Same Sex Marriage

I ask for conduct because of this situation. ===Summary=== 1. Parenting My opponents case was the research says gays are good parents. What he misses is this: he ignores my rebuttal criticizing gay parenting studies. As I argued:"Thus, collectively, the social sciences studies purporting to show that children raised by parents who engage in homosexual behavior are not subject to any significantly enhanced risks are flawed methodologically and analytically, and fall short of the standards of reliability needed to sustain such conclusions."[1]I further noted:"Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all forty-nine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy."[2] (introduction) Now, a sharp person would point out why does a flawed study matter? Ok... maybe they are not so sharp if they say that... But here is the response:"No one should pay any attention to studies that are poorly done. They are just some stories, they really are not science." Dr. Linda WaiteIn other words, the scientific basis for my opponents case is not scientific, it is just a story. I also provided two studies (Regnerus 2012, Sarantakos 1996) which agree with my assertions. I also showed other studies exist other then these two. In 2001, two sociologists argued in their study:"Echoing the conclusion of meta-analysts Allen and Burell (1996), the authors of all 21 studies almost uniformly claimed to find no differences in measures of parenting or child outcomes. In contrast, our careful scrutiny of the findings they report suggests that on some dimensions - particularly those related to gender and sexuality - the sexual orientations of these parents matter somewhat more for their children than the researchers claimed."[3]In other words—when the data is properly analyzed—we see significant differences among these children. Most of them are negative attributes also [3]. 2. Procreation This arguments only rebuttal what what if they don't have kids. But as I showed this was a misrepresentation. The states interest is between one man and one woman who raise children in a healthy environment and have procreative type unions which hold healthy marriage culture which, in turn, benefits society. 3. Effect on marriage My opponent was more concerned about divorce. However this irrelevant. I showed SSM decreases the procreative ability and such decreasing its value to the state and, therefore, having net negative. I also showed its decreasing in overall marriage rate hurt society's interest, too. 4. Economy The economy grows because of SSM, more people marry! Wrong. The amount of homosexuals that marry is negligible. Under 10% of them marry—note they are only 3% of the population—meaning little benefit occurs. However, I showed SSM decreases the heterosexual marriage rate and, therefore, has a net negative. I also showed the procreative type unions of heterosexuals usually end up in children meaning a larger economy (more population is usually good). And as argued above SSM decreases the procreative ability another negative is incurred. So either no benefit is given or solely negative results occur. 5. Constitution When arguing marriage one must ask why do marital rights even exist? I gave significant evidence that the right existed solely because heterosexuals fulfilled the states interest of procreation. Homosexuals cannot do this and, therefore, do not apply to these rights. 6. Harmful to gaysI showed no rights where being taken away and no harm rally was done. I also showed my opponents argument on depression was a farce as most homosexuals are depressed or suicide because of relationship problems... So legalizing SSM wont help that much. ===How to vote===Conduct: CON, pro forfeited Argument: CON, all of pros points where ripped to shreds and the CON point was hardly even touched. Sources: CON, my opponent cited many biased sources (Huntington post) or weak sources (like about.com). Mot of my sources are from peer reviewed journals. S/G: You decide, however it is commonly noted organization is part of these points, and my opponents organization was sub-par VOTE CON[1] Lynn D. Wardle, "The Potential Impact of Homosexual Parenting on Children", University of Illinois Law Review, (1997)[2] Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D. "No Basis: What the Studies Don't tell us about Same-Sex Parenting," Marriage Law Project, Washington, D.C. (January 2001)[3] Judith Stacy and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review, (April 2001)