Gay Marriage should Not be Permitted

Thanks, Zarroette! It's been an great debate. PRO's CASEA1. Marriage is Oriented NaturallyI will only address some arguments here in order to conserve character space. 2. Pro asserts that intrinsic procreation is sufficient to justify heterosexual-only marriages, and that a male-female relationship has an intrinsic link to procreation. Firstly, how does an infertile, heterosexual relationship have an "intrinsic link" to procreation. The intrinsic link argument asserts that heterosexual marriage is moral because it is ordered towards procreation; but surely, if procreation is so special, would we not exclude infertile couples to even further order the institution toward that goal? Pro never sufficiently explains why infertile couples should be allowed to marry while gay couples should not, and that is the fatal flaw in her argument here. Secondly, why must the link be intrinsic vice extrinsic? If procreation is our goal, as Pro clearly believes, it is not sufficient that a union can procreate, but that they actually procreate. That means that extrinsic procreation, i. e. "giving birth in reality," is also key.3. Pro claims that all those other benefits of marriage are only possible because of procreation, thus procreation is marriage's primary goal. Firstly, this seems to presuppose that marriage is necessary to procreate; but it's not. Procreation can happen outside of marriage, so while marriage may be useful to that end, it is possible that marriage serves some other goal. Secondly, Pro tries to dismiss my historical evidence, but to understand something's purpose, we have to understand its history and the context in which the institution arose. That historical context, as well as modern evidence about the social benefits of marriage, suggest that marriage serves another purpose, i. e. promoting the general welfare, and that this purpose (historically) was more important that procreation.4. Gay couples have a more innate link to procreation that infertile heterosexuals. Gay couples can produces children via artificial means, where as infertile couples may not even be able to do that. Insofar as gay couples have 1 means of procreating and infertile couples have 0 means of procreating, gay couples appear to have a stronger intrinsic link. Yet, Pro would allow infertile couples but not gay couples to marry--that is clearly contradictory.5. Pro focuses so much on procreation she seems to forget what follows. As I stated last round: "procreation alone is not sufficient if a couple refuses or is unable to raise a child. " Why should the purpose of marriage just be procreation, and not child-rearing? Surely, parents should do more than just produce bodies; they should make productive members of society. Even if gay couples don't have a intrinsic link to procreation, they can definitely raise and adopt children, which is an important part of the equation, and perhaps more important than procreation alone.7. Pro commits a reductio ad absurdum fallacy and a slippery slope fallacy here. Gay couples are consenting adults. Five year olds, spiders, and snakes, are not. As such, Pro's only response to this argument is fallacious and a unfair representation (strawman) of my position. My argument was this: "Legalizing gay marriage won't cause straight married couples to stop having kids, and it may just benefit the gay couples in other ways (e. g. happiness). That's a net positive. " So, including gay couples doesn't undermine the procreative value of marriage, yet it furthers the social goals of marriage. A just government would see that as a worthwhile outcome to pursue. A2: Homosexual Make for Poor ParentsOverview: My opponent's parody here doesn't actually address what my overview is saying. She asks whether, because murder will happen in either word, we should remove sanctions against murder. This is a false analogy. We are not debating whether gay parenting should or should not be allowed, we are debating whether gay marriage should or should not be allowed. Gay parenting could be equally legal in either of our worlds, therefore, both of our worlds could have the exact same problems. This means this whole contention is non-unique, and not worthy of evaluation. I. Non-biological ParentsI will only address some arguments here in order to conserve character space. 1. Pro claims that gay people's subconscious tendencies outweigh their conscious ones. First, let me point out that all of Pro's evidence had to deal with stepparents, not gay people. So, Pro has no evidence that proves that gay people's subconscious tendencies towards neglecting no biological children will outweigh their conscious tendencies to care for them. Remember, "gay parents tend to be more motivated, more committed, and more thoughtful parents than heterosexual couples. That's because they usually have to work very hard, and plan very far in advance, to become parents, and so rarely do so by accident. " This fact is not true of stepparents. Moreover, Pro claims "motivation" is not falsifiable, but it certainly is; just as "neglect" is something that can be measured, so too can one measure a parents attentiveness, survey their enthusiasm, and measure how well they care for their child.3. Three things: (1) Pro's studies do not show that stepparents are "likely" to abuse kids, just "more likely. " (2) The studies relate to stepparents, not gay couples, and there are significant differences between the two groups that make it hard cross-apply conclusions from one group to the other. (3) Pro never denies that: "Daly and Wilson's 1985 Canadian sample included cases of sexual abuse as well as cases of unintentional omission, such as not buckling a child's seatbelt in the car. " That could easily just be absentmindedness rather than actual abuse.4. Pro claims that there is strong evidence for the Cinderella effect. Even if the effect exists, this doesn't mean we know its cause. Pro claims that my counter-hypothesis is untested; but, just because it is untested doesn't mean it is untrue. Insofar as there is a viable, alternative explanation to the effect than what Pro suggests, Pro cannot claim that the cause of the effect is necessarily the lack of a biological connection between parents. II. General Problem with Same-Sex Parenting1. It is not an appeal to authority as I explain why those researchers discredited the study.1a. Pro's name-dropping of Schumm is, however, a blatant appeal to authority. Moreover, Pro never once disputed the flaws in the Regnerus evidence that I identified: "It fails to consider important variables, including the length of the relationship (was it a day, a week, etc. ), whether or not the child was raised by a same-sex couple or by a single parent, socioeconomic challenges, parental drug abuse, educational opportunities, parental harmony, geographic location, etc. " So, even if the study was random, it was still severely, methodologically flawed.1b. I didn't engage in an ad hominem attack; I pointed out that the researcher was likely biased due to his own beliefs and due to his sources of funding. Pro never disputes that Regnerus was likely biased.2. Pro says that because gay people are stigmatized, they should not raise children. That does gay people a double wrong--it stigmatizes them and denies people who want to be parents the right to do so. The solution should be to prevent gay couples from parenting, but to end the stigmatization of gay families.3. Pro's source 10 takes me to an error page, and Pro's source 7 does not mention Herek anywhere (ctrl+f search produced zero returns. ) So, the two sources Pro uses to discredit my Herek evidence are either inaccessible or don't even mention Herek. So, the Herek information can be extended.4. Pro doesn't dispute that Hansen was biased or that her preemptive rebuttals attacked strawmans, not actual arguments. A3: Religious Immorality1. Pro drops that freedom of religion protects people from having other people's religious views from being imposed on them. Why should Christian or Islamic morality (what Pro discusses), dictate what other faiths, or people who don't agree with those values, should do?2. Pro drops that some religions allow gay marriages, yet Pro would deny those faith's the right to perform such marriage ceremonies. I, however, don't have to compel faiths to perform those ceremonies, I merely have to permit them to do so if they want. So, Pro violates freedom of religion, whereas I don't. VOTING ISSUES1. Purpose of Marriage Procreation can occur outside of marriage, but the social benefits that marriage begets are unique to marriage. If anything, then, social benefits seem more unique and special to the institution than procreation. Gay couples can link into these social benefits, and can even link into procreative benefits through artificial means and Pro struggles to explain why infertile couples should be included in matrimony. Moreover, gay couples can raise children, which may be even more important than procreation alone. 2. Stigmatization and Otherization Marriage equality would reduce the harms of anti-gay stigma. Allowing gay people to marry won't stop heterosexuals from procreating, and it will help gay people be happier. It's a win-win. 3. Religion Pro seems to feel that respecting religion is important, but I show how she is the only one stifling free expression of faith. 4. Discrimination Denying gay couples benefits (many of which don't pertain to child-rearing) based on innate factors (no one chooses to be gay) is discriminatory. Pro says we should give gay people equal benefits, but not call it "marriage. " That's a distinction without a different. Besides, the definition of SSM is a union with the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage; so Pro is advocating for gay marriage at that point. ----I also remind Pro that she can't summarize or make arguments next round. ----Thank you!