Homosexual Marriage

An Outline 1) Comments on my Opponents Opening Statements 2) Response to my Opponents Rebuttal 3) Conclusion Comments on my Opponents Opening Statements In my opponents original presentation, he argued three different points. The first is that homosexuality is indeed natural. The second point made is that homosexuality is not immoral. The third and final point is that homosexuals are capable parents. I think we both agree on his first point, and find no need to make any further comments on the matter. The second point, on my opponents own admission, is based primarily on religion and morality. Because of this I find the argument completely irrelevant to this discussion and therefore find no need to refute or support it. The third point presented is where issue is drawn. A good portion of my initial argument was centered around the fact that homosexual couples have more difficult times raising and caring for children efficiently. One point presented to me by my opponent is that idea that homosexual marriage is good for adoption numbers, and I would not argue this point. Allowing more people to marry, especially those incapable of reproduction, would very logically result in an increased rate adoption from couples. The part of this point that I take issue with is when it was suggested that children of homosexual parents end up comparably the same, or debatably superior to children of heterosexual parents. As evidence of this claim, a single source was cited by my opponent. In this citation an article written based upon the evidences of a single phycologist was to be found. In light of this, my opponent felt it appropriate to disavow a single source presented by myself out of four in total on the subject. Not only did he disavow just a single source, but his objection was only on the premise that the source cited had a motive or agenda behind what they taught. The validity of this claim is obviously true, however this can be said of any source, including the ones presented by my opponent, as every source has an agenda, motive, or bias of some sort. Response to my Opponents Rebuttal In the first point of my opponents rebuttal, he made the following statement: “Con is asserting that, because the church does not accept homosexual marriage, all Americans must recognize homosexual marriage as being "immoral," and therefore prohibit homosexual marriage, claiming that homosexuality conflicts with religion.” Right away we can see my opponent shaping the words I said into his own creation, to which he proceeds to point to his new creation and say “How could you believe this?” Nowhere in my argument had I made the aforementioned assertion. Instead, I decided to draw attention to the point that homosexual marriage, regardless of its morality, has begun to push and step on the rights of the church. My opponent, in his rebuttals second point, made the following statement: “To suggest that homosexual couples cannot be married because they cannot conceive babies is as rational as stating that women with infertility cannot marry either.” Again, we see my opponent twisting my words into his own creation, pointing at his new creation, and saying “How could you believe this?” Never had I made the statement that this was grounds to deny marriage to homosexuals altogether. On the contrary I simply asked if the state had any business in the subject. Later in the same point, I make the observation that homosexual males could not give birth to their own children and therefore would not receive the emotional and hormonal attachments biological parents receive. I proceeded to surrender the fact that lesbians could find ways around this problem. In response to this, my opponent made that claim that my entire argument was ‘bogus’ as a result. Think about that – he just labeled my entire argument bogus because it only applies to half of the population we’re discussing. I admitted that this was not a problem for lesbians, but that does not change the fact that it is indeed something that must be considered in regard to male gays. Therefore he has done nothing but repeat what I’ve already stated, making no real refutation. Conclusion In conclusion, I have found the rebuttal of my opponent to be lacking. In response to my defense of the church he can be found blatantly twisting my words, and as a result never actually challenging any of the points I had presented. In response to the question I had proposed: “What business is it of the government?” I again found my opponent twisting my words, and as a result he never actually challenged and of the points that I had made. Finally, my opponent addressed my statements on the matter of Homosexual Parents. To do this, my opponent chose to single out a source presented by myself, out of many, and deem it invalid. Even if his claims are correct, which is a debatable matter in and of itself, that does not change the fact that I had presented three other coherent and agreeing sources, which remained completely unmentioned in his rebuttal. As a result of this, my opponent never actually challenged any of the points that I had presented. In light of everything just said, I find myself utterly unimpressed by the rebuttal of my opponent. He has yet to challenge any point I made, in partial or in whole, honestly.