Gay Marriage

In Defense of procreation That title sounded odd… anyway. My opponent essentially has two objections too this: Gays adopt, infertile couples. Both are the most common objections, and both are extremely weak. The first point is gays are sufficient parents and marriage would help them adopt more. Although this may be possible, it does little to change the course of this debate. This, as taken from my opponent’s argument, is likely saying adoption is indeed a states interest. Firstly, to do this one needs to prove homosexuals are sufficient parents. My opponent did this last round using highly flawed studies. But evidence shows for proper development to occur a mother and father must be present throughout the child’s young life. If this does not occur development is unstable and not beneficial [1]. And remember, as of now all studies have had mythological problems and do not accurately represent the homosexual or heterosexual populations. Not until recently, as in this summer, have studies coming out have good methods and sample sizes to actually make a conclusion. Sadly for my opponent, they fail to conclude “no differences” and the new study has concluded homosexual parenting leads to many problems [2]. As we can see my opponent’s adoption argument is a moot as he has failed to prove homosexual parenting serves the best interest of the child. His second point is that infertile couples are not excluded from marriage, and therefore homosexuals should be let in, as they are procreating equals to these infertile couples. Though heterosexual sex, not the effect it has, has intrinsic value in which the state supports. These infertile couples are still considered real marriages, something homosexuals cannot accomplish. Any sexual act, which has consent from both parties, seals the marriage; whether or not it leads too conception is irrelevant. In other words, “And because the union in question is an organic bodily union, it cannot depend for its reality on psychological factors. It does not matter, then, if spouses do not intend to have children or believe that they cannot.” What it is basically saying is the states want an arena to encourage procreation, and infertile couples or couples using contraception encourage procreation of other people or themselves in the long run and, therefore, fulfill a states interest. Too continue, “To recognize only fertile marriages is to suggest that marriage is merely a means to procreation and childrearing – and not what it truly is, namely, a good in itself. It may also violate the principle of equality to which revisionists appeal, because infertile and fertile couples alike can form unions of the same basic kind: real marriages. In the absence of strong reasons for it, this kind of differential treatment would be unfair.”[3] As we can see infertile couples still form real marriages and encourage certain acts and, therefore, create a situation, which serves the publics interest. My opponent then shows studies on marriage helping children, but as these children are raised by heterosexual married couples in a natural setting it is irrelevant to his case unless he proves it cross applies with homosexuals. Why it should be legal My opponent first claims the marriage tax pays for the benefits and therefore no states interest is needed. However this logic is flawed, as he must first demonstrate the tax would pay fully for the tax before using it as evidence. It existing is not grounds for it working. For example our income tax does not pay for our government spending. So he must show it is substantial enough for it to pay the spending. Secondly there is actually no marriage tax as the majority of married couples pay lower taxes [4]. So I see it unlikely that the revenues would pay for the deficits. And as shown before, I have proven the states interest is in responsible heterosexual procreation, which, therefore, proves the homosexuals are not worth the states time. Right to marriage My opponent never rebuts my analysis, which is a foolish thing to do. All rights have definitions and limitations and therefore if the right is not defined in ones favor its irrelevant. For example we define gun rights only to law-abiding citizens. Therefore there is no right for criminals to own guns. As with marriage, it is defined between a man and a woman and therefore the marital rights to not entail rights to homosexuals. This overall analysis was never refuted. My opponent knows it’s not in his favor so he decides to drop it. I henceforth extend the point. Homosexual parenting The APA study is laughable to all of those in the academic field. A recent study (July 2012) has actually looked into the statements seeing if it was an accurate one. The study actually showed the studies had significant errors. For example, all of them (except Cameron 1996) had too small of a sample. Size. They showed also that all of then had income problems. Their subjects much of the time looked for advertisements (non random sampling, another error) and got wealthy homosexuals in healthy relationships and single middle class heterosexual parents for other subjects. This will obviously lead to bias. Many of the studies the APA cited also had errors of writer bias as many of them where homosexual. Others had no control groups either. Therefore, the study concluded that none of the studies has “ … evidence of statistical power. … Not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children.”[5] As we can see citing the APA has don’t little to prove my opponents case. His rebuttal to my case last round was he thought those studies where adequate. Well the link never gave the details, and I cited actual analysis proving they where false. So my opponents opinion and a vague link versus comprehensive analysis. Voters your choice. Conclusion: My opponent has… Failed to disprove my states interest or provide a counter one Has failed to show they have a “right” to same sex marriage Has failed to prove homosexuals are sufficient parents with any credible analysis I have… Shown the states interests only exists amongst heterosexual unions Have shown the “right” so same sex marriage is a moot Have shown, using credible evidence, there is no evidence that homosexuals are sufficient parents The choice is clear. [1] http://tech.mit.edu... [2] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012) [3] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010) [4] http://money.msn.com... [5] Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)