This House Believes That the No Difference Theory is correct

Bad research, bias, opinion My opponent essentially has said bias taints all the research I have cited (I will talk about that later, too). But the irony of my opponents statement is that he cites Walter R. Schumm, sociologist, when talking about pro-gay studies. Indeed, as I previously noted, pro-gay bias is notorious. Especially due to the fact pro-gay research actually mis-represents their findings, and their research usually uncover significant differences [1]. My opponent decided to drop this point and merely focus on my findings. Indeed, my opponent misrepresented a study himself, claiming an article – he conveniently takes out the second part of the quote “Many social scientists believe there is sufficient evidence to support the null hypothesis: there are no differences--on a variety of social, emotional, and cognitive measures--between children raised by homosexual and heterosexual parents. However, the data they employ is flawed in many ways: small, biased, non-random samples”[2] As I previously noted research actually opposes gay parenting, and the research supporting it is likely based on spurious assumptions. Now, let’s assume Morse is an ideologue. My opponent also ignored an argument made last round “My opponent’s definition of no difference is false, the no difference claim actually has no bearing on societal influence.” I cited Stacey and Biblarz (pro-gay researchers) on the subject. Their definition is only whether or not gay children are different in current society; saying society causes the difference would still mean no difference theory is incorrect. This point was dropped and conceded, meaning half of my opponents case is nullified, whether or not Morse is correct. Byrd and Morse, my opponent claims, are ideologues. And my opponent cites a NARTH paper that concludes against homosexuality, so its biased. What? Just because it concludes against something =/= bias. I agree, the bias exists. But Schumm’s 2011 paper, which my opponent cites, actually notes how many anti-gay researchers (Cameron, Byrd, etc.) are actually much better at citing both sides of the story [3]. He also noted of a unique example: three papers published in the same journal. The one with the best methodology was anti-gay, and rarely cited. The other two were cited many times. Along with countless other examples, he finds the overall bias is towards homosexuality – as I have states multiple times citing Stacey and Biblarz 2001. A. Dean Byrd has also been considered a valid researcher by the APA [4], which has pro-gay leanings. All of these points I have already brought up or am expanding on, and my opponent chooses to ignore them. Also, my opponent can ignore Morse’s works; she cited many references to each controversial statement she has made to peer-reviewed science. So don’t trust her, trust her sources. She often expands next to the reference with quotes from the source and ways to access it so we know she is not lying. Does this sound discredited? Trayce Hansen’s claims are all based in science. She writes, “According to decades of research, the ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father family” and cites three references to that statement alone [5]. One of them is the 2002 Child Trends brief, a non-biased research organization. Another to the American College of Pediatricians, although a conservative group that report tshe cites cited 5 references in one paragraph on the issue, and dozens more overall, all to the peer-reviewed literature, on that point. And the last reference is by the Alabama Policy Institute which wrote a massive over 100 page paper on family structures with dozens of references. The ACPEDS brief she cited notes “Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child”[6] with three references in one statement. These points I am making come from many lines of empirical research – with only weak research indicating otherwise. And the news article I cited was based on anecdotal evidence; nowhere did I say this was the main line of evidence. It merely shows a real-world example of my points. Cultural problems I have provided countless lines of evidence indicating this was untrue. Specialization Let’s assume my beetle study is bogus. Guess what he ignored? The most important study in this section, that there exists a gene which dictates how mothers treat their children [7]. This blows a hole in my opponent’s argument. He has ignored this study since I pointed it out in round two. And the fact animals act differently only proves my point. Their actions are genetic in nature, and society cannot choose how mothers act. Since it differs across the animal kingdom, it makes sense that it would be a biological cause! Further, research indicates monkeys often spend time with their young. Many monkey species are monogamous, and stay with their young for biological reasons “the males will help provision (feed) and carry the young. Biologists explain this as an investment in the male's own offspring” [8]. Mothers and Fathers My opponent again chooses to ignore my data. He ignores a study I cited by the Administration for Children and Families, hardly a biased source. The Administration writes, “In short, fathers have a powerful and positive impact upon the development and health of children.”[9] Even if all the previous studies are wrong, he has ignored this study and has provided no counter evidence. Whether or not the differences are cultural, this means there is a necessary difference in current society – meaning I win the debate. However, the research indicates it is likely not cultural. Fathers inherently act differently than mothers in all societies – as my beetle study indicated (when linking it to humans) humans have adopted the same concept as the beetle in all societies – debunking the “culture” myth. And I have significant evidence that there is a mother gene [7]. A difference my opponent ignores is that gender creates a huge difference. A father helps his girls talk to men because he is a man, and mothers help boys talk to girls because she is a girl. This was indicated in round two, and dropped. This means, no matter what, children of homosexuals will always have some difference to those raised by heterosexuals. Libertarian case Genes cannot be changed through free will, nor can biological attributes. So if I want to be black I can be black? It does not work out that way. And, as stated, fathers and mothers being their gender directly affect their children’s social skills. Since free will definitely cannot change this, than the point is invalidated. And, to repeat: since motherhood is determined by genes [7], and fatherhood too [8], and society does not change how parents act as noted by the beetle study when talking about humans, this refutes the case. CONCLUSION I would like to note my opponent has not cited one study showing homosexual’s children are no different. On the contrary, I have cited large amounts of research, and have shown many pro-gay studies prove my point. I would also like to note his theory of culture, not biology, determining parenting has been refuted by the studies and the animal kingdom as I have noted. He also dropped the mother gene study, essentially refuting his whole hypothesis. He also ignores the vast social evidence that children need both parents. Research indicates children raised by homosexuals are at a general disadvantage which has been established by even a few pro-gay authors, no difference theory is false. VOTE CON – and please vote fairly. Thanks for the great debate! 1. http://bit.ly...; 2. http://bit.ly...; 3. http://bit.ly...; 4. http://bit.ly...; 5. http://bit.ly...; 6. http://bit.ly...; 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://1.usa.gov...;