This House Believes That the No Difference Theory is correct

Biological parents, biological outcomes – Morse’s theories First, my opponent attacks Jennifer Roback Morse. He essentially says she says X, therefore her statements are false. This is committing the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is “where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.”[1] Also, my opponent totally takes her words out of context. Although it seems harsh, she was directing it towards an amicus brief that said the people of California should have no say in whether or not Prop. 8 is passed, and that only the legislators should control the issue. She was saying the gay lobby is using deceptive tactics that rob the people’s opinion which destroys their freedom. As she is a libertarian, her wording is totally logical [2]. Other studies on African villages have come to the opposite conclusion my opponents has. A study with a sample of 100 homes reports the families with a mother and a father do the best, and those missing the fathers often has many personal hardships and often ended up in a crisis. The study consistently found African families worked best when both biological parents were present [3]. And Psychology Today notes many adopted children, including the author of the article, have problems because they have never (or not until later life) identified their biological parents [4]. My opponent merely asserts it is a cultural longing, but has provided no evidence for his assertion. Specialization My opponent claims virtues, not biology, determine these actions. However, my study on the issue found parents in our species acted the same way as beetles indicating there is some genetic or natural instincts parents adopt. Beetles, based on current knowledge, do not have a complex culture nor virtues. So, my opponent’s rebuttal isn’t convincing. The relevancy of fathers My opponent seems to be fixated on one aspect of fathers. And yes, fathers are more aggressive. But he ignores many of the positive benefits fathers bring, and focuses on that one aspect. And, slight aggression may be a good thing. Rough-housing with their children leads to more sociable children later in life, and fathers naturally spend more time per each playing session than their mothers. The fathers aggressiveness often helps the child, research shows, and again my opponent ignores the many other positive qualities of fathers; they all benefit the child [5]. I don’t see how fathers attitudes make them non-optimal! Again, my opponent commits the genetic fallacy multiple times with Byrd, merely stating he said this therefore his statement here is false. Even if we assume Byrd’s research is discredited, the vast majority of research show “clearly how absolutely important biological mothers and fathers are to the well-being of their children. Study after study has shown that no other factor is more vital to the healthy development of children than having a mum and a dad.”[6] Also, many of the slanders aren’t necessarily coming from Byrd: many of the words (let them bully your child) comes from Dr. Berger, a totally different man. The evidence also supports many of his conclusions, and the APA has asked him on multiple occasions for him to lead many of their studies on the issue [7]. Also, slandering research is not how science is done. Walter R. Schumm writing how the media often slanders Paul Cameron, “[h]owever, most credible professionals with whom I have associated would prefer that critics attack bad research or poor theory rather than the personae of others.”[8] Unless my opponent can find holes on the specific research cited, I do not see how his rebuttal is strong. Since I have cited extensive research not created by Byrd on the issue (Hansen, and the child welfare office, and a summary of the research by Australian journalists) this point still stands. Moral issues Yes, in a debate about a utopia existing we likely would ask are we in one. But my opponent’s analogy has no weight on his current argument. We are not debating the possibility of something; we are debating a social science. Something being moral has no bearing on whether or not children reared by homosexuals are going to have no differences, or positive outcomes, when compared to heterosexuals. Indeed, research indicates the opposite [8][9]. 1. Yes, there are significant differences. 2. Actually, the answer is yes. Children raised by homosexuals are much more likely to have been raped by their parent and get less help with their school work. Studies claiming no difference often come to find many differences when correct analysis is conducted [10]. 3. Therefore, there are necessary differences! Androgyny I basically extend my rebuttal from above. Free will has no bearing on whether children from homosexuals do better, worse, or the same as those raised from heterosexual couples. CONCLUSION: My opponent has failed to refute the simple conclusion I have posed: children raised by homosexuals do worse than those raised by homosexuals. My opponent’s definition of no difference is false, the no difference claim actually has no bearing on societal influence. It is only if the current normal family is superior to homosexuals [11]. Even if we assume the no difference thesis relies on whether or not it is natural or culturally induced, I have refuted my opponent’s contention. Since studies refute the claim homosexual children are “no different”, I have won the debate. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.ruthblog.org... 3. http://www.ncsu.edu... 4. http://www.psychologytoday.com... 5. https://www.childwelfare.gov... 6. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. Walter R. Schumm. “Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives from Social Science on Gay Marriage and Custody issues” St. Thomas Law Review, 2005. 9. Schumm 2006, Cameron 2005, 1996, and 1999, Sirota 1997, Regnerus 2012, Potter 2012, and Sarakantos 1996 & 2000 are examples of some of the research opposing gay parenthood. Of these studies, 4 of the studies are considered the “best” studies on the issue by Schumm 2012, Schumm 2005 & 11, Lerner and Nagai 2001, and Amato 2012. 10. Cameron 1996 (for rapes), Potter 2012 (for school), and Regnerus 2012 (for all), and Stacey and Biblarz 2001 for proof that pro-gay research actually uncovers many differences. 11. Stacey, Judith, and Timothy Biblarz. “(How) Does The Sexual Orientation Of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 66.2 (2001).