Gay marriage should not be permitted

Thank you, 2-D. Affirmative Case Premise: Heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society My opponent concedes the argument that there is clear distinction between gay and heterosexual unions. Addressing the next point of my opponent, it is not that children can be raised outside of marriage, it is that they should not. According to a collaborative report that cites over 150 academic articles/researched papers, children reared in intact, married, heterosexual families are: (1) more likely to participate in college, (2) are physically and emotionally healthier, (3) are less likely to be sexually or physically abused, (4) not as likely to use illicit drugs, (5) less likely to be incarcerated for delinquent behaviour, (6) less likely to become a parent before they are ready (i.e. in their teenage years) and (7) less likely to grow up in poverty. Heterosexual marriage is the safest, healthiest unit in which to raise children. Addressing the conception that society can remain intact without marriage, I offer you the saddening case of Japan. Thanks to an alarming amount of Japanese people opting out of marriage, with “sixty-one percent of unmarried men aged 18 and 34 do not have a partner, nor do half of unmarried women the same age” [3], Japan now has a negative birth-rate [4]. Furthermore, so desperate is the economic situation that the Prime Minister of Japan is attempting to bail the country out through “quantitative easing and cash injections” [4]. This gives real evidence to show that countries do not exist without heterosexual marriage. A1: Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate Con strawmans my argument by arguing against *conscious* decisions when my argument was against *subconscious* decisions; the lack of genetic interest is the issue! Furthermore, Con provides no evidence to support his *conscious* argument, so this is speculation, whereas mine is supported by research. Furthermore, Con barely asserts that there is an “intense vetting process” without providing a shred of evidence for this claim. On the contrary, I cited several different studies which found lack of genetic interest to be a serious risk factor, of which none have been addressed. Hence, my studies are dropped and my opponent’s counter-argument is a bare assertion. A2: Superior/inferior child-rearing capabilities I defend the idea that marriage is about child-rearing under the “relabelling” heading later. Again, con’s reference does nothing to show that homosexual couples go through a different vetting process to heterosexuals, hence this claim is a bare assertion. Culmination effect: Now, these arguments by themselves do not give enough impact to disallow gay marriage, but when combined, they culminate to the point where they are impactful enough to affirm the resolution. For example, emotional instability is not enough to affirm the resolution (likewise, my opponent’s individual counter-arguments do not negate the resolution by themselves), as there are other groups whom suffer from the same problem, yet marriage is not disallowed. However, when you realise that homosexuals are lowly rated in all three categories, and yet the counter-argument groups (at different stages: soldiers, whites, blacks, the religious and married men), you realise that homosexuals fall drastically below everyone else! Have a look: So, I affirm this contention based on all three sub-headings working together, not as individual arguments. I. Emotional instability Con concedes that there is a higher rate of mental illness among homosexuals, regardless of cultural context. II. Marriage instability Con implicitly concedes (via constructing arguments with this premise) all my research and the conclusion that homosexual marriages are far less stable than heterosexual marriages. III. Homosexual relationship infidelity Con makes a super critical error in dropping all of my arguments, hence they are all to be extended. II and III impact amplifier This impact modifier has been completely ignored, hence it continues to supercharge these arguments. Counter-arguments Con’s counter-arguments oft repeat themselves and are scattered. I will restructure to avoid you the burden of reading the same arguments more than once. Relabelling gay marriage/resolution misrepresentation: The “status” of a “traditional marriage” is that of one which is designed for child-rearing (using my gay marriage definition). Historically, marriage has been about “regulating the reproduction of children, families and society” [5]. It is a critical element of marriage that separates it from an ordinary relationship. Furthermore, when we try to apply marriage to homosexual unity, my arguments show that homosexuals are *vastly* inferior, when it comes to child-rearing, hence it is enough to not permit gay marriage. Then, I offer a counter-solution of recognising gay unity in other respects, of which would not be considered marriage (i.e. it is not have marriage or have no rights. Homosexuals can acquire rights through other unions). This should expose my opponent’s accusation of relabelling terms/resolution misrepresentation for the folly that it is. In fact, Con’s implication that marriage is merely about the benefits it gives misrepresents a coherent conception of marriage. I politely ask my opponent to stick to the resolution and an accurate interpretation of marriage, rather than a partial one. Does not matter whether children raised under marriage or not: Addressed under my Affirmative Case ‘Premise’ heading. Benefits granted to married couples: As argued earlier, of which my opponent drops, the state has no interest in recognising mere relationships; homosexuals are allowed to be in love *without* the state recognising it, too. So, as Con listed, why would the state be interested in giving all those benefits to married couples? 1) Raising children is expensive. According to the United States department of agriculture, the projected cost of raising a child born in 2013 was $245,340 [1] 2) The state has interest in procreation under marriage (because it sustains society and is the best unit in which to raise children) C) The state has interest in helping married couples raise children through “benefits” So, I will *flip* my opponent’s argument by arguing that by giving gay couples access to the same benefits, benefits designed to help alleviate the financial burden of a child-rearing, family unit, the government wastes valuable tax-payers money on something that does not help the state or the community. *Even if* that does not convince you, I can still concede that homosexual unions could be granted the vast majority of benefits *without* being allowed marriage, as marriage is not solely defined by the majority of benefits it grants. Later, Con barely asserts (no evidence provided) that these benefits will help alleviate all of the issues of homosexuals (e.g. mental issues, relationship issues etc.). To the contrary, my studies (particularly the one based in the Netherlands) show that despite some homosexual friendly policies, there was no difference found compared to places where there is hostility to homosexuality. Adoption process: My opponent assumes that the adoption process, if difficult, accurately assesses parents (another bare assertion). If the adoption process allows partners *outside* of marriage to adopt, especially after I have shown you much better marriage is for children *and* after I have shown how unstable homosexual marriages/relationships are, then surely this speaks plenty of the poor standards such a process has. Furthermore, if gay couples have no intention of raising children, then why are they burdening the institution of marriage with their fruitless (in terms of benefit to the state) partnership? Also, Con claims that the formal adoption process is harder for homosexuals. Not a shred of evidence is provided to affirm this. Since child-rearing has the vested interest of the children involved, would it not be vitally important that they are raised in the best possible circumstances, of which is pretty much never a homosexual union? *In regards to child-rearing units*, should not homosexual couples be relegated to lesser reverence, due to their inferior nature? Hence, a distinction in terms is necessary. Act of force (“men with guns”) preventing marriage: there is no force involved. The state simply does not allow the marriage to take place officially. Homosexuals are welcome to form relationships, just not one that is officially recognised by the state as marriage. Other people have the problems homosexuals have, too: addressed thoroughly under A2. Infertile couples/elderly marriage: Con provides no evidence to suggest that these groups are numerous enough to impact the resolution. Moral obligation: According to the resolution parameters, I only have to justify the non-permission of gay marriage based on what is “fair” (based on what is morally or ethically right and/or fair). So, I have argued many things to show that gay marriage is not fair. Some examples include how gay marriage is not nearly as beneficial to the state as heterosexual marriage. The negative impact gay marriage has on children is/would not be fair to allow, either. There are many more intricate points of which I will crystallise in the final round. Conclusion When a society allows likely-to-fail, emotionally unstable, non-gentically interested marriages (i.e. gay marriage, which was shown with my arguments), not only does it undermine the integrity of marriage (which I have shown is vital for the existence of a nation), but it is very damaging for the children involved. It is not fair to burden various groups with these negative aspects. With these reasons, I offer you a rejection of gay marriage. References [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... (third link) [3] http://www.bbc.com... [4] http://www.bbc.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...