The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
David_Debates
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 353 times Debate No: 92517
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Danielle

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate.

I can see that he is not a troll, and he truly does not agree with gay marriage.

Because he seems like a genuine and reasonable person, I would really like the opportunity to discuss this with him further. My opponent should use Round 1 for acceptance and allow me to begin in Round 2. I look forward to a fruitful debate!
David_Debates

Con

I accept the debate. For clarification, will you be defining terms in Round 2?

Looking forward to a insightful discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, David.

Gay marriage = marriage between a couple of the same sex, that is recognized by the government.

I look forward to this discussion! Let's begin.

==

Gay people often have committed, romantic relationships similar to heterosexual marriage; this has occurred throughout history. Whether or not the government recognizes same-sex marriage (SSM), these relationships will continue to exist. In this debate, I will be arguing that these relationships, the people within them, and the people their relationship affects (their families) deserve to have their spiritual marriages be recognized by the government. To deny gay marriage would be a gross injustice that is unwarranted and unfair.

First, let's consider why people want to get married in the first place.

Research shows that marriage benefits the individual and thus society as a whole. Married people are more financially well off, happier and healthier than their single peers [1]. Research also shows that the legitimization of marriage is the primary factor in considering the dissolution of all relationships. Social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity, indicating that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success [2].

Con must distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is beneficial for only straight couples.

Furthermore, Con must explain why similar gay relationships shouldn't be fostered with legal protection.

I am arguing that gay people (and thus society) will benefit from the benefits of legal SSM.

Children undoubtedly benefit from having married parents; the benefits of a married couple logically extend to their children. It makes sense that if married people are happier, healthier and more financially well off, that the children of married couples would also benefit from the relationship.

In addition to the inherent benefits of the coupling, the legal rights afforded to married couples extend to safeguard the family. In many cases, kids with gay parents have been hurt by their family not being protected in instances where adoption, the death tax and other legal issues arise [3, 4]. Con is arguing in favor of children with gay parents not being protected by the law as their peers are, for reasons 1) entirely out of their control, and 2) that are irrelevant in terms of reasonable comparison.

There are a lot of families headed by same-sex parents. Almost 40% of LGBT identifying individuals have had a child. Six million people in America have gay parents, and there are 125,000 gay headed households raising 220,000 kids under eighteen [5]. Keep in mind these are old statistics and are likely much higher. These families and future families (now that gay relationships are more accepted) need protection not only in the sense of human decency, but to afford these families and society additional opportunities for success.

There are no reliable studies indicating that a mother-father headed household is paramount to one's happiness or success in terms of raising children; only some studies with questionable correlation. While there are innate biological ties to our immediate family fostered through evolution, the reality is that there are very specific and primary variables that far more relevant to one's development, well being and happiness. I will discuss them here.

First and foremost, financial security is paramount to a child's opportunity. Married households are more financially stable and create security for children [6]. Con is suggesting that kids with gay parents not be afforded the same opportunities and economic protection as their peers in this regard. Whether or not SSM was recognized by government, families headed by gay parents would still exist, and these people/children need legal protection.

Second, science suggests that raising happy kids requires relaying empathy, teaching kindness, encouraging laughter and fostering compassion [7]. In addition, securing your own mental health, mandating discipline and nurturing your marriage are key [8]. Absolutely none of these things are limited to opposite-sex relationships. Further they can be encouraged for gays through the legal institution and social recognition of marriage, and therefore should be extended to gay couples to encourage their relationship's success.

The greatest threats to the family are economic instability, unemployment, lack of emotional support and residential instability [9]. Once again, none of these things are pertinent to the sexuality of one's parents. While having ties, support and relationships with BOTH genders is in fact important and essential to the development of a child, kids with gay parents can have access to these role models by developing relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other people to provide similar guidance, support and nurturing pertinent to gender.

According to the American Psychological Association, not one but innumerable studies that have been done and peer-reviewed and deemed credible by the science community all conclude that sexuality is irrelevant in terms of parenting abilities and outcomes [10, 11]. If necessary, I will expand more on the scientific credibility of these studies, but this shouldn't be the focal point of the debate.

For now, consider the fact that divorce is rampant and supporting the traditional family are not legal prerequisites for marriage. Agreeing to have children is not a prerequisite for marriage either, even though many gay couples do. Some heterosexuals are infertile. Others simply don't want to have kids. Some couples are polyamorous. Others do not plan on being married forever. The point is, having a "traditional" lifestyle is not something the government requires when extending the legal protection of marriage.

In fact heterosexual couples engage in questionable marital decisions all the time. Couples who marry young are twice as likely to end in divorce than those that wait until their later 20s [12]. Still we allow young, infertile, polyamorous straight people who are disinterested in parenthood the opportunity to get married, and receive the personal (and societal) benefits and protections that are afforded to their peers. Thus it would be logical to extend these rights and privileges to gay people as well.

Gay people are forced to pay taxes like everybody else, regardless of whether or not they agree with policy. It is immoral and arguably tyrannical of government to single out this demographic as undeserving of the legal benefits and protections that are given to heterosexual couples, while still requiring of them the same obligations of citizenship. If gay adults are required to participate in and help fund government, then they should by extension be afforded the same benefits and protections.

Now as for the legal arguments...

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled fourteen times that marriage is a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals [13].

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868. It states:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 14th Amendment marked a large constitutional shift, which inhibited the state's rights to discriminate freely.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when SCOTUS struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [14].

The Due Process Clause says that states may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [15]. This essentially means the laws on record will be scrutinized for legitimacy in order to ensure people's rights are being recognized and protected. Whereas the law used to uphold outdated and immoral policy in the past, due process considers both the law as-written as well as the spirit of the law. Indeed we have made many adjustments throughout history; recognizing black people as free citizens and giving women voting/property rights are just some examples. The Equal Protection Clause looks to guarantee that all people would have rights equal to those of other citizens [16].

Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a 2010 federal court decision in which Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that the Constitutional right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner [17]. Afterward the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision along with a handful of other cases. This makes sense if you extend the same logic of due process and equal protection for gay couples. SCOTUS ruled that there was no reason to exclude gay couples from the same protection as heterosexual couples in similar relationships, which SCOTUS has every legal right to do.

The 14th Amendment posits that freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Gay Marriage is now the Constitutionally valid law of the land thanks to the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

==

In conclusion, legalized SSM is both the moral and legally righteous thing to do.

I look forward to my opponent's contentions.


SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...
David_Debates

Con

David_Debates forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

Since my opponent was out of town and had to FF, I am okay with turning this into a 2-round debate.

I wish Con the best of luck in posting his first round. I look forward to his rebuttal.
David_Debates

Con

Apologies for my forfieture, I was out of town from 6/9/16 - 6/13/16.

I'll begin with a rebuttal of my opponent's points.

1) Research also shows that the legitimization of marriage is the primary factor in considering the dissolution of all relationships. Social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity, indicating that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success [2].

I'd like to examine your source. The author states, "Lesbians seem to be more limited in the sexual tequneques than are other couples." She then makes a logical jump by stating that this is because of social repression, and not any other number of reasons, such as unhappy relations, rushing the relationship, etc. She says it herself: "In fact, an alternate way to interpret the data I gave earlier is to say that the basic problems lesbian couples have is that they couple prematurely, and that the later falling off of sexual desire is a sign that the couple never should have been together in the first place." In short, the author's data does not prove her conclusion by any means, and therefore, is not a credible source.

2) Con is arguing in favor of children with gay parents not being protected by the law as their peers are, for reasons 1) entirely out of their control, and 2) that are irrelevant in terms of reasonable comparison.

I am arguing that homosexual marriages ought to not adopt children, and that they ought to not exist because of moral reasons. Also, what is this "reasonable comparison" that you are calling for? Comparison to other children raised by heterosexuals? Please specify.

3) Almost 40% of LGBT identifying individuals have had a child.

Adopted a child. It's impossible for homosexuals to have a child. These "6 million children with gay parents" don't really have gay parents, as their biological parents are not the couple they are raised by. They have step-fathers or step-mothers.

4) There are no reliable studies indicating that a mother-father household is paramount to one's happiness of success in terms of raising children; only some studies with questionable correlation.

"Joint biological parentage, the modal condition for opposite-sex parents but not possible for same-sex parents, sharply differentiates between the two groups on child emotional problem outcomes. The two groups are different by definition. Intact opposite-sex marriage ensures children of the persistent presence of their joint biological parents; same-sex marriage ensures the opposite (1)."
This is a recent (January 25, 2015), credible (Writen by Donald Paul Sullins, a contact author), and published (British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 2015) study on the case in question. It seems to be a reliable study in all sense of the term.

5) Whether or not SSM was recognized by government, families headed by gay parents would still exist, and these people/children need legal protection.

The problem with your argument is that I can fit any immoral or illegal action in place for SSM. I'll change one of your terms to explain the fault in it:
Whether or not robbery was recognized by the government, families headed by robbers would still exist, and these people/children need legal protection.
The argument that "we shouldn't make it illegal because it'll happen anyway" is highly illogical.

6) Second, science suggests that raising happy kids requires relaying empathy, teaching kindness, encouraging laughter and fostering compassion. In addition, securing your own mental health, mandating discipline and nurturing your marriage are key. Absolutely none of these things are limited to opposite-sex relationships.

Parents are not only supposed to raise "happy kids," they are met with the daunting task of raising kids that 1) have a strong moral code, 2) are mature, 3) are able to think criticaly and well, and 4) are able to do the same to thier own kids. Taking the "don't worry, be happy" method of parenting is incredibly detrimental to the child. Unless, of course, if you belive hippies would make incredible parents.
Second, some things are limited to opposite-sex relationships. As just one example, girls without a father were more likely to be at risk than ones with. "In conclusion, father absence was an overriding risk factor for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy. Conversely, father presence was a major protective factor against early sexual outcomes, even if other risk factors were present (2)." Even a openly gay man, Doug Mainwaring (the co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots) stated his dissent when it came to the issue of children that don't have a mother or father. "It became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom... I don't want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing (3)."
Also, by what authority are you able to claim that "absolutely none of these things are limited to opposite-sex relationships?" You've offered scientific evidence for every one of your claims about what a successful marriage looks like, but you haven't offered any for SSM.

7) While having ties, support and relationships with BOTH genders is in fact important and essential to the development of a child, kids with gay parents can have access to these role models by developing relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other people to provide similar guidance, support and nurturing pertinent to gender.

You started off this paragraph on economic stability, employment, residential instability, and such. However, you then move onto a different topic entirely: relationships to other family members. You really have two different arguments in this paragraph:
1) Threats to a family dissolution are evident in any marriage, and
2) Homosexual adopted children have father or mother "figures" that they get from their realatives.
The second argument is unsuported by any evidence.

8) If necessary, I will expand more on the scientific credibility of these studies, but this shouldn't be the focal point of the debate.

Please do. If there are, as you put it, an innumerable amount studies that have been done and peer-reviewed and deemed credible by the scientific community that all conclude that sexuality is irrelevant in terms of parenting abilities and outcomes, than certainly it wouldn't hurt to extrapalate on at least, say, 3 of them, right?

9) The point is, having a "traditional" lifestyle is not something the government requires when extending the legal protection of marriage.

I'm sorry, are you arguing that the government should accept homosexual marriage as lawful, or that homosexual marriage is moraly acceptable and correct? You're definition of gay marriage seems to imply that the first is true already. To be clear, I won't be disputing this, it is quite apparent what the government's view on the subject. I'll be disputing the later, saying that homosexual marriage is, in fact, immoral.

10) Thus it would be logical to extend these rights and privileges to gay people as well.

See above.

11) If gay adults are required to participate in and help fund government, then they should by extension be afforded the same benefits and protections.

Once again, see above.

12) The freedom to marry resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

See above. I am not arguing for what the state can or can't do, I am arguing for what is moraly right and acceptable. What our current form of government finds acceptable has no bearing on the morality of the question posed (whether or not homosexuality is moraly correct and acceptable).

Now, a constructive.

Resolution: Homosexuality ought to be deemed moraly correct.

Ob. 1: Definitions
Immoral: conflicting with moral guidelines
Homosexuality: erotic activity with another of the same sex
Deemed: regarded or considered in a certain way
Correct: free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.
I reserve the right to clarify or define any new terms, if challenged by Pro.

Ob. 2: Reasons to Negate
1) Homosexuality is considered sin by religon.

It is well known that Christianity opposes homosexuality. However, almost all religious groups take a firm stance on homosexuality, specificaly, that it is immoral. In Leviticus 18:22, the Bible states, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Also, in Islamic tradition, several hadiths (passages attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) condemn gay and lesbian relationships, including the sayings "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Sihaq [lesbian sex] of women is zina [illegitimate sexual intercourse] (4)." Finaly, Pope John Paul II stated that marriage, "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman (5)…"

2) Homosexuality hurts the partners and the child, if they choose to adopt.

Since I am running out of character count, I would ask you to examine my responses to Pro's case, specificaly, to points 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

To conclude, BoP is on Pro (as she is brining an affirmative statement), to prove that
a) Homosexuality is not considered a sin by religion, and
b) Homosexuality is harmless to anyone.

Looking forward to Pro's rebuttal.

Sources:
(1) http://papers.ssrn.com...
(2) http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
(3) http://www.christianpost.com...
(4) http://www.hrc.org...
(5) http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Danielle

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.

David_Debates makes two arguments in his favor: that gay marriage is immoral, and that gay marriage hurts children. I will respond to those contentions within the defense of my proactive arguments.

1. My first contention was that people want to get married to strengthen their relationships. I've explained how marriage accomplishes this, and Con does not deny that social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity. Instead, Con scrutinizes my source and critiques comments that the author has made. However, I am in no way whatsoever obligated to defend all of the content within my source. Con does not contest my actual claims that I have cited from the source.

My point was that marriage strengthens relationships, and Con lifts a quote from the source suggesting that lesbians couple prematurely. Con has lifted the quotes out of context. The book discusses the longevity of lesbian relationships, and has found that coupling prematurely may lead to less desirable sex and problematic relationships.

First, this is not limited to lesbian couples - this book just so happens to be about lesbians. Second, the same page goes on to explain that the social sanctioning of relationships (marriage) does in fact protect marriage. The two claims are not mutually exclusive. This is a moot point, and Con must either accept my point -- that marriage strengthens relationships -- or challenge this point, specifically.

If Con does not deny that marriage strengthens relationships, then extend all of my arguments on why gay couples would benefit from having their relationships sanctioned by the government.

2. Note that my opponent does not deny that gay relationships will exist regardless of whether or not they are recognized by government. I have asked Con to distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is beneficial for only straight couples, which he was not able to do. Furthermore, I asked Con to explain why gay relationships shouldn't be fostered with legal protection, but Con dropped this point as well.

3. Con writes, "I am arguing that homosexual marriages ought to not adopt children, and that they ought to not exist because of moral reasons." First, this debate is about gay marriage, not gay adoption. Second, my opponent cites "moral reasons" for opposing gay marriage yet does not offer a sufficient standard of morality for comparison.

Nonetheless, the government does not exist to legislate morality but to protect rights. Gay relationships are consensual between loving and committed adults. There is nothing inherently immoral about that.

Any moral proposition Con might suggest would be either subjective based on his personal preferences, or religious in nature which is 100% irrelevant to government. Indeed we have a separation of church and state in this country, that makes it illegal for the government to promote religious values by law. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." [1].

Citizens of this country have different religious beliefs and should not be subjected to the beliefs of one particular group. It would be unfair and illegal to use religious doctrine as the basis for legal morality. Almost 1/4 of Americans are not affiliated with any religion [2]. While morality is arguably subjective - or at least citizens have different values - the majority of Americans support gay marriage [3]. The Constitution exists to protect people's individual rights regardless of the moral preferences of others.

4A. My opponent says that all gay parents have adopted a child which is patently false. Gay people are perfectly capable of reproducing. First, some gay people have had opposite-sex relationships or sexual relations that have yielded biological children. Second, gay couples have children through in vitro fertilization or surrogacy all the time [4]. It is completely possible and in fact popular for gay couples to have children including their own biological children.

4B. Con failed to cite a single factor (quality or trait) that is limited to heterosexuality, and/or that a gay parent could not provide their child. Con must explain why gay parents are either incapable or more unlikely to provide things like financial security, empathy and other factors that are actually relevant to parenting. In reality, the factors that most determine a good parent have nothing to do with sexuality.

4C. In the largest study ever done on gay parenting, research found that children from same-sex families scored on average 6% better on two key measures - general health and family cohesion - even when controlling for a number sociodemographic factors such as parent education and household income [5].

4D. "A five-year review of 81% of parenting studies reported that children raised by same sex parents are 'statistically indistinguishable' from those raised by straight parents in terms of self-esteem, academics and social adjustment. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association all agree that same-sex couples are just as fit to parent as their heterosexual counterparts" [6].

The Williams Institute measured aspects of the pre- and post-adoptive contexts in relation to child adjustment. It included 120 two-parent adoptive families: 40 female same-sex, 35 male same-sex, and 45 different-sex couples who adopted their children. The key findings note that parental success and child happiness were NOT relevant to the sex of the parents, but instead what was relevant were factors like stability, preparation and happiness [7].

While my opponent will presumably offer some research of his own, unfortunately I will not be able to respond (and it's against debate standard conduct to offer any new arguments in the final round). Con should have included more research showing that gay marriage is specifically harmful to children so I could have responded. Indeed the vast majority of research indicating problems with gay parents are flawed and biased. Con sourced data from one source, the CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA. Catholics are against gay marriage; it's quite obvious that these statistics are drawn from confirmation bias rooted in problematic research.

Con cites research from David Sullins - a fellow of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, a project of the anti-LGBT Family Research Council. The first major flaw of his research is the fact that Sullins has no information about whether the same-sex couples were actually married. "No conclusions can actually be drawn about the impacts of legalizing same-sex marriage because the study, by its own admission, collected no data about same-sex marriage or its effect on children" [8].

Moreover, "Sullins notes that many of the children had a biological connection to one of the same-sex parents, but it’s unknown if these are from prior relationships, which would suggest their negative outcomes are related to a broken home instead of having two parents of the same sex" [8].

Con mentions Sullins' large sample study, but a recent large study from Australia with a similarly-sized pool of same-sex parents (who had actually raised children together as couples) found that the children have quite positive outcomes [9]. Indeed, there are ample studies that consistently justify the medical community’s support for same-sex couples to have equal access to marriage.

5. Divorce is rampant and supporting the traditional family are not legal prerequisites for marriage. Heterosexual couples arguably engage in "immoral" activities and relationships, yet we do not discriminate against heterosexuals in general. Christianity and other religions are also against divorce, adultery, sex before marriage, etc. yet heterosexuals who engage in all of these behaviors are still legally allowed to wed.

6. Gay people are forced to pay taxes like everybody else, regardless of whether or not they agree with policy. It is immoral and arguably tyrannical of government to single out this demographic as undeserving of the legal benefits and protections that are given to heterosexual couples, while still requiring of them the same obligations of citizenship. If gay adults are required to participate in and help fund government, then they should by extension be afforded the same benefits and protections.

Con suggests that robbery is immoral and compares this to gay relationships. First and foremost, this is not remotely analogous as robbery requires a VICTIM. Theft means someone's (property) rights are being violated. On the contrary, nobody's rights are being violated in gay relationships. There is no victim; the relationship is voluntary and consensual. In fact, since there are many health and social benefits of committed relationships [8] then these partnerships are actually beneficial.

Second, thieves and other immoral straight people can still get married. In fact criminals can even get married when they are in prison [9]. Therefore Con is arguing against gay marriage on moral grounds - even though he hasn't proven gay marriage to be immoral, and the government allows immoral straight people (like criminals) to get married regardless.

7. On the legal arguments, extend every single one of my contentions noting that the government does not exist to legislate morality but to protect rights. Ergo, the First Amendment, Supremacy Clause, Supreme Court rulings, and all other legal precedent I have mentioned is perfectly valid at legitimizing gay marriage from a legal standpoint. The legal standard exists to protect what is morally just: protecting rights, including minority rights.


SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...
David_Debates

Con

Seeing as this is the final round, I will not make any new arguments, as to not be unfair to Pro.

1) I do contest claims you have raised. Specifically, that social sanction will keep marriages together. I point out
a) social sanction is not the strongest bond of marriage (love is), and
b) there are countless other factors that can lead to dissolving a marriage.
In short, I believe that homosexual marriage divorces will continue as usual, and will not be in any way strengthened by social sanction.
Also, I show how your source
a) does not follow any logical pattern (jumps from not enough sexual tequniques in lesbian sex to social sanction is holding them back), and
b) tells the reader that there are different and equally valid ways to interpret her own data.
I don't disagree that marriage would strengthen a relationship, but I do disagree that if that homosexual marriage was accepted by society it would somehow "make it stronger." Do you see the distinction, Pro?

2) I need not "distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is beneficial for only straight couples," I need to show whether or not homosexuality is immoral. This is the topic of the debate, right? The morality of homosexuality?

3) This is not my burden to offer a moral standard. It is the burden of the person offering the affirmative statement, and therefore, it is Pro's burden to offer an objective moral standard to which we compare homosexuality.

Exactly my point. The Government is not, should not, and will not be a moral guideline. Therefore, we should not look at any of its laws or regulations to prove the morality of a certain issue. For this reason, any
1) constitutional arguments, or
2) arguments of "the government has to..."
should be disregarded, as the Gov't has no say on whether something is or isn't immoral.

Once again, an argument to "what the government has to do" and "legal morality." See above.

4A) I say that gay parents are not both biological parents of the child. One can be, I will give you that, but not both. This child will most likely never know who the other parent is. In other words, at least one of the partners in the relationship will know that that isn't his kid. For this reason, the homosexual couple cannot truly be the biological parents of the child.

4B) You have brought no evidence to combat my study... Oh wait, here's some! Let's examine them.

4C) First, you state that it is "The largest study ever done on gay parenting." However, it only involves 315 homosexual parents. Divide by 2 partners to each couple, that's... well, it's under 200 homosexual couples. The largest study that has ever been done that concludes gender of parents doesn't matter uses a sample group under 200.
Second, the data on the children was "parent-reported," meaning the parents gave data on how the children felt. The children had no say in the matter. This is how the parents thought their kids were faring, and not the kids themselves.
In short, the methodology and very low sample size of this study render it not credible, and I urge the judges to disregard it for these reasons.

4D) Simply quoting "www.salon.com" is not sufficient, Pro. I'm sure the judges would agree that this website isn't a credible source for evidence. You have failed to
a) give a name of the study, and
b) show why the study is credible at all. I don't know if it is credible or not because I don't know what the study is even called!
Based upon this alone, you haven't met your burden of proof here, and, as stated before, since you are bringing the affirmative statement, it is your burden and yours alone.

Also, the Williams Institute has the same problem as above: it is too small of a sample group. The study relies on 45 heterosexual couples and 75 homosexual couples to come to a conclusion on "how happy the kids are." Another thing to consider is that the conclusion proves nothing. The argument it makes is:
A) All families that are happy have happy kids.
B) Some families that are happy are homosexual families.
C) Therefore, some homosexual families have happy kids.
I can make the exact same argument in reverse:
A) All families that are unhappy have unhappy kids.
B) Some families that are unhappy are homosexual families.
C) Therefore, some homosexual families have unhappy kids.
The study attempts at "proving homosexual families have happy kids," when it cannot prove anything. It can show that it is somewhat likely that some homosexual families would have happy kids, but it does not prove that all homosexual families would have happy kids.

I do cite David Sullins as evidence. Pro makes the argument of bias, however, the same can be made to her sources.

Her first study is written by Simon R. Crouch. He is the current leader of the group "The Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families (ACHEES)," a group that strongly supports homosexual marriage (1).

Her second study is written by www.salon.com. This site is clearly and definitely liberal, and states it themselves: "Online journal of arts and culture and politics with a liberal bent (2)." Just a few of the top articles confirm this is not just a slight slant.
"Beyond Trump’s threat: The GOP, with help from the left, has been destroying democracy for decades"
"A round of applause for Chris Murphy: The Connecticut senator brilliantly filibusters to end Republican obstructionism on gun control"
"The Republicans’ November fantasy: A glance at the GOP’s swing state strategy ought to delight Democrats everywhere"

Her final study that she sites is from Williams Institute, a institute claims to be unbiased and to be "dedicated to conducting rigorous, independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy (3)." However, one look at the "Press Releases" section of the website shows the opposite: a discernible, definite bias towards the LGBT community.
"New Study Shows No Differences in Family Relationships or Child Health Outcomes between Same-sex and Different-sex Parent Households"
"Transgender people who are sexual minorities are more likely to be harassed, new study shows"
"HB2 Could Cost North Carolina Almost $5 Billion a Year"

While Pro can state all she wants that my studies are biased, it really comes down to one fact: all scientists are biased. I have shown how David Sullins' study is not only more credible than the ones cited by Pro, I have also shown how Pro's argument to bias backfires against her own studies.

Also, I am allowed to counter your evidence with my own. I can't bring up any new arguments, but since you brought up new evidence during the final round, I am allowed to bring up new evidence as well. For this reason, in response to your study in 4D, I would ask the judges to examine the merit of this article on the subject (or rather, an examination of other articles) as counter-evidence, and counter-evidence only (4).

5) Once again, "legally allowed to wed." I repeat my response to your 3rd point.

Also, to your argument that heterosexuals commit sin. Yes, we do. I'll give a breakdown of my religion argument:
The Bible outlines:
1) Same-sex intercourse is a sin (Leviticus 18:22).
2) Those who sin and do not repent are condemned to death (Romans 6:23).
3) Therefore, engaging in same-sex intercourse and not repenting for these actions condemn you to death.
However, the Bible is misinterpreted by many different people. Some radical Christians ignore a fundamental part of Christianity:
All men have sinned (Romans 3:23).
In other words, homosexuality is a sin, but it is no worse of a sin than if I were to be sexually promiscuous.

Here are Jesus' own words, they sum up my argument better than I could (Luke 13:2-5):
2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?
3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

6) More legal arguments. This is not relevant to the debate on morality at hand. Unless, of course, you are offering your objective standard of morality to be the US Government. If so, you've contradicted yourself on this point. "Nonetheless, the government does not exist to legislate morality but to protect rights (Round 4, Pro)."

7) See above.

In conclusion, Pro has failed to
1) Offer an objective standard of morality of which to compare homosexuality,
2) Give sufficient credible sources that prove gender has no bearing in parenting, and
3) Meet her BoP.

I have met my burden by refuting Pro's arguments that have pertinence to this debate. I have not refuted Pro's legal arguments as they do not pertain to the question of morality. Pro agrees with me.

For these reasons, vote Con.

Wonderful debate! Best of luck in future debates.

Sources:
(1) http://www.achess.org.au...
(2) http://www.salon.com...
(3) http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
(4) http://ic.galegroup.com...
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by David_Debates 5 months ago
David_Debates
Thanks, whiteflame.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: youmils03// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: pro

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Udel 5 months ago
Udel
DanielleDavid_DebatesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: my rfd is here in this thread http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/88549/