimentary in sexual acts, making the “he didn’t have kids” argument invalid. Having this gender complimentary fulfills an environment to create future children, whether or not it occurs is irrelevant. As the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy notes, “More generally, even an obviously infertile couple—no less than childless newlyweds or parents of grown children—can live out the features and norms of real marriage and thereby contribute to a healthy marriage culture. They can set a good example for others and help to teach the next generation what marriage is and is not. And as we have argued and will argue, everyone benefits from a healthy marriage culture.”[5] Harmful My opponent claims SSM will decrease the amount of suicides and we reject them for who they are. Yes, we do. They cannot enter procreative type acts and, therefore, do not fit the states interest. Allowing guns to criminals might also make them happier too so we end their discrimination! Also, the point makes little sense as the reason they have high suicide rates is due to promiscuous behavior and relationships falling apart. Further, many of those homosexuals who did suicide where doing drugs, had been molested, and/or where forced into prostitution. It has been found it is illogical to argue SSM allowance would decrease suicide [6]. Harm To marriage I agree marriage has been defined many times. However, its purpose has usually been to promote procreative type acts amongst heterosexuals to raise healthy children. My argument was marriage does not disintegrate, however its ability to fulfill the public function of marriage is hindered. Your rebuttal has not refuted my contention. Conclusion: CON has destroyed pros rebuttals throughout the debate in all categories… [1] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012) [2] Sotirios Sarantakos, “Children in three contexts: Family, education and social development,” Children Australia, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1996. [3] William C. Duncan “The Tenth Anniversary of Dutch Same-Sex marriage: How is marriage doing in the Netherlands?” Institute for marriage and public policy, (May 2011). [4] Joshua K. Baker “1,000 FEDERAL BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE? AN ANALYSIS OF THE 1997 GAO REPORT” Marriage Law Project, (May 2004) [5] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010) [6] Remafedi, G., Farrow, J., Deisher, R. “Risk factors for attempted suicide in gay and bisexual youth,” Pediatrics, (1991)