Gay Marriage should be legalized

Thanks bruh. I appreciate Wylted's acknowledgment of the crude nature of his claims, but I'm a big girl... I can take it. I understand his point: he is arguing from the utilitarian position (the greatest good for the greatest number), and thinks fairness is irrelevant - what's important is what is best for society as a whole. Because kids (allegedly) do best in "traditional" homes, they are solely the homes that should be encouraged by the government. I get it. The problem is that I've addressed this and challenged this in the last round. Con has repeated his position, but did not refute my arguments. And I get it - I always wait until the last round to submit my argument, too. But for the final round, my opponent should consider these specific objections to his position as I feel they negate his entire argument. 1. Gay people should be encouraged to pursue marriage for the same reasons as their heterosexual peers. That will translate to greater success across society. Since gay people are going to be gay anyway, why not encourage them to foster STABLE relationships that translate to their better health and well being, so that more people -- the greatest good for the greatest number, Con's own utilitarian value -- are better off? This is good for society as a whole, because more people will be happy and healthy. The only possible way this could be contested is to suggest that kids (typical "but the children!" fallacy) raised in gay households would have an inherent disadvantage, so we should discourage gay people from having families. But wait! That's actually not a good argument against gay marriage and here's why: 2. Gay relationships are going to continue having kids regardless of whether or not gay marriage is legalized, so all you're doing is leaving innocent kids (and good families) without legal protection they should have. Similar to the abortion argument that if you criminalize the procedure, back alley abortions will still occur and put the woman/baby at greater risk. It makes no sense to ignore the millions of Americans with gay parents that I highlighted in the last round. 3. There are a lot of demographics that have observed disadvantages (and we can actually prove them) yet they are still legally allowed to marry. 4. Thus far, my opponent has failed to cite a single legitimate resource proving that kids with gay parents, specifically, are worse off than their peers. I discredited his studies in the last round and explained why they were invalid. Their flawed sample sizes, confirmation bias, and failure to account for equal variables for comparison all negate the findings of those incredible (as in non-credible) studies. Con has not explained why his research was valid after my extensive criticisms in the last round. 3. No I'm not dyslexic; I'm going back to point #3 to expand on my previous argument -- While Con has failed to prove that kids with gay parents (in similar homes) are actually worse off, I can easily prove that particular demographics have strikes against them that should theoretically, according to Con, make people consider whether or not those demographics should be encouraged to have families. For instance, blacks have higher rates of child abuse [1] and domestic violence than whites [2]. Moreover, the financial disparity between blacks and whites is staggering. A typical black household has accumulated less than 1/10 of the wealth of a typical white one. A Brandeis University study reveals the wealth gap between blacks and whites has tripled in the last 25 years, and is getting worse [3]. Does this mean blacks should be legally forbid to marry? If you extend Con's logic, it absolutely does. 5. Meanwhile, I've argued that many psychological associations have argued that kids in gay families have NOT actually been observed to be worse off, and in fact the opposite. In the largest study ever done on gay parenting, research found that children from same-sex families scored on average 6% better on two key measures - general health and family cohesion - even when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income [4]. As such, this research is more thorough and relevant than my opponent's. Consider this: "A five-year review of 81% of parenting studies reported that children raised by same sex parents are 'statistically indistinguishable' from those raised by straight parents in terms of self-esteem, academics and social adjustment. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association all agree that same-sex couples are just as fit to parent as their heterosexual counterparts" [5]. 6. Moreover, in the last round I explained why sexuality has absolutely nothing do with parenting. Wylted has failed to cite a single factor (quality or trait) that is limited to heterosexuality, and/or that a gay parent could not provide their child. Con must explain why gay parents are either incapable or more unlikely - on the basis of their sexuality - to provide things like financial security, empathy and other factors that are actually relevant to parenting. In reality, the biggest threats to parenting (financial instability, inattentive parents, etc.) are threats to parents of any sexual orientation. Now while that refutes Con's argument, I need to repeat another one of mine: 7. Con cannot divorce (pun intended) civil rights from this discussion since it is about the law. The Civil Rights Act protects against sex discrimination in employment; it makes sense that similar arguments can be applied to marriage - especially since sexuality is not a choice. Science proved that by explaining how fetishes and other sexual function works in the brain. Since gay people have to pay taxes and otherwise abide by the law, to ignore their petition for equal protection for similar relationships is in fact a government concern. It is for similar reasons black people fought segregation and Jim Crow. Clearly the government does consider fairness in civil rights cases and agrees that it contributes to the greater good. In conclusion of this round, I'd like to point out that Wylted cannot ignore these rebuttals. Again, his argument is that since kids do best in traditional families, that only those families should be legally encouraged. But I've challenged this by noting it's not true kids have been observed to do better in mother-father households specifically, and further, gay families are going to exist regardless. Con is making kids with gay parents even WORSE OFF. Even if it were true that they had an inherent disadvantage (which he has not proven with legitimate studies), Con doesn't want them to have the legal protections to boot. How is this the greater good? Either way, since I've argued that kids with gay parents DON'T have an inherent disadvantage -- and explained why plus included better research -- then these are all moot points by Con anyway. With that said, I am sincerely and genuinely looking forward to my opponent's final round. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] https://www.pcc.edu... [3] http://money.cnn.com... [4] http://theconversation.com... [5] http://www.salon.com...