Gay Marriage

1. Defense My opponent’s most potent rebuttal is laughable. He merely states our views of marriage can change, and therefore the conjugal view of marriage is obsolete. This viewpoint is called the constructivist viewpoint. The viewpoint is that marriage has no objective purpose, which is only dictated by social views, and therefore the argument is unsound. So let’s assume this is true. First, the child rearing argument cannot become outdated because the rights of children should always be imperative in a policy debate. So even assuming the state has no interest in marriage, or what marriage is, the state would then have an interest (still) in helping the next generation flourish. The fact child-rearing is always relevant should be considered. Even still, the procreative-type unions is inherently valuable because in that marriage, and only that marriage, can procreation which binds the mind, body, and soul be accomplished [1]. If anything, the “outdated” or “it was made too long ago” arguments have no bearing on the states interest in marriage. Further, the economic case against SSM (cited previously) already noted institutions can change, but only for good reason. So, since the marriage institution is still surviving as it has for thousands of years, it merely shows how the needs and benefits of marriage still apply to society today. Indeed, recent developments in the marriage debate only prove what the definition of marriage actually is (and, by the way, the fact the idea was created during “arranged marriages” does not matter, that is guilt by association fallacy. Regardless, marriage is about procreation, not arrangement, and that point has no bearing on the debate). Many court cases, in dissents, majority opinions, all of the above, mention procreation as the states interest in marriage [2]. My opponent then makes a few statements that show he/she (I don’t know) is unaware of any study opposing Same-Sex Parenting, and then merely states the Brief did not claim children raised by heterosexuals did worse. Not only does this show he/she did not read the brief, he/she has not even read the quote presented. Let me re-quote the brief, “there is no dispute that a biological mother and father provide, on average, an effective and proven environment for raising children. And it is reasonable to conclude that a mother and father function as a complementary parenting unit and that each tends to contribute something unique and beneficial to child development. … [large studies note] significant differences in the outcomes of children raised by parents in a same-sex relationship and those raised by a married biological mother and father.” So, 1) A biological mother and father (not mother-mother, or father-father) are the best family unit for children. Implying the benefits of heterosexual, not homosexual, parents. 2) Homosexual children display many differences, and any logical person would note the differences are generally bad differences because it was stated heterosexual parents already do the best. I shall also name specific studies: 1. Regnerus 2012 – nationally representative sample 2. Allen et al. 2012 – Uses Census data, critique of pro-gay study. Patterson (pro-gay study) did respond, though I can respond to the criticism by Patterson if needed. 3. Abbot 2012 – literature review. Says heterosexual parents likely best. 4. Schumm 2011 – critique of lesbian studies 5. Schumm 2006 – using an expanded dataset from Camerons 1996 report, replicates findings. 6. Potter 2012 – finds children raised by homosexuals do worse in school. Nationally representative random sample. 7. Stacey and Biblarz 2001 – examines pro-gay research, finds them flawed. When corrected, data shows studies support the “anti-gay” position. 8. Cameron & Cameron 1996 – finds children of homosexuals more likely to be homosexual. Nationally representative and random sample. 9. Sarakantos 1996 – homosexual children do worse in school. Large, but non-random, sample. Marks 2012, however, says it is more powerful than almost all of the pro-gay literature. This is a small sample of studies of the more I can cite if needed. This refutes that point. My opponent’s last point is “people love it!” As pointed out, that poll I used was merely a side point which I de-emphasized because this point is a bandwagon fallacy. It is irrelevant. It is merely a response to “it’s inevitable” – which itself is a fallacy. 2. Rebuttals -> my opponents response is, again, laughable. The two people that marry must be heterosexual, and most people who marry wont simply sit around and do nothing. They will procreate. And it is the procreative type union, not the effect, and therefore the infertile argument (they don’t have kids!) is irrelevant. -> Ad hominem fallacy. And the fact gays will adopt more is actually a problem, as noted… And why should the government give them “perks” if they do not uphold a state’s interest? You need a reason to get money. The “perk” point merely proves my point. -> My opponent claims I am ignorant… lol. Am I uneducated on this topic? I cite 9 studies on same sex parenting, multiple law reviews on same sex marriage, you give nothing, emotion, misrepresentation of an Amicus Brief, Bob Carter said on global warming “who are the deniers now?” It can be used now as “who is ignorant now?” The fact my opponent cannot rationally defend his point, yet calls me ignorant, really tells me how politicized this topic is (obviously it was, but the irrationality in it is gargantuan). -> Why drill on sources? Give what you want, it’s your argument style… CONCLUSION I am ignorant guys, yet my opponent has not provided one coherent argument in favor of SSM. 1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2010). 2. John C Eastman. “Full Faith and Republican Guarantees: Gay Marriage, FMPA, and the Courts.” Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law (2007).