New Gay Marriage Debate

Wow! Well wasn’t that a fun read! Let’s get started, shall we? I don’t even know where to begin; I truly don’t. My opponent goes so far off subject that I am just wow. So to sum it all up, Pro’s response was 90% bashing my views, calling me a homophobe, and disregarding my sources over “homophobia” being at the base of them, and 10% of my opponent’s response is actually debating against me. I’m going to ignore the insults, and actually search out and respond to anything that was even remotely substantial that my opponent said for the sake of getting to round 5 in this debate without banging my head against the wall and not being able to continue. My opponent’s excuse for not being able to respond to everything I said is that he didn’t have enough character space. Well first off, it is your job to find enough character space to be able to respond to everything, and you also could have saved plenty of space by cutting off like 3/4 of the source you posted because all you did was repeat yourself 12 times over on how homosexuals can adopt children. My opponent once again disregards procreation argument but gives no reasoning why except for my untrustworthy homophobic views. Let me remind you that the state recognizes marriage because of marriages public role in society, not private role. The relationship heterosexuals pursue naturally turns into a public role for society because of procreation and the proper raising of children. The private role in marriage has to do with the love and commitment the couple shares. Although that is important, it is not what the state is interested in because that is a private matter between the couple. Homosexual couples can only keep their relationship at a private matter because they share no link children like heterosexuals do. This means their marital relationship is based solely on private matters, which the state has no interest in. My opponent states, “So I didn't like your source and you didn't like my source.. hmm are we at an impasse since neither one of us can come up with compelling evidence that is considered unbiased!” Actually no. I have already provided evidence as to why my sources are better than yours. I already showed why homosexuals adopting is irrelevant but you seem to like ignoring my arguments and repeating yourself. I will repeat my arguments so you can actually respond to them adequately. “A persistent claim by those supporting same-sex marriages is that there is “no difference” in the outcomes of children raised by a biological mother and father and those who have been raised by two women or two men. That claim was made to the courts below, and will no doubt be made to this Court by associations like the American Psychological Association (“APA”). But as recent scholarship indicates, the claim is difficult to support because nearly all of the studies upon which the “no difference” assertion is based are rather limited, involving non-random, non representative samples, often with relatively few participants. Specifically, the vast majority of the studies were based on samples of fewer than 100 parents (or children), and typically representative only of well-educated, white women (parents), often with elevated incomes. These are hardly representative samples of the lesbian and gay population raising children, and therefore not a sufficient basis to make broad claims about child outcomes of same-sex parenting structures.” And in response to homosexuals adopting: Homosexuals cannot pursue a relationship that naturally beings children into the world through a loving relationship. Heterosexual relationships naturally through their loving relationship produce children for society to be properly raised by that couple. Homosexuals do not have this special connection to children, so even if they could raise them properly, that does not justify allowing them to be married. “The ability to raise children on its own is not a marriage. Roommates raising children is not a marriage. This presumes that marriage is only a material good, when marriage itself has an inherent good. Being able to raise children is not a requirement for marriage, but being in a union suited for and oriented to having children is.” I refuted on your arguments on gay couples being good parents, so my opening arguments on their parenting skills still stand. Even so, it is irrelevant whether they can raise children or not because they do not have a special link to children in the relationship they pursue. The point of the analogies was to show that we shouldn’t allow exceptions to get passed the law. Some homosexuals may be able to raise children well, but not nearly all of them. We shouldn’t allow homosexuals into marriage just because some can raise children well. Even so, I already showed earlier that even if homosexuals can raise children, it would still be irrelevant as to whether they should get married or not because they do not pursue a procreative relationship. My opponent asks me if I really care how marriage is defined. My answer? Yes. If I didn’t I wouldn’t have bothered to study up on my arguments so much. I want, like you, what’s best for society as a whole. We simply have different views on how to go about that. Dropped Arguments (1) Procreation You must first know why the state recognizes marriage before you can go saying who marries what. The state recognizes marriage for the relationship heterosexuals pursue, that when fulfilled at its best has a special link to children. So, the inability to procreate means that they’re relationship lacks that link to children, which is the reason the state recognizes marriage. (2) Heterosexuals and their special relationship I mentioned that they have a special relationship that homosexual couples cannot have in my opening arguments. You never denied that what I said was true. The reason the state recognizes marriage is for that special relationship, so homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry. Their relationship is special because of its special link to children. (3) Heterosexual Relationship Benefits Society Actually I some-what agree with my opponent here. Heterosexual relationships benefiting society is a bit off-topic. What I mean to say is that only heterosexual relationships benefit society. Homosexual relationships should be recognized because their relationship doesn’t have a special link to children. These are the only points my opponent argues that he didn’t drop. The rest he conceded. Actually, my opponent did indeed drop the procreation argument too.