Homosexuality with a twist

== Rebuttal to Round 2 == {{{ Having children }}} My opponent claims that having children is a key justification for marriage. He argues that the existence of infertile couples does not imply that we should disallow straight marriage because it would be intrusive for the government to intervene in the lives of straight couples to determine their fertility. However, gay people can have children, just not with each other. Marriage seems more about raising children (in a "stable home") than about *having* children, given people have children outside of marriages as well. In addition, I'm sure my opponent and I could agree that women over a certain age (say 55) can no longer have children. It would be easy for the government to disallow straight marriages over this "age limit," without any more intrusion than into gay marriages. Yet this would clearly be unacceptable; thus, children are a poor justification for limiting marriage rights. {{{ Tax incentives }}} My opponent claims, with zero evidence, that the US tax code was written to encourage people to have children. However, the US tax code was written long before the US realized a drop in its fertility rates. So the historical accuracy of this statement is doubtful. In addition, no evidence is provided that marriage somehow increases the number of children that people are willing to have. Thus, there is no reason for the government to incentivize marriage. So my opponent merely invokes the is-ought fallacy, assuming the tax credits are good merely because they are currently in use. The resolution is also not US specific. According to the Independent (UK), Gordon Brown abolished all tax incentives for marriage in 2000 and replaced them with tax incentives for each child a couple had. [1] This led to a drastic decline in the marriage rate and an increase in the number of partners deciding to co-habit. [2] This is because there is a marriage penalty: marrying someone with his or her own income bumps you up into a higher tax bracket. [3] This proves a few things: 1) not all countries incentivize marriage with their tax codes, thus this is a poor justification to disallow gay marriage across the board; 2) tax incentives aimed at incentivizing couples to have children fail to increase the marriage rate, and 3) tax incentives for having children can be pursued separately from marriage incentives. All of this proves that the tax code is a poor justification for denying equal rights to homosexuals. Furthermore, in the US, some couples receive tax benefits from marriage but some receive a tax penalty. Couples with comparable pay are more likely to suffer a tax penalty when marrying. Gay couples are thus more likely to suffer a tax penalty than a tax incentive. For all these reasons, the tax code is a horrible justification for violating the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal protection under the law. {{{ Evolution }}} My opponent claims that we lose good genes because homosexuals refuse to reproduce. This assumes a number of things. For one, it assumes that if society becomes less accepting of homosexuals, then they will suddenly choose to enter straight relationships and reproduce. But let's assume this is true for a second. In terms of survival of the species, homosexuality is not a desirable trait because, as my opponent points out, it gives its owner the desire *not to* reproduce. In a normal population, the gay gene has approximately 10% prevalence in the population. This is because, although the gene is selected against, as a recessive gene, it is passed on to offspring by the heterogeneous siblings of gay individuals. These siblings have one (dominant) straight gene and one (recessive) gay gene. In a society with no stigma against homosexuality, the prevalence of homosexuals in the population will stay below 10% because they won't reproduce. However, if society forces homosexuals to marry into straight relationships and have children, either at gunpoint, through social pressure and stigma, or through "gay conversion" centers, then the proportion of the gay gene in the population will rise. Eventually, statistics predict that one-fourth of the population will be gay, and 50% will be heterogeneous straight individuals who carry one gay gene. This poses a problem for the survival of the species. Eventually, gay people will rebel once again and refuse to procreate, since that's what their genetics are telling them to do. When this happens, all the same "great traits" that my opponent talks about will be lost anyways. But in this scenario, one-fourth of population has no desire to procreate. You can also turn this argument: gay couples in long-term relationships are more likely to pursue in vitro fertilization options than couples not in long-term relationships. Gay marriage and the acceptance of homosexuality increase the chances that gifted (read: wealthy) gay couples will pay for alternative reproductive options that *do* carry on their genes. Natural selection works, in this way, because non-gifted individuals cannot afford in vitro fertilization or surrogate mothers. This also turns tax incentives because gay couples *can* have children. The child not being related to both parents is irrelevant, unless you believe that straight couples who adopt should not receive tax incentives related to child-rearing. In fact, in terms of "evolution", it's better to have a gay couple with a child related to *one* of them than a straight couple with children *unrelated* to *both* of them. {{{ Are Civil Unions "good enough" }}} Firstly, I don't understand how my opponent can argue against homosexuality, in general, but concede that they deserve equal rights, just not the name "marriage." In addition, remember the quote from Al Sharpton. It's insulting to even *ask* if you support gay marriage. This is like asking if you support black marriage or Latino marriage. The question assumes that gay people are something other than a normal human being. It assumes they are a special class of people deserving of fewer rights. This violates the spirit of Christianity and the 14th Amendment, which requires that people in the US be treated equally by the law. Domestic partnerships are state-level and due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), gay couples cannot qualify for federal marriage benefits unless they are "married," which isn't allowed under DOMA. It makes no sense that gay people who are in love with someone from another country cannot get a green card for the love of their life. It makes no sense that gay people are denied access to the social safety net (Medicare, Social Security) because they cannot qualify for their life-partners' benefits. A stay-at-home gay dad or mom would lose all of his partner's benefits upon their death. And every single gay marriage debate is an *insult* to gay people because it says to them that we continue to see them as abnormal, sub-humans. We refuse to see them as part of the rest of us. And we think that merely giving them access to the name "marriage" will forever destroy the institution. How could someone *not* take that as an insult? So no, if we love our (gay) neighbors or believe in the Constitution, then civil unions are *not* good enough. == Rebuttal to Round 3 == {{{ Homosexuality is due to nurture, not nature }}} My opponent makes this claim. However, homosexuality is not a choice. As I've shown in previous debates, researchers at the National Institutes of Health have spliced a homosexuality gene into the DNA of fruit flies, which makes the fruit flies shun females and mate with males instead. [4] According to New Scientist, a similar gene has been discovered in female mice. [4] For humans: a study by Kallman et al found a 100% concordance rate for homosexuality among identical twins, but only an 11% concordance rate among fraternal twins. [5] Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., documents 1500 species that exhibit homosexuality, at rates ranging from 5% to 25%. [4] All this evidence goes to show that homosexuality is just as immutable a trait as skin color. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...