#1 Gays are fit to parent. Some in my immediate family are being raised by a wonderful gay couple, but I will leave personal examples omitted from my contention. Not to go into biological specifics, but as we all know, gays cannot have children. This means no unwanted teenage pregnancy or unwanted pregnancy at all. Because they have to go through the often tedious (trust me it can be tedious, everyone in my family is adopted I know) process of adoption, they have to be 100% sure that they want to and are willing to raise a child into an adult, so they are all the more prepared for it. Some may say it will corrupt their children turning them gay, however this is ridiculous. If your parents determined sexuality then it wouldn't happen (as it often does) where a kid being raised by heterosexual parents becomes homosexual. Finally, one atrocity in parenting in rejecting your kid. This is done by heterosexual parents and rarely, if ever, happens with homosexual parents. All the time heterosexual parents completely reject their kid for being gay, however, gay parents often have their kids grow up to be heterosexual, and they never deny them for being of opposite sexual orientation as them unlike heterosexual parents who often discriminate.
#2 Any religious argument is flawed and irrelevant. Many quote leviticus and use it as reasoning as to why Gay marriage is an abomination. However, to be a true follower of a religion, you must follow the canon (holy book) in its entirety not just parts of it. Leviticus also states a father can sell his daughter for cattle, so unless you support selling women for cattle for marriage, you cannot use the bible as a reason for how marriage should be. Not to mention in many western countries there is separation of church and state, so you simply cannot use your religious reasoning to influence political legislation. How would you like it if a Jewish person made a law outlawing bacon for all of us just because it is against his own religion? You would hate it, so don't force your own religious beliefs on the rest of us.
#3 I will keep this short, being gay is 0% choice and 100% natural. The simple reasoning is look what happens. No one can deny that gays can be ridiculed. They are often harassed and have to fight just for marriage rights and other basic rights us heterosexuals enjoy. My one question is, why would anyone chose that? Everywhere, the life of being heterosexual is easier. If being gay was a choice, why on earth would anyone chose that? That is like choosing to be black and therefore a slave in the 19th century instead of white. It is simply illogical, no one enjoys the crap gays are given, therefore it truly must be who they are inside.
As a 16 year old, this all seems like common sense. I hope to persuade anyone who is on the fence about this issue. And to anyone who takes the time to read this, I thank you in advance for hearing my opinion on this sensitive topic. Finally, I invite anyone with an opposite opinion to please respond and engage, the sharing of ideas is one of the most important things we can do, and I look forward to discussing this further with whomever choses to partake in this debate!
PS 16kadams, the reason I sent this debate to you is because I posted it before and someone referred me to you saying you would enjoy debating in the negation of this topic.
1. My opponent starts out with anecdotal evidence. In public policy, it is best to look at what is good for the overall society. I am not saying some gays are not fit to parent, but the overall average is that homosexuals raise, on balance, less adjusted children. Public policy should look at the good of society, not specific examples. Gay marriage will inevitably lead to more gay parenting, which should be discouraged. For example, my opponent states gays cannot have accidental children. But accidental children do have worse outcomes, and it is generally discouraged and the state has not subsidized that behavior (like marriage is subsidized today). Research indicates children are worse off than those raised by heterosexuals, and that behavior should be discouraged . Also, it is possible for lesbians to have children through in-vitro insemination, but unlike marriage procreation children from artificial insemination have many developmental problems. About half of those raised in these homes think about how they were born like this each week, and about 45% say their conception method (insemination) worries them. 46% cannot function properly: they think people they love intimately might be related to them, and 58% think when they see people that resemble them they wonder if they are related. Not only to these children face a host of problems, the fathers generally have other issues and think they were treated like animals for their sperm . Now, homosexuals don’t necessarily force homosexuality upon their children, but saying they have no influence is foolish. Even pro-gay researchers come to the conclusion children raised by homosexuals are more likely to be homosexual. Their results show their children are 4 – 10 times more likely to be gay than the general population . “... it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display a somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents.” Indeed, gays are, on balance, less likely to be “good” parents compared heterosexuals.
2. I agree, religion is not going to be included in this debate.
3. This statement is completely untrue, even the APA has changed their views. Three percent of the current heterosexual population admits to being formerly homosexual – but their change has been totally natural . With this in mind, this also means therapy could also increase success rates. Many researchers at the APA, that has a pro-gay bias, have actually been leaving the APA and endorsing mission statements by NARTH . Most studies find gay-therapy causes people to change, genes play little to no role in homosexuality, and that environmental factors are predominant . This point is false.
The public purpose of marriage
By public I hardly mean societies interest, as legal issues and society don’t always add together, rather I am arguing the states interest in marriage as well as the intrinsic value heterosexual unions have. Essentially what I am arguing is what is marriage, and what is the states current interest in regulating this institution? How my opponent and myself answer this will drastically alter the conclusion on whether or not the state should legalize, and fundamentally change, the institution we currently deem marriage.
To defend my contention, something that would be legally worthy as well, would be to prove heterosexual unions serve a specific purpose in which is special to heterosexuals. If heterosexuals had nothing to differ from homosexuals, logically no government’s interest would exist. Therefore I need to prove the differences heterosexuals have. Heterosexual unions can procreate; they are therefore complimentary of each other’s actions. This procreation is responsible for societies existence. Therefore are holds a special social value in which homosexuals can never obtain. The government obviously holds an interest in regulating these unions for the simple fact it promotes a healthy environment in which new citizens are produced. The government has an interest in heterosexuals, and therefore has little interest in promoting homosexual relationships that serve little value to the state through marriage. This is the public function of marriage, even if it is not ones personal reason for the decision .
1. A. Dean Byrd. “Dual Gender Parenting for Optimal Child Development” Journal of Human Sexuality (2010).
I agree that anecdotal evidence is not as effective as national policy, I was just giving context to show that I am not blindly siding in this debate, but instead am well aware with the happenings of this topic as it is prevalent in my life and family. I do not understand your analysis on my first point. In-Vitro insemination cannot happen on accident, and all I am saying in the aforementioned contention is just that Gay parents would have been required to think through what they are doing, whereas, Straight parents sometimes have children on accident. This means the Gay parents have to be 100% sure about what they are doing because they go through the tedious procedure of adopting (1).
As far as your statistics for insemination, quite frankly, that is a different debate for another day. I am not taking a stance on insemination, but instead simply on Gay marriage and the married couple's ability to raise a child (through means of adoption, I am not necessarily taking a stance on insemination, that was never stated in my previous argument).
About sexuality influence, I invite you to read again what I actually stated. I never said it has no influence, I said it is ridiculous to assume that (which you said you agree is ridiculous) they will force their sexuality. And I stated that it happens where the child becomes straight. Although yes they could become gay and at a higher percentage as you stated, it is not 100% of the time, therefore refuting this corrupting argument.
#3 You say this is completely untrue and then go on to use minute statistics to proven drastic point. Yes, maybe approximately 3% of the gay population would disagree in some way, but what about the 97%? Do you honestly think less than a twentieth of the considered population disproves what is supported by the 97%? I do not know where you are getting what you are saying about the APA, but according to their unbiased website, they have not sided one way or another as far as the choice vs naturality of being gay (2).
Looking at your purely legalistic argument, it appears both wrong and illogical. First, you state that in the government's eyes they would have the heterosexual interest at heart but not the homosexual interest. This is simply wrong. The combined incomes of a married couple can lead to their placement in a higher tax bracket, and although they don't make children, they may adopt which means less kids in foster homes, so there are less foster homes, so there is less funding required by the government for such social reasons.
The homosexual community is in no way asking for elevated status above the heterosexual status under marriage, but is simply asking to be equal. Gay people: pay the same taxes, work the same jobs, fight the same wars, and contribute to society the same as heterosexuals in America and abroad, and it seems simply fair to ensure that they would therefore have the same rights.
Before you say that they have rights it just isn't called marriage, please keep in mind that in the governments eyes 'marriage' guarantees certain economic protections for a family unit so it would be in the homosexual interest to indeed be given the right to get married.
Yes, it may not be 'traditional marriage' but, then again, what is? When we look to the past, historically what has marriage been? For the greater part of human history it has been comprised of both arranged marriages, and purchases a young man can make to the father of the bride (I am not specifically talking about the bible) so unless one supports the aforementioned, they cannot condemn homosexual marriage saying it is because they support what traditional marriage is.
Once again, I am unfamiliar with format so I apologise if my second argument here is not exactly in the format it should have been.
(1) - http://www.more4kids.info...
(2) - http://www.apa.org...
1. My opponent agrees his anecdotal evidence is weak, but keeps claiming that they cannot have accidental children. I agree, unless a lesbian is raped she cannot have an accidental child. But this point is mostly irrelevant. Marriage itself cures many of these problems amongst heterosexuals, decreasing the amount of abuse and such . Now, my opponent and I agree: stability is best for children. Research shows for heterosexuals the increased stability is induced through marriage. But an easy rebuttal could be “it would help gays too”… But would it? Overall, probably not. Indeed, only 8% of homosexuals choose to marry . So assuming all of the benefits get transferred to homosexuals, the overall benefit to the homosexual community is minimal at best. Furthermore, when studying same-sex couples we see stability really does not exist in [many] same sex households, and the gay divorce rate is much higher compared to heterosexual couples .
Even though they don’t have accidental children, if their overall outcome is still worse his rebuttal hinging on that one point is futile. Indeed, I have presented evidence need both mothers and fathers to develop properly, and recent studies indicate children raised in homosexual households are less adjusted in school. The study writes “Children in traditional families (i.e., married,2 biological parents) tend to do better than their peers in nontraditional families.” The article then talks about studies claiming there to be more difference, criticizes them, and notes later that the non-stability of non-homosexual couples cause much of the problems amongst their children .
Now, gays don’t force their sexuality, that’s absurd! But they are more open about their sexuality and do encourage their children to explore other things (i.e. boys play with Barbie’s, girls with trucks) . And most theories, as described in Stacey and Biblarz 2001, indicate any valid sexual theory means it is almost inevitable children raised by homosexuals are more likely to become homosexuals. Since my opponent has admitted it does have an influence, he loses another large point under this issue.
2. I am making this point the genetic point – skipping to three looks weird.
My opponent misinterprets my argument. I am not saying only three percent of homosexuals change, but that three percent of heterosexuals are former homosexuals. That is a massive percentage, since heterosexuals identify as 85-90% of the population in most polls. Actually, most homosexuals change preference (no, this is not a “choice” issue. This is an “environmental” issue – it is not a “choice”, but it is changeable). Most heterosexuals stay heterosexual, but 98% of the overall population become more heterosexual (the number is high because many people are bisexual in the study cited; one on 16-17 year olds). In a longer 5 year study, almost all heterosexuals stay heterosexual, but almost all of the homosexuals move towards full heterosexuality, and another large portion moves to bisexuality. Almost all of the bisexuals became more heterosexual as well . The fact that homosexuality is fluid refutes this point hands down.
Now, my opponent really said the APA holds no position? Well the first sentence they admit their blatant bias “the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations.” But the source also admits “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.” This is a large flip flop: in the 90s they were certain it was genetic . The fact pro-gay organizations are actually neutral on the issue, a major flip flop, indicates a change in evidence, and a large one. My opponent attempts to claim homosexuality is natural, but the data simply refutes that conclusion.
1. My opponent claims allowing homosexuals will increase revenue and spending. But this is very false. Homosexuals already can adopt, and the many benefits given to homosexual couples will increase overall spending. And the fact few homosexuals actually marry , even if my opponents benefits were true my statistic indicates any possible benefit is, well, very miniscule. But the benefits he cites are likely exaggerated.
2. I never said gays want elevated social status; this is a straw man and a red herring. My opponent has still failed to explain why they deserve equality. They may be the same “people”, but they are not the right type of relationship. Those engaging in other obscure relationships are people, the love each other, but they aren’t marriages. A boyfriend and a girlfriend (not obscure – so it is an even better example!) love each other very much. This isn’t a marriage because they do not represent responsible procreation and child rearing. Marriage is an institution which it can discriminate against people for what they do, simply because those relationships are not promoting the government’s interest.
3. As stated, homosexual marriages are rare and unstable. The famous What Is Marriage paper (expanded into a book, now) notes “The value of such a policy—at least for individuals who share benefits to the individuals themselves, like hospital‐visitation and by distinct we. Why create a special legal package for generic partnerships?”
4. The traditional point is also a red-herring. But if defending the conjugal point of view helps society, why should we oppose it? Whether or not traditional marriage is actually traditional is irrelevant. It also depends on how we define such a word. In the US, our marriage laws are based on British Common Law made at the time around the Magna Carta which usually claimed marriage was about procreation and child rearing . And even before that, Medieval Europe held the same value. Even Rome held a conjugal view of marriage! So yes, different cultures have different marriages. The point is mostly irrelevant, since conjugal marriage is a benefit to society. But Western civilization usually holds this view, making it a “tradition”.
5. Walter Schumm 2011 Journal of Human Sexuality
BoulderRidge23 forfeited this round.
BoulderRidge23 forfeited this round.
BoulderRidge23 forfeited this round.
16kadams forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|