Gay marriage

Thanks for the quick response ken. Let's look at the main issues in this debate. 1. Homosexuality is not a choice. My opponent claims that homosexuality cannot be genetic because it is a recessive trait and thus cannot be passed on to offspring. This is not true and is based on a misunderstanding of genetics. Let's say a genetic disease is recessive and always kills the person who inherits it before reproductive age. The dominant gene (for not having the disease) is expressed as "D" and the recessive gene (for having the disease) is expressed as "d." Now let's say a male is Dd and a female is Dd (remember, we each have two sets of genes, one from mommy and one from daddy). Because both the male and female have the dominant gene (D), they will NOT have the disease and will thus survive to reproductive age. However, there is a 25% chance that any given child they have will have the genes dd and thus will die before reproductive age. Yet 50% of their offspring will be Dd and survive, meaning the recessive gene *is* passed on. The same would be true for a recessive homosexuality gene, let's say we call it "H" for heterosexual and "h" for homosexual. Two parents, each with the genes Hh, would both be straight, but 25% of their kids would be gay (hh). So even if homosexuals (hh) have zero kids, the gene would still be passed on. There are real genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, which are recessive, kill before adulthood, and yet are not weeded out of the population. A *dominant* gene that kills before reproductive age is far more likely to die out. My opponent claims a gay gene has not been proven to exist, yet the previously cited studies on mice and fruit flies disprove this. In addition, twin studies in humans have found that 60% of variability in sexual orientation is genetic and have helped identify 3 chromosomal regions that predict homosexuality. [1] 2. 14th Amendment My opponent's only argument here is that marriage *is* a choice. But offering heterosexual marriage to a gay person is a false choice. I can't tell whether my opponent advocates that gay people should just pretend they are straight, but he seems to make this argument. My opponent says I cannot compare homosexuality to immutable traits (he lists gender, race, etc). I don't think he knows what immutable means – it means incapable of changing. If homosexuality is genetic, it is an immutable trait. My opponent keeps saying that homosexuality is a behavior or lifestyle choice. Just because it is on the inside, instead of the outside, doesn't mean that it's a behavior and thus not a trait protected by the Equal Protection Clause. Homosexuals have a physical layout of their brain that makes them attracted to the same gender. You may as well say that autism is a behavior or lifestyle choice. My opponent demands court cases. In Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in the state by ruling that there was no rational basis for denying gay people equal rights to marry. [2] Kerrigan v. the State Commissioner of Public Health in Connecticut and other state court cases have followed the reasoning in Goodridge. [3] 3. Brown v. Board My opponent says that there is a rational basis to have a men's restroom and a women's restroom. This I agree with. However, there is no rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry. The ability to have children fails the rational basis test because we allow infertile couples to marry. My opponent cites a Virginia case where the Supreme Court apparently pointed out that the State of Virginia had devoted far more resources to men's educational and sports facilities than to women's facilities. This proves that when you divide institutions into two separate parts, the group that is historically discriminated against is *never* awarded the same rights and resources. Brown v. Board overturned a previous ruling that had said *in theory* that separate but equal facilities would be okay; the reasoning in Brown was that *in practice* separate meant unequal. Even if you buy my opponent's arguments about schools, the denial of the proper nomenclature is insulting, tantamount to granting interracial marriage, but forcing interracial couples to call their marriages a "bi-racial union" instead of a "marriage" in order to emphasize that the state does not view these types of marriages as legitimate. [My opponent drops this argument] 4. Domestic partnerships are not equal My opponent claims they are in California. However, many state and federal laws still specify "marriage" and thus don't apply to domestic partnerships, such as the requirement for employers to cover spouses under their health insurance policies. That's why a study found that gay men in domestic partnerships in California were *half* as likely as men in marriages to qualify for their partner's employer provided health insurance, and lesbians in domestic partnerships were *four times* less likely to qualify than women in heterosexual marriages. [4] 5. State tax revenue First, my opponent says that it would cost money to allow homosexuals to qualify for their spouse/partner's Social Security benefits. My opponent LOSES the equal protection argument *right here.* Denying SS benefits to domestic partners is unequal. Second, tax revenue from marriages goes mostly to states, which need the money more than the federal government does. $1 billion over 6 years would do *wonders* for California's state budget, but the federal government would hardly care about that sum of money. 6. My opponent argues that states need to promote the traditional view of marriage ("between a man and a woman") Firstly, a study of countries where gay marriage is legal, including Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands, found that the legalization of gay marriage has *not* caused heterosexual marriage rates to decline; in fact, they are increasing in many of these countries. [5] So there is no harm to heterosexual marriage rates if gay marriage is legalized. Second, my opponent fails to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Of course a group of people who hold "non-traditional" views on marriage and commitment (i.e. hippies) are going to separate from their partners at higher rates. If we could somehow force them to get married, this wouldn't improve the situation. 7. Unintended pregnancies I don't really get my opponent's point here. 5% of women experience unintended pregnancies in the US. [6] This obviously includes women in marriages. 80% of the 800,000 teen pregnancies were unintended and 5% of rapes result in unintended pregnancies. [6] Marriage is not always the answer to these problems. 8. What does the State do????? My opponent keeps saying that the state encourages people to have children responsibly by using marriage. How?? What specifically does the state do? They teach contraceptive use in some schools (which works). They teach children to abstain from sex until marriage (which empirically fails – see multiple studies and Bristol Palin). In spite of all the state's supposed teachings, half of all marriages will end in divorce. 9. Double bind In my opponent's last paragraph, he says that gays can have civil unions to help benefit their adoptive children. However, either a) calling something a "marriage" automatically makes it last longer or b) the term marriage has no actual benefit. If "a)" is true, then gays should get marriage in order to increase the longevity and stability of their relationships. If "b)" is true, then there is "no rational basis" to deny marriage to homosexuals, meaning the Goodridge court case would apply (in proving that denial of marriage rights violates the Equal Protection Clause). [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...