Gay Marriage should be legalized

Many thanks again to Wylted again for this discussion. Essentially my opponent is arguing that gay people do not have a right to marriage, because the state has no incentive to recognize their relationship. He argues that legal safeguards, protections and monetary benefits are given to straight couples to incentivize marriage, because the traditional institution is beneficial to society as a whole. To justify this claim, he cites the benefits of a traditional family unit on children... and that's about it. In this debate, I will prove that gay people should be encouraged to pursue marriage for the same reasons (individual success) as their heterosexual peers. That will translate to greater success across society. Moreover, I will prove that marriage does indeed strengthen the family and assist in raising children in a positive and stable environment. Therefore, this institution should logically extend to same-sex couples, many of whom happen to have children. All of this explains why gay marriage should be legal. Research shows that marriage benefits the individual and thus society as a whole. Married people are more financially well off, happier and healthier than their single peers [1]. Why should gay people not be privilege to the same institution to encourage their well-being, and thus contribute to the well-being of more people? That doesn't make sense. Gay people will have long and committed, often monogamous relationships similar to heterosexual marriage anyway as they have throughout history. If the argument is that romantic heterosexual relationships promote the well being of people (and the kids they have), shouldn't the government also encourage recognition and support of the equivalent gay relationships? Research also shows that the legitimization of marriage is the primary factor in considering the dissolution of all relationships. Social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity, indicating that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success [2]. It makes no sense to: - suggest that the institution of marriage benefits society because of personal gains- acknowledge that gay relationships will exist regardless of legal recognition - and suggest that preserving those relationships is not beneficial for the same reasons it is beneficial for straight couples. Con must distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is beneficial for only straight couples. Furthermore, Con must explain why similar gay relationships shouldn't be fostered with legal protection.On the other hand, I am arguing that gay people (and thus society) will benefit from the same benefits of legal marriage. Children undoubtedly benefit from having married parents -- the benefits of a married couple logically extend to their children. It makes sense that if married people are happier, healthier and more financially well off, that the children of married couples would also benefit from the relationship. In addition to the inherent benefits of the coupling, the legal rights afforded to married couples extend to safeguard the family. In many cases, kids with gay parents have been hurt by their family not being protected in instances where adoption, the death tax and other legal issues arise [3, 4]. Con is arguing in favor of children with gay parents not being protected by the law as their peers are, for reasons 1) entirely out of their control, and 2) that are irrelevant in terms of reasonable comparison. There are a lot of families headed by same-sex parents. Almost 40% of LGBT identifying individuals have had a child. Six million people in America have gay parents, and there are 125,000 gay headed households raising 220,000 kids under eighteen [5]. These families and future families (now that gay relationships are more accepted) need protection not only in the sense of human decency, but to afford these families and society additional opportunities for success. There are NO reliable studies indicating that a mother-father headed household is paramount to one's happiness or success in terms of raising children. While there are innate biological ties to our immediate family fostered through evolution, the reality is that there are very specific and primary variables far more relevant to one's development, well being and happiness. Biology is not anywhere near being the most important or relevant factor in parenting. First and foremost, financial security is paramount to opportunity. Married households are more financially stable and create security for children [6]. Again, Con is suggesting that kids with gay parents not be afforded the same opportunities and economic protection as their peers in this regard. Second, science suggests that raising happy kids requires relaying empathy, teaching kindness, encouraging laughter and fostering compassion [7]. In addition, securing your own mental health, mandating discipline and nurturing your marriage are key [8]. Absolutely none of these things are limited to opposite-sex relationships. Further they can be encouraged for gays through the legal institution and social recognition of marriage, and therefore should be extended to gay couples to encourage their relationship's success. Again, why should people in gay relationships (so similar to their heterosexual counterparts) NOT be encouraged to embrace the benefits of marriage, and thus have them extended to their children? The greatest threats to the family are economic instability, unemployment, lack of emotional support and residential instability [9]. Once again, none of these things are pertinent to the sexuality of one's parents. While having ties, support and relationships with BOTH genders is in fact important and essential to the development of a child, kids with gay parents can have access to these role models by developing relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other people to provide similar guidance, support and nurturing pertinent to gender. In regard to Con's studies, NONE of the research done on same sex vs. traditional parenting that discredit gay parenting compares similar variables. For instance, Wylted cited one study that shows a "traditional" family encouraged less drug abuse, depression, etc. However that study did not take into account same-sex two parent households. Families headed by two parents fare better regardless of sex or gender. The research DOES show that two gay parents are better than single (straight) parents [10]. In addition, the research Wylted provides does not compare equal family units. In addition to the single vs. two parent disparity, it gives zero consideration to the length of time two parents have been together, and other factors including family drug abuse, stability, class and financial status, etc. On the contrary, according to the American Psychological Association, not one but innumerable studies that have been done and peer-reviewed and deemed credible by the science community all conclude that sexuality is irrelevant in terms of parenting abilities and outcomes [11, 12]. If necessary, I will expand more on the scientific credibility of studies I can present in my favor vs. Con's in the next round when I have more character space. For now, consider that divorce is rampant and supporting the traditional family are not legal prerequisites for marriage. Consider the fact that some heterosexual couples are infertile. Many others simply do not want to have kids. Some couples are polyamorous. Others do not plan on being married forever. In fact heterosexual couples engage in questionable marital decisions all the time. Couples who marry young are twice as likely to end in divorce than those that wait until their later 20s [13]. Still we allow young, infertile, polyamorous straight people who are disinterested in parenthood the opportunity to get married, and receive the personal (and societal) benefits and protections that are afforded to their peers. While Con tries to divorce fairness from the debate, it is indeed instrumental to the argument. Gay people are forced to pay taxes like everybody else, regardless of whether or not they agree with policy. It is immoral and arguably tyrannical of government to single out this demographic as undeserving of the legal benefits and protections given to heterosexual couples, while still requiring of them the same obligations of citizenship. If gay adults are required to participate in and help fund government, then they should by extension be afforded the same benefits and protections. Thanks![1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] https://books.google.com...[3] http://www.freedomtomarry.org...[4] http://www.hrc.org...[5] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...[6] http://cfed.org...[7] http://www.livescience.com...[8] http://time.com...[9] http://www.urban.org...[10] http://io9.com...[11] http://www.apa.org...[12] http://www.baylorisr.org...[13] http://www.divorce360.com...