Gay Marriage

The defense My opponent here makes bare assertions, and enters an incomprehensible text of angriness. She merely says “it’s not laughable, how is it? Your argument is unsound”, and things to that effect. However, it is like she does not even lift a finger to refute the argument, merely reiterates assertions which is not debate, discourse, or anything of the form: it’s like facebook arguing. As I explained, there has to be an objective purpose, or else your whole argument fails. First, if marriage is ever changing, then there is no reason to support SSM, because since nothing in marriage is “wrong” than barring homosexuals from marriage isn’t wrong. My opponent must accept marriage has a true nature, or her point cannot logically stand. I also noted how the nature of marriage has survived throughout time, so even if the consequentialists are correct they still must provide valid reasons to change the institution. As we can see, my opponent has not offered a single reason. My opponent claims marriage is not necessary for procreation. However, pre-marital (or post-marital sex) is not “responsible”, for lack of a better word. The state is not only focused on procreation, but also the true nature of marriage which consists of mind, body, and soul. The procreative act merely consummates their love, and procreation is a secondary good – as the good of marriage is intrinsic not extrinsic. Even assuming the mind, body, and soul nature of marriage has no good, the state is also obligated to support child rearing. Children raised by single or cohabiting parents tend to do worse than those raised by biological married parents. Little proof indicates marriage stabilizes same sex couples, by the way. My opponent claims my citations (it’s spelled with a ‘c’, not an ‘s’) are incorrect. This is untrue. For the footnotes, I have the author, title, and date. For the studies, I provided the date and author with a description, and a simple google search often leads to the desired result. Further, I did not need to provide a link, as my opponent was only looking for the studies. Merely naming them fulfills the request, and invalidates her rebuttal. My opponent, since she is not able to cite opposing data, essentially concedes the point and has to act like her request was different in order to get a knee jerk vote that I was vauge. The Regnerus study is all over the headlines, the Allen study is on pro-gay blogs where they scream at it with little data to ponder upon, and the other studies are so well known PDF’s are available online. The fact my opponent cant copy, past, and hit ‘search’ is not my dilemma. As we can see, the parenting point was not the only argument posted, rather my opponent saw I have extensively researched the issue and shut down. She offers no intellectual insight. She merely, after complaining about references, rants on how she hates tradition and how I need to wake up. Something I read, I forgot where, will be posted here now. I will paraphrase: What a logical argument So you’re on my side now? Of course not! Why not? Because it’s my right to oppose the truth. My opponent, though not admitting I had a sound argument, could not refute the premise or conclusion. She ranted, yelled, and essentially focused her energy at the end to call me a fool. To quote Bob Carter again, “who are the deniers now?” Thank you, and a con vote is obvious.