Gay Marriage

I would also like to say that I instigated this debate to further my knowledge of other people's opinions on the matter, to challenge myself and be better prepared, in turn, for future cases, not so much as to sway others. -My Rebuttals- I read through Con's argument and here are my objections: In a paragraph of my opponents argument he states that the more people that view marriage as a social benefit, the more stable the institution itself will become. But the question I ask is; is marriage really such a social benefit? As a child that lived in a complete family unit, then a breaking one, then a broken one, I looked back at myself and at the people around me from school and so on, who were raised in complete families, breaking ones, broken ones, and homosexual ones, I realized the worst child isn't from the complete family, the broken family, or the homosexual ones. The worst children came from homes where the mother and the father fought and bickered and hated one another. There is no research necessary to be sighted because I have witnessed this all first hand; children cannot be raised properly in households of parents who hate one another, and children like that mostly, if not, always turn out worse. That is why there is no fault divorce. Yes the divorce rate increased and families were broken, but at least most of those numbers represented people stuck in marriages they couldn't escape from otherwise, people who neglected and parented their children improperly because they were too busy trying to stab their partner in the back. So I ask you, what is worse? Growing up with one parent, or growing to resenting your parents, the world, and the very fact that you exist? What is better? Humankind is not built to stay in marriages, it's purely and simply not in our nature, but we are built to be raised best by married, heterosexual couples, so we are at a stalemate in human progression. This is because, formerly, marriage was a needed institution and was completely supported by society as a partnership, but because society has changed so dramatically since industrialization, everyone has changed with it. The women's right's movement among many others altered our society forever and now we can't go back, and we shouldn't go back, because if we are ever to advance we must grit our teeth through progression, the good, such as women's rights and globalization, and the bad, such as the self-destruction of marriage. Forgive me, I digress. I'd like to disprove my opponent's research that points to homosexual parents being less effective than their heterosexual counterparts by saying, again, the raising of a child cannot be generalized down to a two-factor research point. There are many more factors involved, especially in areas like homosexuality, children can be made fun of and picked on for having homosexual parents, this can lead to resentment in the child and increased aggression and more risky, bad behavior as defensive measures. This is not the fault of the parents or their ability to raise a child, it is simply the fault of our society. Should homosexuals be punished for slightly lacking parenting skills do to their gender? No. Should they be punished because society isn't willing to accept homosexual couples? No. In conclusion, I'd like to say it is better for children to be raised from homosexual or single parents rather than hateful parents, at least until such a time as people are able to pass this region of progress between the times when man and woman relied on one another in marriage and men and women are able to love each other and set aside their differences. This is why I would chose to allow homosexuals their privileges to marry, and enjoy the other benefits of marriage, such as many legal and economic benefits as previously mentioned by my opponent. I'd also like to state that I resent Con's previous conclusion because I feel no burden of proof and see no such strong reasoning. Thank you and farewell