Gay Marriage

Apologies for my forfieture, I was out of town from 6/9/16 - 6/13/16. I'll begin with a rebuttal of my opponent's points. 1) Research also shows that the legitimization of marriage is the primary factor in considering the dissolution of all relationships. Social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity, indicating that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success [2].I'd like to examine your source. The author states, "Lesbians seem to be more limited in the sexual tequneques than are other couples." She then makes a logical jump by stating that this is because of social repression, and not any other number of reasons, such as unhappy relations, rushing the relationship, etc. She says it herself: "In fact, an alternate way to interpret the data I gave earlier is to say that the basic problems lesbian couples have is that they couple prematurely, and that the later falling off of sexual desire is a sign that the couple never should have been together in the first place." In short, the author's data does not prove her conclusion by any means, and therefore, is not a credible source. 2) Con is arguing in favor of children with gay parents not being protected by the law as their peers are, for reasons 1) entirely out of their control, and 2) that are irrelevant in terms of reasonable comparison. I am arguing that homosexual marriages ought to not adopt children, and that they ought to not exist because of moral reasons. Also, what is this "reasonable comparison" that you are calling for? Comparison to other children raised by heterosexuals? Please specify.3) Almost 40% of LGBT identifying individuals have had a child.Adopted a child. It's impossible for homosexuals to have a child. These "6 million children with gay parents" don't really have gay parents, as their biological parents are not the couple they are raised by. They have step-fathers or step-mothers.4) There are no reliable studies indicating that a mother-father household is paramount to one's happiness of success in terms of raising children; only some studies with questionable correlation."Joint biological parentage, the modal condition for opposite-sex parents but not possible for same-sex parents, sharply differentiates between the two groups on child emotional problem outcomes. The two groups are different by definition. Intact opposite-sex marriage ensures children of the persistent presence of their joint biological parents; same-sex marriage ensures the opposite (1)." This is a recent (January 25, 2015), credible (Writen by Donald Paul Sullins, a contact author), and published (British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 2015) study on the case in question. It seems to be a reliable study in all sense of the term.5) Whether or not SSM was recognized by government, families headed by gay parents would still exist, and these people/children need legal protection. The problem with your argument is that I can fit any immoral or illegal action in place for SSM. I'll change one of your terms to explain the fault in it:Whether or not robbery was recognized by the government, families headed by robbers would still exist, and these people/children need legal protection.The argument that "we shouldn't make it illegal because it'll happen anyway" is highly illogical. 6) Second, science suggests that raising happy kids requires relaying empathy, teaching kindness, encouraging laughter and fostering compassion. In addition, securing your own mental health, mandating discipline and nurturing your marriage are key. Absolutely none of these things are limited to opposite-sex relationships. Parents are not only supposed to raise "happy kids," they are met with the daunting task of raising kids that 1) have a strong moral code, 2) are mature, 3) are able to think criticaly and well, and 4) are able to do the same to thier own kids. Taking the "don't worry, be happy" method of parenting is incredibly detrimental to the child. Unless, of course, if you belive hippies would make incredible parents.Second, some things are limited to opposite-sex relationships. As just one example, girls without a father were more likely to be at risk than ones with. "In conclusion, father absence was an overriding risk factor for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy. Conversely, father presence was a major protective factor against early sexual outcomes, even if other risk factors were present (2)." Even a openly gay man, Doug Mainwaring (the co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots) stated his dissent when it came to the issue of children that don't have a mother or father. "It became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom... I don't want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing (3)." Also, by what authority are you able to claim that "absolutely none of these things are limited to opposite-sex relationships?" You've offered scientific evidence for every one of your claims about what a successful marriage looks like, but you haven't offered any for SSM.7) While having ties, support and relationships with BOTH genders is in fact important and essential to the development of a child, kids with gay parents can have access to these role models by developing relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other people to provide similar guidance, support and nurturing pertinent to gender. You started off this paragraph on economic stability, employment, residential instability, and such. However, you then move onto a different topic entirely: relationships to other family members. You really have two different arguments in this paragraph:1) Threats to a family dissolution are evident in any marriage, and2) Homosexual adopted children have father or mother "figures" that they get from their realatives.The second argument is unsuported by any evidence.8) If necessary, I will expand more on the scientific credibility of these studies, but this shouldn't be the focal point of the debate. Please do. If there are, as you put it, an innumerable amount studies that have been done and peer-reviewed and deemed credible by the scientific community that all conclude that sexuality is irrelevant in terms of parenting abilities and outcomes, than certainly it wouldn't hurt to extrapalate on at least, say, 3 of them, right?9) The point is, having a "traditional" lifestyle is not something the government requires when extending the legal protection of marriage. I'm sorry, are you arguing that the government should accept homosexual marriage as lawful, or that homosexual marriage is moraly acceptable and correct? You're definition of gay marriage seems to imply that the first is true already. To be clear, I won't be disputing this, it is quite apparent what the government's view on the subject. I'll be disputing the later, saying that homosexual marriage is, in fact, immoral.10) Thus it would be logical to extend these rights and privileges to gay people as well. See above.11) If gay adults are required to participate in and help fund government, then they should by extension be afforded the same benefits and protections. Once again, see above.12) The freedom to marry resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.See above. I am not arguing for what the state can or can't do, I am arguing for what is moraly right and acceptable. What our current form of government finds acceptable has no bearing on the morality of the question posed (whether or not homosexuality is moraly correct and acceptable).Now, a constructive.Resolution: Homosexuality ought to be deemed moraly correct.Ob. 1: DefinitionsImmoral: conflicting with moral guidelinesHomosexuality: erotic activity with another of the same sexDeemed: regarded or considered in a certain wayCorrect: free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.I reserve the right to clarify or define any new terms, if challenged by Pro.Ob. 2: Reasons to Negate1) Homosexuality is considered sin by religon.It is well known that Christianity opposes homosexuality. However, almost all religious groups take a firm stance on homosexuality, specificaly, that it is immoral. In Leviticus 18:22, the Bible states, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Also, in Islamic tradition, several hadiths (passages attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) condemn gay and lesbian relationships, including the sayings "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Sihaq [lesbian sex] of women is zina [illegitimate sexual intercourse] (4)." Finaly, Pope John Paul II stated that marriage, "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman (5)…"2) Homosexuality hurts the partners and the child, if they choose to adopt.Since I am running out of character count, I would ask you to examine my responses to Pro's case, specificaly, to points 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.To conclude, BoP is on Pro (as she is brining an affirmative statement), to prove that a) Homosexuality is not considered a sin by religion, andb) Homosexuality is harmless to anyone.Looking forward to Pro's rebuttal.Sources:(1) http://papers.ssrn.com...(2) http://gaymarriage.procon.org...(3) http://www.christianpost.com...(4) http://www.hrc.org...(5) http://gaymarriage.procon.org...