Same Sex Marriage

Religion/natural My opponent agrees this is irrelevant and should not be counted or factored when the voters decide who won the debate. Definition of marriage Indeed, you have failed to justify your definition. Although I agree this definition is correct, you fail to argue why the “two people” aspect of this should be including homosexuals. I again pose this question: what is the state interest in allowing homosexual unions? I see his point on the constitution below, and it shall be refuted, however my opponent still must answer the question. What are the states interests in legalizing same sex marriage? Until this is answered, this definition cannot hold up to legal scrutiny. Parenting I actually agree with much of my opponent’s analysis. He claims it is a criticism and a weakness to the study that lesbians where not stable. That was actually much of his conclusions. My opponent merely states this is a flaw in the sampling. No, it is not. It is much larger then national polls, and it was selective. Meaning on balance homosexuals is not stable. In his study he points this out. Not only does a lot of science prove children need a mother and a father, but homosexuals are less stable. He notes children like stability. If homosexuals cannot stay stable, they are indeed not as good parents in relation to heterosexuals. In reality, this is not a rebuttal. Basically, he said “children like stability”, and if they are given unstable situations they will not develop as well. As he concludes a large problem with homosexual parenting is the instability, this does nothing but strengthen his conclusion that homosexuals raise children wrongly [1]. Further, many studies although not directly related to parenting also refute a no differences claim. Many of them show the high levels of instability and promiscuity among homosexuals, even in areas where SSM is legal, and this instability hurts the child. Again, my opponent’s argument of instability and these studies conclusions strengthen the conclusions that Regnerus claims to have obtained. Other studies show the amount of domestic violence among homosexual couples is much higher then those in heterosexual ones. This, again, will harm the child. So finding instability in his sample sizes seems logical, and this is a large reason why homosexuals are not the preferred parents. It has also been shown even in countries where SSM is legal; substance abuse amongst homosexual couples is extremely high. This hurts the children. Further, 29% of children raised by homosexuals are sexually molested compared to 0.6% of those in heterosexual households. As we can see, using my opponent’s instability rebuttal which accomplished nothing for his case, and using other studies, we see homosexuals should not be, on average, better parents [2]. Child trends notes: “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low‐conflict marriage. Children in single‐parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in step‐ families or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes . . .. There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents . . ..”It is not simply the presence of two parents, . . . but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.”[3] Why? Again I want my opponent to make a states interest, although what he has said is valid… until I refute it. Constitution It is not valid to compare a court legislating between heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples always fulfill the states interest of procreation and can form a “real” marriage, homosexuals cannot. This comparison does not help my opponent’s case. As the Harvard journal of public policy notes, “Thus, when some states forbade interracial marriage, they either attempted to keep people from forming real marriages, or denied legal status to those truly marital relationships. Conversely, if the state conferred the same status on a man and his two best friends or on a woman and an inanimate object, it would not thereby make them really married. It would merely give the title and (where possible) the benefits of legal marriages to what are not actually marriages at all.”[4] My opponent’s argument is therefore irrelevant. Marriage is always defined, the journal later notes, “Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded.”[4] Basically, the state only needs to enforce rights that are defined as “real”. For example, only law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, we have defined it so criminals do not get access. As in marriage, if a real marriage is defined as one man and one woman nothing is being deprived. The right to marriage amongst heterosexuals only exists because of the ability to enter procreative type acts consummating their union. As the right only exists to promote procreation, there is no right that applies to homosexuals. Harmful My opponent has failed to prove anything with facts. It seems as he is implying banning it means they do more suicide? As a mental burden that is caused in the way he describes seems like that may be an outcome. Care to provide more clarification? Adoption I have shown homosexuals are not “good” parents anyway. And unless he can link gay adoption to marriage he cannot use this of relevance to the debate. Not harmful to marriage? Neither of the studies we will cite is out of date. Mine is from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public policy again. The study concludes, “Heterosexual marriage rules would be modified because they would be inappropriate for same-sex marriages. This feedback mechanism will make large numbers of heterosexual marriages less stable and will tend to increased divorce, which would be bad for the next generation. The key to this argument is that millennia-old marriage laws exist for a reason: to efficiently regulate incompatible incentives between husbands and wives that mostly arise over differences in biology.”[5] He cites many other examples of redefining marriage (like no-fault divorce) as well as data from other countries. His results are actually SSM hurts the procreative effect of marriage and, therefore, hurts societies interest in more population. This strengthens my point on why we should not allow SSM. Conclusion: Marriage? A benefit to society: my opponent agrees with this. SSM? Hurts those marriages and therefore hurts society. And remember round two, “The government therefore has a reason to allow and promote heterosexual union, but has no reason to allow homosexual union.” (Therefore has a line through it as its irrelevant in this context) Oh good, no equal rights are being taken away. I am not a bigot then! Vote Con Sources in here: http://www.debate.org...