Same Sex Marriage

Religion Marriage is a secular institution; I agree god should not have effect. Though attacking an argument that the opposition never brought up is irrelevant. Unnatural Although I disagree with you, I do not think this is a good reason to oppose same sex marriage. Again, attacking a con argument con hasn’t even brought up is irrelevant. Parenting This is actually relevant to my case. My opponent has claimed many studies claim X. This opinion is based upon many 1990s studies cited on many websites and the APA 2004 brief. Though many of these studies are riddled with problems. A July 2012 study explains all studies (except Cameron 2004) has had too small of a sample size. Many of these studies have other problems, such as non0random sampling. In these gay studies they will get wealthy homosexuals and single middle class heterosexual parents, then compare. This obviously gives a benefit to the homosexuals and their children’s outcomes. This study has concludes not one study cited by the gay agenda or the APA brief is credible [1]. My opponent will rightly point out although the APA cites a majority of these studies; this still leaves many studies credible unless proven otherwise. As stated, the majority of these studies occurred in 2001 and before. Though analysis’s on these studies extends to 2004 (Gallagher 2004). In a 2001 and 2004 study, they get similar results. All of these studies either have erroneous bias, non-random sample sizes, false comparisons (wealthy homosexuals, poor heterosexuals), or too small of a sample size to get any scientifically valid result. Other studies, rarely reported by the media and published in different journals, conclude having a mother and a father is essential. It is better if it is biological, also known as related through blood, however merely having heterosexual parents reduces the chance of many bad outcomes, such as parent molestation [1][2]. So what about counter evidence? There is a large selection of studies I can choose from. Many of them only focus on specific issues, such as molestation, but do not address the overall situation. If you look into the studies connected together we see homosexual parenting might not be a benefit or have “no difference” as my opponent has claimed. Though a recent study (again July 2012) has decided to take up the task. Basically to see if its results replicate studies in the APA brief. However, it did not reach these conclusions. Although no study is perfect, it did indeed have a better model then the other studies. He actually, instead of basic interviews and such, followed these children for a longer time. Updating the results. His results where not striking. Children raised by homosexual parents have worse statistics in almost every category when compared to heterosexuals. He used random sampling and a larger sample size. Using proper methodology goes a long way. Also, a problem gay groups argue is the marriage aspect is not controlled for (gays cannot marry). The study actually asked the participants their marital status and attempted to control for these factors. These controls yielded little change in the data. Its sample size was 3,000. Gallup polling usually uses 1000. This is more then statistically valid. Based on this we see there is little evidence to conclude that homosexuals are better parents (like some studies suggest) or have “no difference” [4]. Negative case Most DDO users know what my argument will be. And if you want to guess before you read on, go to my bias issues list and put your mouse over the CON on same sex marriage. My case in the debate is very important. The answer to this question will likely be able to change the course of this debate: What is marriage, and what’s the government’s reason/interest to regulate it? And when I say what is marriage, I am literally am asking what constitutes a “real” marriage. This is not my burden of proof to prove, it is really a tie, as we both need to answer this fundamental question, and the core of the modern SSM debate. If we assume same sex marriage is a right, then we can conclude prohibiting it is illegal and should be allowed. The same applies with abortion. If it is proven to be a person, it has right and becomes murder. Effectively making abortion illegal. A definition, however, is logically going to come prior to the right being a right. So, really, we need to define marriage. And our positions are clear. Unless my opponent agrees that marriage is defined heterosexually, though this would cost him the debate. He needs to do more then attack arguments I never presented (like religion, that’s a stereo type). So, I will begin with the heart of the debate. To defend my definition of marriage, I will show heterosexuals have a unique benefit to society, which homosexuals cannot provide. There is no doubt homosexuals might be great people. I have no problem with homosexuals; I really want to make this clear. My best friends brother is gay, and my parent’s friends are gay as well. I am merely stating they should not get the privilege of marriage, (a right for heterosexuals, though). Homosexual relationships, however, have less benefit to society or the government, which regulates the institution. In my view, heterosexuals can procreate (discussed later), this does not mean homosexuals cannot have sexual acts; their acts just cannot be included in marriage. Heterosexual relationships can procreate and, therefore, are naturally complimentary. These unions itself provide the basis for society itself. Thus, this natural conception of marriage means heterosexuals in and of themselves are inherently more important then homosexuals. Homosexuals cannot procreate and properly and naturally consummate marriage. Society would exist whether or not homosexuals existed. Without heterosexuals society would cease to exist. Therefore, the states interest and societies interest in marriage is to create a healthy environment in which people are created and raised. The government therefore has a reason to allow and promote heterosexual union, but has no reason to allow homosexual union. Why should the government give me expensive benefits if there is no reason? I will use an analogy from my previous debate. If I saved someone’s life, they have a reason to pay me. If I am a teenager writing a gay marriage argument they have little reason to reward me. So my opponent must answer this question: why recognize homosexual marriage? This seems logically impossible to prove unless he shows equal rights or some other value to homosexuals, which would benefit the government. Due to the way I formatted this section it was hard to add a footnote. So see source #5 for an overall reference to the negative case. Conclusion and summary: My rebuttals where clear. Two of them are completely irrelevant to whether or not we should ban SSM unless I bring up those points as a negative reason. His point on parenting, though, was relevant as if he proves that point he shows homosexuals still can make a healthy environment for citizens. This was refuted thoroughly. I have shown the reason marriage is defined the way it has been is to promote the states interest in procreation. Heterosexuals are inherently more important and, therefore, should be recognized in marriage. Homosexuals do not have these qualities, which fulfill a states interest and, therefore, should not be given the access to marriage. Two things that need to be done in any SSM debate: (1) Define marriage (2) Show the states interest in marriage I have fulfilled both, my opponent has not. It’s his turn now. Also hint to him: if he can prove homosexuals can apply to the procreative interest please tell me, as if you prove homosexuals can fit into the same category my opinions would change. The key factor is if you can. SOURCES INSIDE THE LINK: http://www.debate.org...