Same-Sex Marriage

Marriage and Procreation My opponent basically says that because homosexuals can procreate through artificial insemination then they should be able to get married and that marriage commitments are based around love and all humans have the ability to love each other. I already stated that the proper raising of children is as important, if not more important than procreation itself. Homosexuals cannot raise children properly; therefore they still do not benefit society so they don’t deserve marital rights. Heterosexual relationships start out as love and commitment and when their relationship is fulfilled at its best it results in procreation and the proper raising of children. Homosexuals do not have this kind of relationship. The state recognizes marriage for a reason and it is because of the benefits marriage brings. Marriage Between Man and Woman My opponent fails to rebut my arguments at all, and only me to explain something that I have explained more than once before. Heterosexual marriage is best for society because it benefits society through procreation and the proper raising of children. Man and woman connect sex with children because man and woman were naturally made for each other to procreate. By allowing gay marriage, you take away the reason the State recognizes marriage, which can be seen though the procreation argument. Government and Marriage My opponent never tried to refute my opening argument on the government’s role in marriage and instead asked me to clarify just what the meaning of marriage is which is what I did. My opponent states the government’s role will be the same in marriage no matter where the line is drawn. Point is, they need to draw the line where marriage best benefits society which can be seen through my previous three arguments. Homosexuals and Parenting Now since the center of my argument against gay marriage is that homosexual couples do not benefit society in any way, it is important that I show they can’t raise children properly. My opponent states that my study is invalid because it too is a study on homosexual parenting and that it’s “lack of participants” means it can be disregarded. I made the same mistake against my opponents study. You see, neither of the studies are just a study over homosexual parenting, but both of our studies are an analysis of several studies. In addition, the quote I used only regards to studies that conclude no difference between homosexual parenting and heterosexual parenting. From the same source I got the quote from: “the only studies that were based on large, random, representative samples tended to reveal the opposite conclusion, finding 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.” Bottom line: The only studies the APA used that concluded the no-difference theory was correct, were the ones that were based on “rather limited, involving non-random, non representative samples, often with relatively few participants” and the studies that had a large set of participants and random test subjects concluded that heterosexuals do indeed raise their children better that homosexual couples. My opponent claims the Journal of Human Sexuality can be disregarded because it has no evidence that supports its claims on why homosexual parents are not as good as heterosexuals except for the studies it lists which are between 10-20 years old. Now I don’t see how it is relevant that the majority of the studies done were conducted in the 90’s-early 2000’s; as long as the studies are not flawed it should not matter. My opponent’s only actual refutation to The Journal of Human Sexuality is that the studies in it are old, which is a poor argument against it. One only needs to look at my opening arguments to see that my source shows more than just mental health problems among homosexuals, anyways, mental problems actually attribute quite a lot to the kind of house-hold environment children are put in. My opponent claims to have read my study, but obviously not much seeing that there is more than just the mental health of the homosexuals, but the study also goes over the children’s mental health in a homosexual environment as well. For example: “Sons of lesbian mothers behave in less traditionally masculine ways in terms of aggression and play. They are also more apt to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.” “Teenage and young adult girls reared by lesbian mothers were more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls reared by heterosexual mothers. Sons reared by lesbian mothers were less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys reared by heterosexual mothers.” These are only a few of the things that my study lists. You can see that like my opening argument on homosexuals and parenting, my study shows the direct effects of homosexual couples on children. Now I’ll take this argument even further, and go onto to show why Pro’s study is unreliable and can be disregarded. I have concluded that most of the studies in my opponent’s source only made an analysis over studies that had a limited amount of test subjects participating, and were often non-random subject being picked for the study. For example: “44 adolescents who reported being raised by 2 women in a “marriage-like” family arrangement were compared with a random sample of 44 adolescents raised by heterosexual parents.” Random heterosexual sampling versus non-random homosexual parenting will and does, have a flawed conclusion. I have already shown that most homosexuals suffer from mental disorder, but in this study the scientists seem to purposely pick out a few of the homosexual families that are “level-headed”. In addition, this is a very small sample size seeing that only a total of 88 children were tested. This is only one of the examples of the flawed studies that my opponent’s source analyzes. Another flaw that was actually listed in pro’s study was this: “Respondents were certainly not children “raised by” lesbian or gay parents, because only half were living with these parents, and the sexual orientation of the parents was not determined.” Con’s study even has obviously biased statements seeing that it says that even though many of the studies have imperfect and incomplete results they still go on to conclude that homosexuals parent just as well as heterosexuals. I could go on, but I do not have enough character space. Pro’s Argument I have already rebutted these arguments in my previous refutations I see no need to repeat myself. I would like to note however, that my definition of marriage never changed. This is my definition: “In the society I am looking at where marriage is strictly between man and woman, the meaning of marriage is about the good relationship only heterosexuals can pursue, that when fulfilled at its best benefits society through procreation and the proper raising of children.” Notice how the definitions says “fulfilled at its best”. This means that the sexual act fulfilled at its best results in procreation and the proper raising of children. Conclusion I have shown that only heterosexuals can procreate in a natural relationship and raise children properly. I have shown why the natural relationship between man and woman is the relationship that best benefits society. I have shown why the government should draw a line where marriage best benefits society. I have shown that heterosexuals are naturally better parents than homosexuals. My opponent gives no reason to believe that society’s view on homosexuals fully attributes to them being bad parents. In addition to all of this, instead of my opponent actually trying to refute my arguments he simply asks a few questions then tells the voters to disregard everything I said. At this point, I feel it would be poor conduct for Pro to make arguments that try to refute my own now that it is the last round.