Same-Sex Marriage

Countering the negative arguments: Marriage and procreation: My opponent tries to defend his argument by saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman because procreation is possible. The negative claims that it is irrelevant whether or not a couple chooses to procreate, as long as they are able to, then they can get married. The first crucial flaw with this argument is that my opponent never gives you a reason to accept this definition of marriage. He doesn’t even attempt to justify this line of thinking. If you choose to accept this definition, then consider artificial insemination. Due to artificial insemination, homosexual couples can actually procreate. Thus, under the negative’s definition, homosexuals should be allowed to be married. Unlike my opponent, I will give good reasons as to why marriage should not be solely about procreation, but about love and happiness. Contrary to what the negative believes, marriage is not all about procreation. People can procreate without getting married, and people who get married do not always choose to procreate. On the other hand, the vast majority of marriages center around a couple’s love for each other, and their desire to be 100% committed to each other. Almost every single wedding vow is centered around love and commitment, not about procreation. Couples don’t get married just so they can have kids. Clearly this is not what marriage is all about. My point is simple: Love and commitment is not limited to heterosexuals. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are BOTH human beings that are capable of sharing the exact same kind of love for each other, and it is for this reason that marriage should not be restricted to just one group of people. There is no reason to treat a portion of the population as second class citizens who do not share the same rights as everyone else. I am curious to see exactly why the negative feels that homosexuals, who make up roughly 3.4% of the U.S population [1], do not deserve to have the right to marry the person they love. Marriage between men and woman: My opponent makes several unsubstantiated claims throughout his defense of this argument. The negative claims that “Heterosexuals only though, can pursue an inherently good relationship to society”, but fails to explain why. He also claims that “Man and woman can connect sex with children, and homosexuals cannot”, and again, fails to explain why. The last thing the negative does in this argument is claim that homosexual marriage is bad because it “distorts the image of the good heterosexual image”. Again, my opponent fails to explain how they do this, and my opponent also fails to explain why the heterosexual marriage is good and why the homosexual marriage is so bad that it distorts everyone else’s marriages. I urge the voters to disregard the entirety of this argument made by the negative, due to the fact that he cannot, or will not, defend the claims that he has made. Government’s role in marriage: I urge the voters to take notice that in the defense of this argument, the negative completely disregarded everything he has said in the original argument. All he does to defend this argument is say that marriage is about the good relationship that only heterosexuals can pursue, but again, fails to explain why it is restricted to heterosexuals only. My refutation of this argument is simple: The government’s role in marriage will be the same no matter where they draw the line. The fact that they are drawing the line somewhere remains the same, so the government’s role in this issue will not change regardless of what stance they ultimately take. Parenting among Homosexuals: Most of my opponent’s augments rest on this premise. In my last post, I cited a longitudinal study done over 30 years with 154 couples participating. The study’s conclusion found that the effectiveness of parenting was determined by the competency of the parents, and had nothing to do with the parent’s sexual orientation[2]. The negative, as it seems, did not even look at the study, and instead cited a quote that claimed that most every study done on homosexuals must be invalidated because of lack or randomness and lack of participants. The ironic thing is that by posting this quote, the negative has effectively invalidated the paper that his entire argument is dependent on. If the negative wants to claim that most studies done on homosexuals are invalidated, then he must deal with the fact that his paper is a study on homosexuals and thus is also invalidated. This is beside the point. The point is that the study I cited is referred to as a longitudinal study. By definition it cannot be random; the structure of the study done relies on the opt-in method of selection. It included 154 participants, which is more than the quote the negative cited required. The research was done over a course of 30 years, a random element would have messed up the entire process. To quote the paper that the negative cited: “If one wanted to see the overall outcomes for same-sex parents versus heterosexual parents, one would start at one time and follow the children to a later point in time and then assess their progress without selecting out those parents who had separated”[3]. Now to talk about the negative’s cited paper: The Journal of Human Sexuality. Upon actually reading the paper, I found out that no empirical evidence was actually given to support the conclusion that homosexuals are unfit parents. All the study actually does is cite other studies that are between 10 and 20 years old that make claims that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental health problems, or that homosexual parenting will lead to homosexual children. Nowhere in the entire study is the connection made between these claims and the claim that homosexuals are unfit parents. In short, the paper says that the higher rate of mental health problems will probably lead to unfit parenting, but again, no empirical evidence is ever given to support this conclusion. Defending my argument: This entire debate is boiling down to these two factors: Procreation, and the proper raising of children, which my opponent argues are the only benefits to marriage. As far as procreation goes, I have already explained that if marriage is based solely on procreation, then a number of people besides homosexuals would also be excluded from marriage, which is irrational. My opponent claims that marriage is about the possibility of procreation, not necessarily the results (notice that my opponent’s definition of “the meaning of marriage” has changed yet again). I have already explained that due to artifical insemination, this is possible for homosexual couples and therefore valid. As far as the proper raising of children goes, you can refer to my critiques of my opponent’s argument to see that homosexual parenting is not any worse than heterosexual parenting. I have already adequately explained why the study I have cited should be taken into consideration, and why the study my opponent cited is clearly flawed and does not accurately demonstrate the claims that it has made. To summarize: My opponent is relentlessly arguing that marriage is all about procreation but has failed to give a reason as to why you should accept this claim. My opponent insists that heterosexual relationships are inherently good, and homosexual relationships are not, but fails to explain why. My opponent insists that most studies done on homosexuals fail to meet certain criteria, and therefore invalidaded the study that his entire argument depends on. My opponent's cited paper does not offer any empirical evidence that links claimed poor mental health with unfit parenting. Citations:1: http://www.gallup.com...2: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...3: http://www.scribd.com...;