Gay marriage should not be permitted

Pro’s entire argument is essentially a non sequitur or a case of special pleading. Pro applies marriage requirements not imposed on others: special pleading and the opposite of fairness. At best you could conclude that homosexual marriages share a unique set of challenges. It does not follow that marriage rights, benefits and partnership should be removed. Gay and lesbian couples make fit parents. Pro has argued that gays make poor parents indirectly citing studies about step parents or assuming that mental health issues will have a large impact on child rearing. After a review of available studies 80+ on gay parents, no discernable negative difference was found between children raised by homosexuals and heterosexuals. [18] Pro has not produced any direct research that cites that there is any discernable difference in homosexual adopted children because none is available. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry firmly concluded in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults.” [12] The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2002 stated, "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual." They reiterated this in 2009 and 2013 in support of same sex adoption. The American Psychological Association (APA) concluded in 2004 that, "same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation." Gay and Lesbian adoptions perform a national Service. Gay and Lesbian parents are more often to adopt performing a vital role in our society building families where there are none [19]. Pro here has argued that children should not be raised outside of marriage but without gay marriage she would cause just that. Gays adopt a higher percentage of unwanted children including children over six, minorities and children over three. Half the children adopted by gay parents have special needs. Pro’s requirements for marriage would exclude other groups from marriage. Pro’s list of marriage requirements is unreasonable. Pro is pointing to one troubled group and recommended their marriage right be taken away. By pointing to another high-risk group I can demonstrate Pro’s special pleading. Black marriages in America share many struggles associated with poverty. Blacks have a much higher incidence of mental illness [11] The majority of black children are raised by single parents, 67% when compared to 25% among whites indicating unstable relationships. [13]A much higher percentage of Black Americans are raised in poverty. [14] While Gay couples are more highly educated and earn a higher income [15] Blacks have higher rates of teen pregnancy. [16] I have already mentioned divorce rates as high as 70%. [2] Why is Pro not targeting black marriage before gay marriage when they are a greater threat as a higher percentage of the population, 13% vs 1%? Because her whole argument is a case of special pleading. The highly religious have higher levels of property crime [20] and higher rates of teen pregnancy due to irresponsible sexual practices. [21] They also have higher divorce rates [22] and commit more violent murder, bank robberies and violent sexual assault. What rights should they be denied? Certainly marriage rights to start. You cannot point to a target group that shares a set of problems and then deny certain rights. If fairness is the goal then a consistent criteria should apply to everyone both gays and straight. This is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled. There are no criteria for marriages in the United States so this standard must be applied to Homosexuals. Emotional Health There is growing evidence that environment is a key factor in the issues attributed to homosexuals. [12] Adoption process: Homosexuals are typically more highly educated and earn a better income. Two qualities that make them stand up well in the adoption process and, incidentally two benefits they hold over straight marriages. I have already demonstrated that Homosexuals make fit parents. Since there is no measurable difference between children raised in adopted gay marriages it’s safe to say that the standards work fairly well. I have cited a site that lists the general international requirements: Age, physical health, emotional health, criminal/child abuse history, marital/domestic partnership history, financial history and home environment. Note Gay Couples stand out in several areas. Highly educated are less likely to commit crime [24]. As I mentioned they have a lower incidence of divorce so they have longer marital histories. Good incomes make for stable home environment. If there is a higher incidence of mental health these potential parents are vetted or considered in the process. Compare this to heterosexual parents where there are no requirements and there is a 50% accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals. [19] Rebuttals: II and III impact amplifier I have shown that homosexuals make fit parents in spite of any challenges. Premise: Heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society Here Pro throws heterosexuals into many broad categories and then simply asserts that children born into heterosexual marriages are superior in several categories. She has not compared this directly with studies referencing the quality of children adopted to homosexuals and the research does not support it. Subcategories of heterosexual marriages arguably are substandard parents and Pro is targeting homosexuals without a just cause. Relabelling gay marriage/resolution misrepresentation: If the resolution were gay marriage should be relabeled civil union no one would have accepted the debate. As defined, “Gay marriage - a legally binding union conferring on two same-sex partners the same legal rights, status, and benefits that "traditional" marriage would typically confer upon opposite-sex couples.” Pro mentions nothing about children and emphasizes rights and benefits. Who would think the debate is more about children than the rights and benefits specifically mentioned. Pro needs to accurately defend her resolution. Tax breaks are given to married couples to support marriage. Separate tax breaks are given to support children regardless of marriage. Financial benefits are a leading cause of divorce so obviously financial benefits assist in the stability of marriage although apparently straight couples need the help more. [26] I would say the other benefits I mention obviously help a relationship. III. Homosexual relationship infidelity Gay Marriages are not unstable. Gay marriages are not unstable and in fact quite the opposite is true. Pro mentions infidelity in support but that need not create instability. In fact there is a balance. Note that Pro has simply asserted that marriage is about monogamy without support. While gay men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners they are in tern less likely to pursue marriage and less likely to divorce than straight couples. [17] Roughly 2/3 of homosexual marriages are lesbian. While divorce any given year 2% of straight couples will get divorced while 1% of gay couples divorce. Gay Marriages are clearly as stable as straight marriages. Pro repeatedly asserts that I have dropped arguments or made bald assertions. I have appealed to common sense or common knowledge. Obviously marriage benefits improve a marriage and I can source this for Pro. A dropped argument must necessarily be ignored. If I argue that an argument is irrelevant or a case of special pleading I have addressed the argument. It’s disingenuous of Pro to claim otherwise. Moral obligation: Pro’s case is anything but fair. If she were honest she would argue for equal requirements for all marriage. Currently, there are none so she uses special pleading to exclude gays alone. This is disingenuous when many gay couples would meet her requirements and many straight couples would not. This includes many from the black, heavily religious and impoverished. Why is Pro targeting homosexuals when this is certainly not fair? Infertile couples/elderly marriage: Around 11% of woman will receive treatment for infertility and roughly 5% of couples choose not to have children. [25] Act of force (“men with guns”) preventing marriage: Previously, if clerks were to begin granting marriage permits to homosexuals men with guns would show up to enforce the law. Culmination effect: Pro randomly chooses three requirements for marriages. I have demonstrated that Gay Marriages are not unstable. I have also shown that infidelity in Homosexual relationships does not lead to a higher divorce rate or any deficiency in child rearing. Pro is inconsistent in applying these criteria and if she were various forms of gay marriage would be permitted when the relationships could be shown to be stable, mentally healthy and have a high level of fidelity. - It’s as simple as my introduction. Pro presents a well-organized case that is not valid or sound. It’s not valid because the internal logic does not arrive at the final conclusion. External research does not back up her premises so it is not sound. [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com... [15] http://tinyurl.com... [16] http://tinyurl.com... [17] http://tinyurl.com... [18] http://tinyurl.com... [19] http://tinyurl.com... [20] http://tinyurl.com... [21] http://tinyurl.com... [22] http://tinyurl.com... [23] http://tinyurl.com... [24] http://tinyurl.com... [25] http://tinyurl.com... [26] http://tinyurl.com...