Gay marriage should not be permitted

Pro has not defended or accurately represented the resolution. Pro’s entire argument is essentially a non sequitur or a case of special pleading. Pro has not contested this point. The foundations of her argument do not arrive at the resolution, and again, she has not supported the resolution. I could agree with all of Pro’s claims and conclude that the resolution is not sound. This is the crux of Pro’s argument and she has not been able to establish why it follows that gays should be denied marriage rights. She did not respond to my argument regarding black or highly religious couples. Why should a special set of rules be applied to gay marriage that is not applied to any other marriages? Pro has no answer. She is biased against gay marriage. She has not recommended her criteria be applied to marriage in general, which would often allow Gay Marriage, but only applies her standards to homosexual couples. Her entire argument is logically flawed and she dropped this point. Relabelling gay marriage/resolution misrepresentation: Non-equivalence: the crux of my argument Pro has reaffirmed that she has no interest in supporting the resolution. She is not against gay partnership, marriage benefits or rights. She is arguing for a separate but roughly equal institution. I quote Pro, “Please note that is was *never* my aim to prevent homosexuals from forming partnerships, having *some* of the marriage rights or being entitled to benefits.” So what exactly is Pro advocating? We could conclude nothing from her whole vacuous case other than marriage tax breaks afforded to heterosexual couples should not be allowed as an effort to prevent gay adoption. Note that tax breaks are afforded for adopted and biological children in addition to marriage tax reductions and that Pro has not been able to establish that homosexual parents are not excellent adoptees. This does not conflict with the resolution since she has not clarified or sufficiently argued what specific right should be denied. Therefore she has not supported the resolution. Union is about love and partnership; Marriage is about forming the best unit for child-rearing of which is the bedrock of society Pro has leaned far to heavily on this point. Homosexual couples do not biologically reproduce and are dependent on adoption. There are strict requirements for adoption that all couples are subject to. All Pro needed to do was point to research that compares children adopted by homosexuals with those adopted by heterosexual couples. She was not able to do this. She compared stepparents to biological parents and married children to those born outside marriage. She was not able to cite any research concluding that gays to not make fit parents. In addition, child rearing is not necessary for marriage and there are separate requirements for adoption. If I conclude that gays make unfit parents no action need be taken and this is completely separate from marriage rights. Throughout her case Pro has simply equivocated marriage and adoption rights when these are two entirely separate issues. Pro’s requirements for marriage would exclude other groups from marriage. Pro’s list of marriage requirements is unreasonable. Dropped by Pro. Pro applies additional requirements to Gay Marriage that would exclude other groups from marriage far before homosexuals. Pro repeatedly asserts that I have dropped arguments. I have argued that a lot of Pro’s research or positions are not highly relevant. For instance, she argues that a society without marriage would be terrible and cites a society where marriage is not common in support (Japan). This is circular and Pro simply asserts that their financial crisis is a direct result. Pro’s definition of ‘dropped’ is highly suspect and includes many points I have conceded as irrelevant. Con Claim: Gay and Lesbian adoptions perform a national Service Pro has essentially ignored my whole line of reasoning with respect to adoption. Adoption has it’s own set of requirements that are applied equally to everyone vetting unfit parents both gay and straight. Homosexual inability to procreate leads to lack of genetic interest in children This is an argument against all adoption. It applies to all adopted parents and I have demonstrated that gays make fit parents. They are required to meet the same requirements as all adopted couples. Pro’s case here is theoretical but the research does not back it up. II. Marriage instability Here Pro objects that my research references registered same sex couples as well as married same sex partners. The irony is lost on Pro that a more lax, informal commitment among same sex couples is stronger than the more formal legal bond afforded by marriage to straight couples. This is a comparison between the strength of commitment. Until recently, registered was about as formal a commitment afforded to same sex couples so the comparison is warranted. III. Homosexual relationship infidelity I conceded that Gay males are more likely to pursue multiple partners outside of a formal commitment. I have argued that they are also less likely to pursue marriage and are less likely to get a divorce when they do marry. Pro dropped this point. II and III impact amplifier Pro presents a theoretical argument about chemical levels in the blood in couples with a high level of infidelity. In response I have agued that the available research shows that this does not impact same sex couple with respect to child rearing or divorce rates. Pro has not been able to establish that lesbian or married same sex couples are more frequently unfaithful so this argument is not relevant to marriage. Culmination effect (Special Pleading) Pro continues to support a set of requirements for Gay Marriage and none for anyone else. In spite of the fact that blacks, the highly religious or the poor do not meet her requirements. Many straight couples would not but Pro refuses to apply her requirements fairly negating her resolution. Pro is again dishonestly claiming that I have dropped her arguments. She previously asserted that children born in heterosexual marriages are better off. Not only did she not provide sourcing but this point is not relevant. This is not a comparison between adopted children. Instead it is a comparison between children raised in married relationships with those raised by single parents for example. This is yet another irrelevant argument. Moreover, she references research but does not provide source a link. Pro, again, conflates stepparents with adopted parents which is disingenuous and any struggle would transfer to all adopted parents. I. Emotional instability Yes, homosexuals have a higher rate of emotional health issues when compared to heterosexuals. Whites also have a higher incidence when compared to Asians, blacks with respect to whites and the poor with respect to others. It does not follow that they should be denied marriage rights. Gay and lesbian couples make fit parents Appeal to authority, often referred to as an appeal to a false authority, is problematic because experts are highly specialized and experts should only be referenced in comments specific to their field. The quotes I reference are specifically targeted to organizations that represent a panel of experts in a directly relevant field and comment directly about available research. I cite The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry to comment directly on the available research with respect to child psychology, The American Academy of Pediatrics on the research with respect to child well being and The American Psychological Association in regard to mental health. She has not been able to provide any research comparing adopted children or the parental capacity of same vs opposite sex couples. As I have stated the available research found no difference in the two groups. Pro drops this point. Pro’s entire argument falls flat here. Where is the relevant research and why does it matter? The research I’ve provided is underwhelmingly flat in that gay and straight parents perform the same. Adoption is a separate issue and Gay parents are held to the same adoptive standards, as they should be. Pro’s Simplified Syllogism “1) Marriage is an institution about child-rearing” Pro’s definition of marriage includes nothing about child rearing. She emphasizes a partnership and rights and benefits. Gay adoption is a separate issue entirely and it’s not highly relevant to this debate. “2) Marriage is the bedrock of society” To promote this case Pro again emphasized child rearing when fit homosexual parents can adopt and raise children as capably as opposite sex couples. “C1) Therefore, the state has interest in keeping marriages as strong as possible” Pro has not built a case that same sex couples weaken or effect marriage in any way. She has simply asserted that Gay marriage will weaken marriage. “3) Via the culmination effect, [lack of genetic interest] + [inferior parenting ability] = homosexuals being significantly inferior child-rearers than heterosexuals” Again, available research shows no difference between children adopted to same or opposite sex couples. She has referenced research about children born in marriage vs those born outside of any commitment such as born to single parents. “4) Since C1, the state has an interest in keeping the inferior homosexual unions out of marriage” Pro has asserted this but has not demonstrated how homosexual marriage would effect marriage in any way. “C2) Therefore, in a just society, gay marriage should not be permitted” Pro has not developed a case around this conclusion. She has argued that Gay Marriage should not be called marriage and vaguely that they should not have the same rights or benefits. Her point is not clear and it is impossible to evaluate her case when she has not sufficiently argued what rights and benefits gays should be denied.