Gay Marriage

Rebuttal 1. My opponent agrees his anecdotal evidence is weak, but keeps claiming that they cannot have accidental children. I agree, unless a lesbian is raped she cannot have an accidental child. But this point is mostly irrelevant. Marriage itself cures many of these problems amongst heterosexuals, decreasing the amount of abuse and such [1]. Now, my opponent and I agree: stability is best for children. Research shows for heterosexuals the increased stability is induced through marriage. But an easy rebuttal could be “it would help gays too”… But would it? Overall, probably not. Indeed, only 8% of homosexuals choose to marry [2]. So assuming all of the benefits get transferred to homosexuals, the overall benefit to the homosexual community is minimal at best. Furthermore, when studying same-sex couples we see stability really does not exist in [many] same sex households, and the gay divorce rate is much higher compared to heterosexual couples [3]. Even though they don’t have accidental children, if their overall outcome is still worse his rebuttal hinging on that one point is futile. Indeed, I have presented evidence need both mothers and fathers to develop properly, and recent studies indicate children raised in homosexual households are less adjusted in school. The study writes “Children in traditional families (i.e., married,2 biological parents) tend to do better than their peers in nontraditional families.” The article then talks about studies claiming there to be more difference, criticizes them, and notes later that the non-stability of non-homosexual couples cause much of the problems amongst their children [4]. Now, gays don’t force their sexuality, that’s absurd! But they are more open about their sexuality and do encourage their children to explore other things (i.e. boys play with Barbie’s, girls with trucks) [5]. And most theories, as described in Stacey and Biblarz 2001, indicate any valid sexual theory means it is almost inevitable children raised by homosexuals are more likely to become homosexuals. Since my opponent has admitted it does have an influence, he loses another large point under this issue. 2. I am making this point the genetic point – skipping to three looks weird. My opponent misinterprets my argument. I am not saying only three percent of homosexuals change, but that three percent of heterosexuals are former homosexuals. That is a massive percentage, since heterosexuals identify as 85-90% of the population in most polls. Actually, most homosexuals change preference (no, this is not a “choice” issue. This is an “environmental” issue – it is not a “choice”, but it is changeable). Most heterosexuals stay heterosexual, but 98% of the overall population become more heterosexual (the number is high because many people are bisexual in the study cited; one on 16-17 year olds). In a longer 5 year study, almost all heterosexuals stay heterosexual, but almost all of the homosexuals move towards full heterosexuality, and another large portion moves to bisexuality. Almost all of the bisexuals became more heterosexual as well [6]. The fact that homosexuality is fluid refutes this point hands down. Now, my opponent really said the APA holds no position? Well the first sentence they admit their blatant bias “the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations.”[7] But the source also admits “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.” This is a large flip flop: in the 90s they were certain it was genetic [8]. The fact pro-gay organizations are actually neutral on the issue, a major flip flop, indicates a change in evidence, and a large one. My opponent attempts to claim homosexuality is natural, but the data simply refutes that conclusion. Defense 1. My opponent claims allowing homosexuals will increase revenue and spending. But this is very false. Homosexuals already can adopt, and the many benefits given to homosexual couples will increase overall spending. And the fact few homosexuals actually marry [2], even if my opponents benefits were true my statistic indicates any possible benefit is, well, very miniscule. But the benefits he cites are likely exaggerated. 2. I never said gays want elevated social status; this is a straw man and a red herring. My opponent has still failed to explain why they deserve equality. They may be the same “people”, but they are not the right type of relationship. Those engaging in other obscure relationships are people, the love each other, but they aren’t marriages. A boyfriend and a girlfriend (not obscure – so it is an even better example!) love each other very much. This isn’t a marriage because they do not represent responsible procreation and child rearing. Marriage is an institution which it can discriminate against people for what they do, simply because those relationships are not promoting the government’s interest. 3. As stated, homosexual marriages are rare and unstable. The famous What Is Marriage paper (expanded into a book, now) notes “The value of such a policy—at least for individuals who share benefits to the individuals themselves, like hospital‐visitation and by distinct we. Why create a special legal package for generic partnerships?”[9] 4. The traditional point is also a red-herring. But if defending the conjugal point of view helps society, why should we oppose it? Whether or not traditional marriage is actually traditional is irrelevant. It also depends on how we define such a word. In the US, our marriage laws are based on British Common Law made at the time around the Magna Carta which usually claimed marriage was about procreation and child rearing [10]. And even before that, Medieval Europe held the same value. Even Rome held a conjugal view of marriage! So yes, different cultures have different marriages. The point is mostly irrelevant, since conjugal marriage is a benefit to society. But Western civilization usually holds this view, making it a “tradition”. 1. http://www.heritage.org... 2. http://www.marriagedebate.com... 3. https://same-sex.web.ined.fr... 4. http://www.baylorisr.org... 5. Walter Schumm 2011 Journal of Human Sexuality 6. http://www.mygenes.co.nz... 7. http://www.apa.org... 8. http://www.wnd.com... 9. http://www.harvard-jlpp.com... 10. http://www.marriagedebate.com...