Gay Marriage

Defending procreation -- States interest My opponent has dropped the studies I have posted, therefore conceding the point. He counters, however, with unsourced statistics. All statistics should be cited, preferably, so that these weren't pulled out of thin air. When looking at the studies last round then looking at the ones based on orphans, we see almost 100% of orphans are adopted at one point, and the kids not adopted actually have better overall positions then ones raised by homosexuals [1]. So if we're looking for an "optimal" setting for procreation and a child's well being, homosexual unions are not beneficial. My opponent then claims the millions in dollars are not unpaid but bring in revenue. This was refuted last round. I showed, on balance, married couples pay LESS taxes and therefore bring in LESS revenues. Therefore the point is null and void as no counter evidence was provided. And the point stands refuted. Yes, it is true many of these benefits do not cost money. I agreed with this assumption in round one. However I did cite none of them created revenue, therefore the net loss in profits still exists unless procreation is preformed (more people more money). My opponent has also dropped my analysis on procreation, therefore CONCEDING it has an interest. He instead tried to show a separate interest, which we can see is highly flawed, and therefore only one interest remains -- procreation -- and I therefore win the debate on a very important front. As stated, the states interest will largely shape the way this debate concludes as it is highly relevant on a legal scale. On that note I first say, 1) my opponent dropped my procreation analysis, therefore it is conceded as one major states interest, 2) his other states interest lies upon adoption which is highly flawed as it does not benefit the child, and 3) based on this evidence CON already holds a stronghold on 1/3 of this debate. Too conclude this very important segment:" ... the bodily, sexual aspect of the relationship is part of and is inherently linked to the other aspects of the marital union. The sexual communion of a man and a woman establishes a real, biological union—a one-flesh union is an accurate description of it—for in this act they are biologically a single agent of a single action. Just as an individual’s different organs—heart, lungs, arteries, and so forth—perform not as isolated parts, but in a coordinated unity to carry out a single biological function of the whole individual (circulation of oxygenated blood), so too in coitus the sexual organs of the male and those of the female function in a coordinated way to carry out a biological function of the couple as a unit—mating. Hence coitus establishes a real biological union with respect to this function, although it is, of course, a limited biological union inasmuch as for various other functions (e.g., respiration, digestion, locomotion) the male and female remain fully distinct."[2]A nice summary. A right to marriage?Ah yes, but his analysis here is also highly flawed. Unjust discrimination is always unjust, whether it is defined or not. Therefore the woman's rights example is irrelevant and a non comparable situation. In this case, however, it is too linked to the contention above. Just discrimination is a whole different story. Real marriages, which my opponent drops, are unions between one man and one woman who fully unite through the act of coitus. Too fulfill states interest to encourage procreation is therefore preformed and fulfilled. Homosexuals never meet the definition of "real" marriages and therefore are not discriminated unjustly. And the version of rights also depends on the law itself. How the rights are dispersed out truly depend on the law. This point was brought up in round two I believe. Legal scholars have argued only the state is justified in recognizing real marriages, a concept I have been pushing throughout this debate, and therefore has the ability to prohibit certain forms of marriage (that's why say, polygamy, can be constitutionally prohibited). Real voting in a democratic society means all general populous should be allowed to vote. Therefore the state is justified in promoting women's rights. In the other side of the civil rights movement, there is no such justification for homosexuals. This point right here is the core of the debate, and it has not been dealt with by my opponent. My opponent again says the state has an interesting in gay marriage and there is a right... Note he fails to prove either of these, all of his arguments are illogical assertions that have been clearly defeated as the debate progresses. He has failed to show an interest other then child rearing, which he has NEVER proved it was in the best interest of the child, nor has he shown it was a right even using his own analogies. My opponent objects to the procreation argument, again, with no substance. Basically claims he has refuted it but ironically dropped all rebuttals this round as they where soundly rebutted in the last round. And being able to do anal intercourse is irrelevant to the case as they are still preforming heterosexual sex which will inevitably lead to procreation in the long run, creating real marriages and fulfilling the states interest. My opponent has completely strawmanned my argument when it comes to procreation. I have argued it is an optimal setting which will inevitably encourage procreation. Instead of making a meaningful response, he essentially drops the point by saying its absurd. This is merely a statement, an assertion, no logic or facts are brought with it. I have proven throughout the debate basic geology shows men and women are complimentary of each other when it comes to marriage as they are capable of the act that brings them closer to a real marriage. Marriage is a fundamental institution that promotes procreation through optimal situations which, in the long run, promote procreation. This point is not "absurd", and as we see my opponents objection is merely an assertion, and nothing more. All of his objections lack sources or logic, and are mere assertions which fail to challenge my case. Homosexual parenting My opponent might as well have dropped the argument. All studies will likely have some bias, but there is no basis for my opponents claim. He only shows all authors have slight self selection bias. Although this is the case, I have shown all studies my opponent cited have major methodological problems, which well constructed studies have the ability to avoid and be credible. Those studies, however, fail to avoid these easy to fix problems and therefore arguing all studies are bias is NOT enough to defend against my case. Sure, all authors are biased. Not all authors blatantly lie or self select samples for political purposes, though. All homosexual parenting studies reaching the no difference conclusions have these erroneous errors and therefore are subject to scrutiny and we can question their accuracy. With these questions on the radar, we see there is no basis for his claim. "Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all forty- nine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reli- ably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy."[3]Conclusion:My opponent as pro has failed to uphold his burden. Summary:States interest:1) States interest is not procreation!(R) I have proven it is the only logical interest oen can derive from the SSM debate2) gays are good parents!(R) there is no basis for this claim, and data shows they are worse parents 3) There is a right!(R) You cannot have a right to X unless you know what X is, and X does not cover homosexuals. As we can see, pro has lost this debate. Vote CON. SOURCES:http://tinyurl.com...