Gay Marriage should Not be Permitted

Thank you, bsh1. I will first offer my conclusive rebuttals to my opponent’s arguments, and then I will crystallise my own arguments. Is/ought fallacy charges My opponent has only applied this fallacy where I have provided a conclusion of my counter-argument, which for character sake, is expanded in full elsewhere. An example of this is my opponent’s comments last round: “She also (again) resorts to her Is/Ought fallacy when she writes: "homosexual marriage is still unjust due to the nature of marriage."” My responses like this were not meant to argue all of my A1 argument, rather it was merely the conclusion of it. I urge you, as the voter, to consider the context in which these frivolous charges of is/ought fallacies take place. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE Ultimately, this is not linked to the debate. The resolution reads: Gay marriage should not be permitted, not: Homosexuality is a choice. Besides, my refutations of gay marriage have nothing to do with it being a choice. INJUSTICE These arguments, when in the presence of my A1 argument, are automatically refuted; none of these arguments can reasonably take place if there are legitimate differences that require different treatment. P1. Discrimination I. Recognising Actual Difference My counter-point here identifies that there are differences between homosexual and heterosexuals couples, of which, as expounded in my A1 argument, there is the key distinction of *intrinsic procreation*, not *extrinsic procreation* as my opponent continues to attack. To summarise: unjust treatment (discrimination) cannot take place if the differences warrant different treatment. II. Governmental Benefits Firstly, marriage benefits, as I have argued, are there to encourage the establishment of something good: heterosexual marriage (being good due to my arguments under A1). The government, in reality, has not nearly the same amount of incentive to encourage homosexual unions. If you do not buy the above, then please refer to my A1 argument. All of these governmental bonuses are moot, in this debate. The reason being is that you could afford all of these financial and legal benefits to homosexuals, and you would have the same result, in effect. You could give homosexuals the right to tax breaks based on their union. You could allow homosexuals the right to raise children. You can have the state recognise their union. However, you could do all this without affording the homosexual union the term ‘marriage,’ because as I argued in A1, marriage is not a homosexual union (and this is a summary of my argument, rather than the argument itself, so please, no is/ought fallacy accusation). My opponent, towards the end of the debate, begins to conflate other arguments with this response, based on his statistics about mental welfare and whatnot. However, as the title suggests, this is about governmental benefits, not the mental state of homosexuals. Please keep this in mind when reading this sub-heading. P2. Social Stigma and Otherisation Ultimately, all these arguments should not come into contention. The most damning argument against SSM is that homosexual couples do not meet the intrinsic form for procreation. However, in the event that you ignore or do not understand my former argument (it is a bit tricky to understand), I have provided rebuttals to these arguments. I. Marriage Would Lower “Psychological Distress” Please observe the studies (Scandanavian ones and the increased suicide rate) I cited. They contradict my opponent’s sources, so in fairness, I think this point is nulled. I still maintain that my opponent’s studies are inaccessible, therefore I cannot be expected to respond to them. This source: (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...) merely has what is known as an Abstract, meaning that nothing was examined in depth. As I clicked upon ‘full-text’, this was the result: An abstract of a report =/= the report itself. My opponent’s second source (https://actionaids.org...) suffers from a similar problem. I scrolled down to disparities in levels of psychological distress (the part in which my opponent argued from) and clicked on the link. Then, I saw that you had to sign-in in order to view the research: Affirmative Arguments A1. Marriage is Oriented Naturally This is the most important contention of the debate. If I uphold this argument, its presence refutes the discrimination, the child-rearing, the otherisation and most arguments my opponent has made. Whilst I could win the debate based on my other contentions, this is the most important one and I strongly urge voters to consider this thoroughly. The unintended strawman; extrinsic versus intrinsic My opponent, throughout this entire debate, has provided a nigh uncounterable response to marriage being about extrinsic procreation, BUT as I have said on numerous occasions to refute all of his arguments on this point, I argued that marriage involves intrinsic procreation. The difference between these two is all important and means that my opponent’s counter-arguments against my A1 are all strawmans. As I have argued all along: marriage can exist without children. Infertile couples Prima facie, this seems a cogent response, but it suffers from the same problem. As said previously, infertile couples can form a biological unit; they have the ability to mate (they can perform the type of act which results in procreation when *extrinsic* circumstances eventuate). Infertile opposite-sex couples have the ability to form bodily, emotional and spiritual union which *can* be fulfilled by [extrinsic] procreation, BUT it does not have to in order to be considered marriage. Impact calculus: I. Gay marriage is unjust So, why does this distinction matter? It matters because it leaves my syllogism COMPLETELY UNCONTESTED, AND my syllogism happens to directly address the resolution: 1. Heterosexual union [not necessarily extrinsic child-birth] is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust With this, I move from showing that gay marriage is different to heterosexual marriage, to gay marriage is unjust, which is enough to win the debate. II. Degeneracy implodes marriage The lack of real standard in which to hold marriage by leaves marriage open to disintegration. With my opponent’s justifications of “discrimination” and “happiness”, these can justify a spider and man marrying, a paedophile and a little boy, or a pair of 3 year olds marrying (“Do you want to be married?” “Mama! Mama! Yes!” *proceeds to play with My Little Pony toys*). In allowing anyone to marry on such foundless grounds, marriage will eventually degenerate into meaninglessness, thereby destroying itself. And so, the ideal form for procreation and family: the heterosexual marriage, will be slowly removed by an influx of marriages for “happiness” and “love”, thereby destroying the foundation of society (intrinsic procreation). A2: Homosexuals Make for Poor Parents I. Non-Biological Parents Homosexual couples are far more likely to attack and/or kill their non-biological children. Via evolutionary psychology, a point in which my opponent confused conscious choice with, it becomes clear that non-biological parents are statistically inferior to biological ones. The murder rate of infants, whilst relatively low (and taken from relatively low estimates i.e. 120 fold, instead of 300+), indicates the phenomenon at play and give it impact. The observations from the other studies corroborates this idea, and were not understood by my opponent (hence him merely quoting the study, as if my point would be refuted by this). A couple of my studies were also dropped, particularly the ones about tribes. My opponent’s counter-theory to the Cinderella Effect should be regarded inferior due to its purely abstract nature (i.e. has not been tested). II. General Problem With Same-Sex Parenting My opponent Ad Hominems a couple of my authors, but let us get to the crux of this point. The NFSS study took a random sample, which is actually the strength of the study. As the independent reviewer Walter Schumm said, this random sample allowed for an accurate depiction of homosexual relationships, rather than the bias of selected samples Herek reviews (picking the best of the best for homosexual couples, and some even pick the worst for heterosexual couples) that other studies my opponent cites suffer from. The studies Herek reviews have been shown not up to scientific standards by Sullins, Hansen and Allen. The Scandanvian studies are also in direct evidence to this lone review. A3: Religious Immorality If your faith is tested, the will of our Lord reflects through my A1 argument in particular, hence the uncontested logic of it. Otherwise, stay true to what you know is right: homosexual unions are not marriages. Back to bsh1 for the final time…