Gay marriage should not be permitted

Thank you, 2-D, for providing worthy opposition throughout this debate. I know that DDO is overwhelmingly in favour of legalising gay marriage, so please, all I ask is that you just give me a chance. I used to also think “how could anyone possibly be against gay marriage?” It wasn’t until I realised how much it undermined the already frail institution of marriage (look at the skyrocketing divorce rates) that I finally saw the other side of the argument. It is my sincerest hope that I can help you see this other side, too. Crystallisation and final rebuttals I will be ignoring Con’s attempt to dictate to you, the voter, as to how you should interpret my arguments. That is *your* right, not his. I will now finalise my case to make it crystal clear so that *you* can decide whether I am committing non sequiturs or whatever his dictating accused me of. Also, I would like to emphasise that rebuttals are allowed this round, but keep in mind that I cannot respond to any of Con’s rebuttals. Finally, I believe that my opponent has dropped plenty of my research. When I indicate that he has, if you do not believe me, have a look for yourself!! Non-equivalence: the crux of my argument Just as you would not call a cat a dog, despite both being animals, you would not call homosexual union marriage, despite both it and heterosexual marriage being a unions. My aim, in this debate, was to show you that: 1) Homosexual union is inferior to heterosexual union, in regards to the functions of marriage 2) The differences are significantly impactful enough C) Therefore, this should warrant a non-permission of homosexual marriage Please note that is was *never* my aim to prevent homosexuals from forming partnerships, having *some* of the marriage rights or being entitled to benefits, as my opponent, once again, strawmans my argument as doing: “It does not follow that marriage rights, benefits and partnership should be removed.” I even flipped my opponent’s argument in the 3rd round, that being homosexuals should be entitled to *all* the benefits because the benefits are there to help with child-rearing, not merely relationships, as the state should be prioritising the superior heterosexual marriages. It is up to me show that the differences are impactful enough to justify the resolution. If I manage to do that, then I affirm the resolution. Union is about love and partnership; Marriage is about forming the best unit for child-rearing of which is the bedrock of society An integral premise and understanding for my side is that marriage exists as an institution for heterosexual child-rearing. The “status” of marriage is that of a child-rearing unit (counters the relabelling gay marriage argument my opponent makes). Again, marrying for merely love makes no sense, as you can love someone *without* having the state recognise it. Homosexuals already have civil unions available to them, so the health and tax-breaks can already be garnered through means besides marriage. *If* marriage is equivalent to civil unions (as my opponent has essentially argued), then there is left no term to denote the distinction between the superior heterosexual union, and the inferior homosexual union (all in regards to marriage). Ignoring the superior child-rearing capabilities has the following impacts: 1) Children are raised in an inferior, often unsuitable environment (A1 + A2) 2) Society fails to recognise the important of heterosexual marriage, and thus will lead to a (admittedly somewhat slow) collapse of society (as shown in my Japan example, which Con dropped) Thus, marriage serves the function of the strongest unit in which children can be raised. If I can show that homosexuals are significantly inferior at raising children, this conclusion (rejection of gay marriage) naturally follows. Con Claim: Gay and Lesbian adoptions perform a national Service Relating again to the “status”, it has been my argument throughout the debate that homosexual unions are significantly inferior, in regards to child-rearing, and thus they should not granted the same status as heterosexual unions (i.e. marriage). Now, this can translate into heterosexuals being prioritised in adoption processes, whilst homosexuals are least prioritised, due to their inferior relationship status, and thus the distinction can be made by denying homosexuals relationships the status of marriage. The government should not have to wade through a plethora of poor homosexual unions, especially when they competing against superior heterosexual unions. A1: Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate Homosexual inability to procreate leads to lack of genetic interest in children This point was never contested by Con, hence the entirety of my A1 is dropped. Con’s only attempted counter-argument to my argument was that *consciously*, homosexuals may have interest. However, my objection to homosexual parenting was via the *subconscious* lack of interest, which translates into a 100-300 increased abuse/murder rate + increase in general neglect and apathy for child, depending on which study of mine you read. Also remember that biological urges occur *before* conscious thought (e.g. I feel a lack of genetic interest in this child, therefore I’m going to neglect the child), so the subconscious thought will, if anything, dictate the conscious one. A2: Superior/inferior child-rearing capabilities I. Emotional instability Con conceded in the 2nd round that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental illness (his “their illness is culturally based” counter is counter-countered by my Netherlands study, of which he dropped). II. Marriage instability To address Con’s study, he conflates “married” and “registered” same-sex couples, and then compares them to only married straight couples. This misaligns with this heading of marriage instability. Furthermore, Con has dropped my sources, of which one showed that of all the Scandinavian countries to legalise gay marriage, divorce risks were higher. My properly aligned study should be preferred to Con’s misaligned one. To soundly rebut Con’s claim of infidelity not affecting marriages, cross apply my impact amplifier below (which was dropped by Con), and you will see that people who sleep around are far *less* capable of staying together and refraining from abusing each other, due to vasopressin and oxytocin. This manifests in clear data that people who sleep around are far less able to remain in marriage. Have a look [1]: III. Homosexual relationship infidelity Con has dropped my sources and arguments. II and III impact amplifier Since Con never addressed these points directly, they are dropped. Culmination effect This is the argument that solidifies my claim that homosexuals are inferior parents. Homosexuals perform more poorly across the board than any other group Con has shown. Allow me to show you the updated version (which will now combine all of my arguments dropped in my 3rd round, under the title ‘Premise: Heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society’): My opponent found some positives for homosexual unions, but they are drowned in the long list of negatives. Even when compared to the list of black marriage problems (which is compared against white people, *not* homosexuals), a lot of them plague gays as well, such as: higher mental illness rates, have unstable relationships and high divorce rates (as do gays) etc. But *even if* Con did find another group whom had poor child-rearing capabilities to rival homosexuals, that does not lessen the poor child-rearing capabilities of homosexuals. On another note, my opponent found statistics that suggested a very small percentage of heterosexuals struggle with fertility and an even smaller number choose not to have children. However, the Culmination effect is simply too overbearing to be countered with a few ineffective statistics. The apparent 50% accidental pregnancy rate is crushed by the 100% lack of genetic interest resulting in a 100-300 times increase in parental abuse and murders (see A1). The 4.5% of gay relationships remaining monogamous after a year has no counter-response, and the negative infidelity effects are supercharged by the entirely uncontested “impact amplifier”. In the end, if you bunch my research together, there is an overbearing case against homosexual parenting, especially if you consider that the vast majority of research for these points was dropped. Con claim: Gay and lesbian couples make fit parents Ignoring most of my A2, Con provides quotes relating to gay parenting from three institutions. Unfortunately for Con, these are appeals to authority (logical fallacies), as they are merely quotes, rather than the research required to make the argument. Con provides a link to a summary of 80+ gay parent studies. Con also claims that no studies are available which show “discernible” differences between children in homosexual and heterosexual units. Con dropped my extensive research [2] in the 3rd round, of which so happens to be the research Con says does not exist. Con’s summary is a 2001 review, of which is outdated compared to my 2005 collaborative report (summarising 150 works; 70 more than Con’s). Based on mine being more recent and far more extensive, my updated version should be preferred. Simplified Syllogism To help you with the voting, I will make my argument as simple as possible: 1) Marriage is an institution about child-rearing 2) Marriage is the bedrock of society C1) Therefore, the state has interest in keeping marriages as strong as possible 3) Via the culmination effect, [lack of genetic interest] + [inferior parenting ability] = homosexuals being significantly inferior child-rearers than heterosexuals 4) Since C1, the state has an interest in keeping the inferior homosexual unions out of marriage C2) Therefore, in a just society, gay marriage should not be permitted Thank you very much for reading =) References[1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... (third link)