New Gay Marriage Debate

My opponent decides to blow off his one final argument by using half of it to once again, rant on about how homophobic I and every other person that supports traditional marriage is. I will respond to the actual rebuttals my opponent made. I will quote my opponent and respond accordingly in order to make sure I fully rebut his points and hopefully drive it through his head that I’ve already responded to these arguments before. “You believe that Homo Sexuals should not be allowed to get married because it does not benefit society.” Indeed. In fact, not only would gay marriage not benefit society, but gay marriage would actually hinder society because it would degrade the image of what marriage is. “You believe that homosexuals do not make good parents and stated that even if they did raise children properly that it would not be enough to let them get married.” Frankly it is irrelevant whether they are good parents or not. I personally agree that homosexuals aren’t good parents, but because of the sheer amount of controversy over the subject I believe it would be foolish to simply skip to conclusions. To be fair though, studies that had a large amount of random participants tended to come to the conclusion that homosexuals were bad parents, whereas studies with a low amount of non-random participants tended to find that homosexuals were good parents. However, it is irrelevant because the state isn’t interested in the child rearing itself, but the relationship that has a special link to children. “My challenge was that they do infect benefit society because they adopt children and can provide homes to very needy children!” Adoption would only be a legitimate argument if the below criteria is met: The couple has a special link to children. The couple is capable of raising the children properly. The first criteria is not met and the second criteria has far too much controversy over it. The government is only interested in recognizing marriage that benefits society specifically through a relationship that naturally has a special link to children. “A man and a woman are sexually complementary by nature, and will procreate. Whether or not the goal of their marriage is to create children, these sex kinds have a natural tendency to do so. Even though these couples cannot really have procreation in effect, they are still procreative in type and still benefit society.” -16KAdams “I even went as far to say that IMHO their eagerness to adopt makes them almost more valuable than couples that want to add to our exponentially increasing population that needs to compromise somewhere to help conserve our precious resources!” May I remind my opponent that this is a debate over gay marriage, not population. I already explained how population is irrelevant because the old will eventually die and we need human beings that are properly raised in order to beneficially continue society. “Allowing homosexuals to get married would help benefit the adopted child and provide benefits for those who are committed enough to raise a child and have a meaningful relationship recognized by the state!” I already provided my response to this in my previous rebuttal. Conclusion My opponent only repeats himself over several rounds of this debate. I simply rebut the same arguments every time and that basically sums up this entire debate. My opponent dropped every single argument except that homosexuals can adopt children to benefit society which I successfully rebutted. I would like to thank my opponent for sticking to this debate the entire time and not forfeiting. “Hats off to my opponent for your patience and endurance through my erratic debate style!” No kidding. Thank you for the debate, I hope it was at least moderately satisfactory to you.