Gay Marriage

Specifically, that social sanction will keep marriages together. I point out a) social sanction is not the strongest bond of marriage (love is), andb) there are countless other factors that can lead to dissolving a marriage. In short, I believe that homosexual marriage divorces will continue as usual, and will not be in any way strengthened by social sanction. Also, I show how your sourcea) does not follow any logical pattern (jumps from not enough sexual tequniques in lesbian sex to social sanction is holding them back), andb) tells the reader that there are different and equally valid ways to interpret her own data. I don't disagree that marriage would strengthen a relationship, but I do disagree that if that homosexual marriage was accepted by society it would somehow "make it stronger. " Do you see the distinction, Pro?2) I need not "distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is beneficial for only straight couples," I need to show whether or not homosexuality is immoral. This is the topic of the debate, right? The morality of homosexuality?3) This is not my burden to offer a moral standard. It is the burden of the person offering the affirmative statement, and therefore, it is Pro's burden to offer an objective moral standard to which we compare homosexuality. Exactly my point. The Government is not, should not, and will not be a moral guideline. Therefore, we should not look at any of its laws or regulations to prove the morality of a certain issue. For this reason, any 1) constitutional arguments, or2) arguments of "the government has to. .. "should be disregarded, as the Gov't has no say on whether something is or isn't immoral. Once again, an argument to "what the government has to do" and "legal morality. " See above. 4A) I say that gay parents are not both biological parents of the child. One can be, I will give you that, but not both. This child will most likely never know who the other parent is. In other words, at least one of the partners in the relationship will know that that isn't his kid. For this reason, the homosexual couple cannot truly be the biological parents of the child. 4B) You have brought no evidence to combat my study. .. Oh wait, here's some! Let's examine them.4C) First, you state that it is "The largest study ever done on gay parenting. " However, it only involves 315 homosexual parents. Divide by 2 partners to each couple, that's. .. well, it's under 200 homosexual couples. The largest study that has ever been done that concludes gender of parents doesn't matter uses a sample group under 200. Second, the data on the children was "parent-reported," meaning the parents gave data on how the children felt. The children had no say in the matter. This is how the parents thought their kids were faring, and not the kids themselves. In short, the methodology and very low sample size of this study render it not credible, and I urge the judges to disregard it for these reasons.4D) Simply quoting "www. salon. com" is not sufficient, Pro. I'm sure the judges would agree that this website isn't a credible source for evidence. You have failed to a) give a name of the study, andb) show why the study is credible at all. I don't know if it is credible or not because I don't know what the study is even called! Based upon this alone, you haven't met your burden of proof here, and, as stated before, since you are bringing the affirmative statement, it is your burden and yours alone. Also, the Williams Institute has the same problem as above: it is too small of a sample group. The study relies on 45 heterosexual couples and 75 homosexual couples to come to a conclusion on "how happy the kids are. " Another thing to consider is that the conclusion proves nothing. The argument it makes is:A) All families that are happy have happy kids. B) Some families that are happy are homosexual families. C) Therefore, some homosexual families have happy kids. I can make the exact same argument in reverse:A) All families that are unhappy have unhappy kids. B) Some families that are unhappy are homosexual families. C) Therefore, some homosexual families have unhappy kids. The study attempts at "proving homosexual families have happy kids," when it cannot prove anything. It can show that it is somewhat likely that some homosexual families would have happy kids, but it does not prove that all homosexual families would have happy kids. I do cite David Sullins as evidence. Pro makes the argument of bias, however, the same can be made to her sources. Her first study is written by Simon R. Crouch. He is the current leader of the group "The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHEES)," a group that strongly supports homosexual marriage (1). Her second study is written by www. salon. com. This site is clearly and definitely liberal, and states it themselves: "Online journal of arts and culture and politics with a liberal bent (2). " Just a few of the top articles confirm this is not just a slight slant. "Beyond Trump’s threat: The GOP, with help from the left, has been destroying democracy for decades""A round of applause for Chris Murphy: The Connecticut senator brilliantly filibusters to end Republican obstructionism on gun control""The Republicans’ November fantasy: A glance at the GOP’s swing state strategy ought to delight Democrats everywhere"Her final study that she sites is from Williams Institute, a institute claims to be unbiased and to be "dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy (3). " However, one look at the "Press Releases" section of the website shows the opposite: a discernible, definite bias towards the LGBT community. "New Study Shows No Differences in Family Relationships or Child Health Outcomes between Same-sex and Different-sex Parent Households""Transgender people who are sexual minorities are more likely to be harassed, new study shows""HB2 Could Cost North Carolina Almost $5 Billion a Year"While Pro can state all she wants that my studies are biased, it really comes down to one fact: all scientists are biased. I have shown how David Sullins' study is not only more credible than the ones cited by Pro, I have also shown how Pro's argument to bias backfires against her own studies. Also, I am allowed to counter your evidence with my own. I can't bring up any new arguments, but since you brought up new evidence during the final round, I am allowed to bring up new evidence as well. For this reason, in response to your study in 4D, I would ask the judges to examine the merit of this article on the subject (or rather, an examination of other articles) as counter-evidence, and counter-evidence only (4).5) Once again, "legally allowed to wed. " I repeat my response to your 3rd point. Also, to your argument that heterosexuals commit sin. Yes, we do. I'll give a breakdown of my religion argument:The Bible outlines: 1) Same-sex intercourse is a sin (Leviticus 18:22).2) Those who sin and do not repent are condemned to death (Romans 6:23). 3) Therefore, engaging in same-sex intercourse and not repenting for these actions condemn you to death. However, the Bible is misinterpreted by many different people. Some radical Christians ignore a fundamental part of Christianity: All men have sinned (Romans 3:23). In other words, homosexuality is a sin, but it is no worse of a sin than if I were to be sexually promiscuous. Here are Jesus' own words, they sum up my argument better than I could (Luke 13:2-5): 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ” 6) More legal arguments. This is not relevant to the debate on morality at hand. Unless, of course, you are offering your objective standard of morality to be the US Government. If so, you've contradicted yourself on this point. "Nonetheless, the government does not exist to legislate morality but to protect rights (Round 4, Pro). "7) See above. In conclusion, Pro has failed to1) Offer an objective standard of morality of which to compare homosexuality,2) Give sufficient credible sources that prove gender has no bearing in parenting, and3) Meet her BoP. I have met my burden by refuting Pro's arguments that have pertinence to this debate. I have not refuted Pro's legal arguments as they do not pertain to the question of morality. Pro agrees with me. For these reasons, vote Con. Wonderful debate! Best of luck in future debates. Sources:(1) . http://www.achess.org.au...(2) . http://www.salon.com...(3) . http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...(4) . http://ic.galegroup.com...