Gay marriage should not be permitted

Pro has not defended or accurately represented the resolution. The resolution is not over a relabeling of gay marriage (as civil marriage or another term). It is disingenuous of Pro to argue for a new label as this was not the topic presented in round 1. I object to banning gay marriage as defined in round 1 and I would not have accepted the argument if it were simply about a label. Pro needs to defend the resolution. There are 1,138 benefits granted to married couples [5] that are important just to get through life and to flourish. Sharing social security after a death, tax breaks, immigration status, employee health benefits and hospital visitation in the event of an emergency are what is at stake here. I’ll point out that none of the benefits I mentioned require children and it is naïve to believe that marriage is mainly about child rearing. It is a partnership between two people. As Pro has pointed out, gays cannot reproduce naturally so children should not even be considered as adoption is a separate issue. Pro’s entire argument is essentially a non sequitur or a case of special pleading. I can accept Pro’s entire case including the conclusion and still reject the resolution. Basically Pro is arguing that homosexuals and their relationships are inferior to heterosexuals and their relationships. This does not lead one to ban gay marriage. She repeatedly equates child rearing with marriage when a formal adoption process protects children from any unfit parents as it is. Pro’s requirements for gay marriage are above beyond the requirements for a straight marriage. For instance, above average parenting skills, fidelity and a high level of mental health have never been a requirement for straight marriage. 1) Homosexual and heterosexual unity is different, Heterosexual marriage is the bed-rock of society To support this point Pro points out that homosexuals cannot have kids. She then asserts that marriage is the bedrock of society because marriages often produce children. Note that this is an argument against infertile or elderly marriage and is therefore a case of special pleading. For woman under 30, half of all children are born outside of marriage. [7] Society is still very much intact and you don’t need a marriage to raise children or has this ever been a requirement. Currently, marriage is often not even a requirement for adoption. [8] A1: Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate Here Pro argues that gays do not make fit parents. As I have pointed out, gay parents (and all couples who want to adopt) have to go through an intense vetting process to determine if they will be good parents and Pro’s objections apply to all adopted parents so this is not a new or relevant issue. [8] Gay adoption is also a separate issue and you can have one without the other. Superior/inferior chid-rearing capabilities This debate is not about gay adoption and there are a formal requirements for adoption. [8] The stability of a home/relationship and emotional stability are all factors that are considered to find appropriate parents and adopting couples are held to a higher standard than all other parents. Not only is “fit parent” not a requirement for marriage but, unlike heterosexual couples, gay couples go through a formal vetting process before they are allowed to have children so Pro’s general concerns are not warranted. I. Emotional instability I’ll concede that it is possible that there is a higher incidence of mental illness among homosexuals and this could be said for a lot of social groups. Note that this is an argument that applies to many other social groups so Pro is unfair in applying this to gay marriage only. Soldiers have a higher incidence of mental illness than civilians [3] and whites have higher rates when compared with Asians. [4] Mental health is a spectrum and those that are considered severely ill cannot adopt children as it is. This is yet another instance of special pleading. II. Marriage instability Divorce rates are much higher among the highly religious and those in the bible belt in the United States. [1] Pro is yet again using special pleading adding additional requirements for gay marriage only. Some studies place the divorce rate among black couples to be as high as 70%. [2] Should we have a separate but equal black marriage as well? III. Homosexual relationship infidelity Pro simply assumes that marriage is necessarily monogamous but she could not be farther from the truth. I’ll concede that open and non-traditional marriages are much more common among male homosexuals. Some studies report that as high as 70% of married men and women have extra marital affairs. [6] If only monogamous couples were allowed to marry this bedrock of modern society would crumble very quickly. If I could prove that men are more often unfaithful should they be denied marriage rights as well? Fidelity is obviously a challenge for all marriages and a formal commitment certainly encourages monogamy and investment in the relationship. Pro’s requirements for marriage would exclude other groups from marriage. Pro has essentially argued that gay marriage comes with a unique set of challenges. In every instance these challenges are common for all or many married couples. Many of the arguments are with respect to child rearing. Not only is this a separate issue but the problems apply to all couples that choose to adopt. Unless Pro would like to ban adoption this is another example of special pleading. There are many target groups that struggle with mental illness or fidelity. In fact, marriage rights are designed to help couples and alleviate challenges for relationships by removing many financial hurdles, for example. If Gays are frequently troubled couples, marriage is designed to alleviate problems and assist the partnership. Pro’s problems with Gay Marriage are isolated to the relationship itself. Remember Pro is advocating an act of force. Men with guns should prevent loving couples from getting married but Pro has not established that gay marriage will have a negative or any impact on society. Pro has not been able to establish that gay marriage: Has a negative impact Significantly effects anyone outside the relationship Gay relationships are different. They can’t produce biological children and may struggle more with mental illness or fidelity (I may protest these points later but I do not see how they impact the resolution). How does denying crucial marriage rights help with any of these issues and why is it anyone’s business? If they struggle with fidelity already then why should society prevent a formal commitment? Marriage rights alleviate many problems so why should they be denied to the more troubled gay relationships. If they have these unique problems they will inside or outside of marriage. How does marriage impact anyone other than the couples in question? Pro’s list of marriage requirements is unreasonable. Pro has used several factors to determine who should be married but none of them are applied to heterosexual couples today. This is simply a double standard and an obvious bias. From Pro’s summary marriage should be denied gays because they are: Unique Make unfit parents Have emotional/mental health issues Are not always monogamous None of these requirements are applied to heterosexual couples so Pro’s entire case is special pleading at best. I have demonstrated that straight couples share these same struggles as well. Why should these requirements be applied to gay couples alone? This is simply a double standard. In fact, the parental requirements are stricter for gay couples as they have to deal with a formal adoption process. Moral obligation and a negative responsibility Pro has indicated that we, as a society, have a moral obligation to prevent gay marriage. However, she has not been able to establish that gay marriage causes harm in anyway. She has not even tried to establish a moral framework or explain under what criteria she is making these moral judgments. Under a utilitarian moral code it is most certainly moral. [9] Pro has not established that there is any harm and I have shown that there are many benefits to gays. Any level of moral obligation is extremely difficult to establish and it is especially difficult to establish a negative responsibility. [10] In other words, Pro is holding society responsible for not preventing an action that does not cause any harm. It’s one thing to say that it’s wrong to engage in gay marriage. It’s quite another to say that society is morally obligated to prevent gay marriage and Pro has not even come close to establishing the former. - Pro’s has essentially argued that Gay relationships deal with more potential problems. How does it follow that they should be prevented from entering into a formal commitment that alleviates many problems and assists in a partnership? Why should anyone outside the relationship be concerned when the impact of the marriage does not have an effect on anyone else? [1] http://atheism.about.com... [2] http://www.divorcesaloon.com... [3] http://www.cnn.com... [4] http://www.apa.org... [5] http://www.hrc.org... [6] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [7]http://www.slate.com... [8] http://www.adoption.net... [9] http://www.britannica.com... [10] http://www2.drury.edu...