Homosexuality.

Instead of posting argument for this round, I’m going to dive right in with my rebuttals. 1. “When conducting such 'research' I think we could both agree that anyone with an agenda has the ability to put a twist on data and evidence to suit that said agenda.” While I don’t fully support this assertion, my opponent is right that anyone with clear bias can twist data to suit their beliefs. So, I shall refrain from showing sources that show clear bias and only attempt to source authors whom look at these issues objectively. That being said, my opponent has posted research from the Family Research Council, a group clearly biased against homosexuality. It is also a group that has been formally called a “hate-group” on multiple occasions. So, in that case, yes, their data may be twisted to suit their anti-homosexual agenda. Now I can show endless biased data that supports my assertion, but instead I shall show fully accredited data from several psychological factions. This comes from the compelling brief of The American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as Amici Curiae in support of Plaintiff-Appellees. (Perry v. Schwarzenegger). Under argument IV, part B literally states, “There is no scientific basis for concluding that gay and lesbian parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, or that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well adjusted.” [1] I’ve taken the liberty of selecting a few quotes from the brief that I feel support my argument immensely. “Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature.” “Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.” “Most research on this topic has focused on lesbian mothers and refutes the stereotype that lesbian parents are not as child oriented or maternal as non-lesbian mothers. Researchers have concluded that heterosexual and lesbian mothers do not differ in their parenting ability” “Turning to the children of gay parents, researchers reviewing the scientific literature conclude that studies provide no evidence that psychological adjustment among lesbians, gay men, their children, or other family members is impaired in any significant way and that every relevant study to date shows that parental sexual orientation per se has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children’s mental health or social adjustment.” “Nor does empirical research support the misconception that having a homosexual parent has a deleterious effect on children’s gender identity (i.e. one’s psychological sense of being male or female) development.” I source this data because, unlike the family research council, these four factions show little to no bias against homophobic institutions, and instead come at this argument with objective means to track accredited data of how parenthood differs between heterosexual and homosexual couples. 2. “But I'm more inclined to go by first hand experience, and there are anti gay-marriage activists out there who are campaigning because they came from same sex parents and believe it is not in the best interests of the child.” While this does show that some people do feel being raised by homosexuals is not the best choice, your version of first-hand expirance doesn’t justify that ALL homosexuals are bad parents. It would be like me saying, “having been raised catholic and knowing it was not best for me, all Catholics parents should cease procreation”. 3. “You keep making assertions involving exclusivity, and to prove them wrong only one example against is required.” My assertions do not label all homosexuals as good parents, just like your assertions do not label all homosexuals as inferior parents. I use the term “collective group” to state that, in some cases homosexuals are not completely effective parents, however, in most cases, they are just as effective as their counterparts. 4. “Homosexuals should be educated that even though they are gay, they still have choices, that those choices could involve living a heterosexual lifestyle, and that living a heterosexual lifestyle can be very fulfilling, even if they are gay. If society didn't 'accept' homosexual behaviour, then homosexuals can still live well adjusted lives even without it.” Your first point assumes that homosexuals don’t know they can live as “heterosexuals”, which is incorrect. In many cases we do know that it is us who chose to have sex/act on our attraction, just as heterosexuals do. Your second point, however, is far less factual than you assume. While you’ve given one example of homosexuals living heterosexually, it is not sufficient enough to assert that, “accepting that homosexuality is abnormal gets rid of persecution.” Because, it does not. This is a debate worthy case of its own, one of which I’d happily accept a challenge from you, but since our debate has many other points, I’ll refrain from fully attacking this assertion and instead continue my other rebuttals. 5. “I already proved it using known facts - Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. It's that simple!” In many cases it is not that simple. What is a known fact is that homosexual sex is not procreation. That is a fact. However, your standards of normal in a sexual sense are quite different form other’s standards of normal. So, in a way, it is a subjective opinion. Just like my opinion that homosexuality is normal is only an opinion. 6. I have so many issues with my opponents arguments involving the “sexual abuse of children”. Firstly, it makes the assumption that the Kinsey scale of measuring a person’s orientation is still considered valid, which it is not. However, if it was, then it would further support my assertion that homosexuality is normal because same-sex attraction is inevitable. Again the bulk of my opponents arguments make statements as fact, despite them being speculative with little accredited evidence supporting their illustrious claims. I could spend this round dissecting the entirety of their lack of validity, but characters permit me not to. 7. “This is not hearsay. Homosexuals statistically have very bad physical and psychological issues.” Once again we get into my opponents assertion that anyone with an agenda can twist facts. So, in many ways, this could be considered false. However, instead of dodging this source, I’ll address it’s validity head on. It has nothing to do with inner-peace and biological differences. While the article does show that homosexuals are often promiscuous, and are more prone to disease, it fails to address similar statistics with heterosexuals. My opponent even admitted as such in an earlier argument stating that, “But I'm sure the world can put up with that since it is not exclusive to homosexuals.” So, the disease arguments are moot. And, addressing the arguments of psychological damage, I could assert that the large percentile of homosexuals lack of inner-peace has everything to do with the fact that we are subject to backlash and hate from countless groups of people who deem us inferior to them. So, in this case, many of these statistics would go down with the “normalization” of homosexuality. 8. “Homosexuals can find peace within themselves, and that can include living a homosexual lifestyle But you will not find that peace until you acknowledge the truth, that homosexuality is not normal. The world needs to get to a stage where homosexuals can say "i know this is not right, but it's the way i am, and I'm prepared to live with it". The world needs to get to a stage where parents can say "my child is homosexual. I know it's not right, but they have choices. Whatever way they choose to live their life, I will support them as much as I can and love them as much as I can"….” The entirety of this paragraph is utter speculation that has no evidence priving it’s validity. When I say this, I am referring to the arguments stating that we can find peace with ourselves, but only if we accept that we are not normal and that our actions are not right. What my opponent is stating that, we need to accept that people are right for calling us abnormal. People are right to deny us marriage. People are right to discriminate us. In other words, my opponent is lobbying for the acceptance and “normalization” of open bigotry. And, in that case, I very much argue that bigotry is far more abnormal that homosexuality, despite hate being something so commonly occurring. 9. “- If you were to be honest with yourself and with the rest of the world, then perhaps the rest of the world would be more forgiving of homosexuals and you would face less persecution. Stop the delusion or pretense or lie or whatever it is.” Yet again, there is nothing to prove this assertion correct. It is speculation that only reasserts the idealism of my opponent. It continues to assume that homosexuality is wrong and that we are inferior. And, there is no way someone could say that, because there is no evidence to prove such a claim. In fact, one could argue that if we concede all points of us being inferior, we would suffer more discrimination than before. With my rebuttals complete, I turn the debate over to my opponent. See you in the final round! Citation: 1. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov...