1. By having both a legitimate mother and father, children are exposed to two diverse ways of life. Having both a mother and father provides a conditional and unconditional way of loving kids which is vital to development in kids. By having two partners of the same sex raise a kid there is a good chance that either the conditional or unconditional aspect of love will be missing which will significantly harm the child's development.
2. Adoption between two people who are unable to produce by the laws of nature shouldn't be able to raise children as their own. To stop your rebuttal in saying that a sterile man and woman shouldn't be able to adopt then, I said by the laws of nature. In no situation can two men or two women make a fetus. If a sterile man and woman are married and meet the qualifications of adoption then by all means they should be able to adopt.
3. STD/STI's. Approximately 2% of the United States population is homosexual. But of all the people in the United States infected with HIV/AIDS, 61% are homosexual. This clearly shows a health risk towards those who are homosexual. According to Health24.com, "the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual,"mainly due to HIV/AIDS In a sampling of 21 different cities, roughly 1 in 5 men (%19.1) that have sex with men (MSM), were infected with HIV/AIDS and 44% of these men were unaware of their extremely dangerous condition.
4. Mental health issues are also prevalent. Homosexuals are 50% more likely to be depressed or have substance abuse issues than straight people. Health24.com which is the source of this information states that, "the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle." There have also empirical tests that show, "there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment."
I realize that two of my sources are religious based but I'd like to establish that I am an Atheist so religion in this debate does not sway me either way.
I. Argument against OP's sources
Pro has used very poor sources for his opening arguments. He had told me he had serious research to support his claim that homosexual marriage is wrong. The Catholic News agency and Christian Apologetics Group are well known for relentlessly defending any which quote in the bible. These would be considered both secondary and bias sources.
II. Children of Homosexuals lack unconditional love
There are a couple things the audience should consider when evaluating this contention.....- Does Pro display substantiated reasoning?- Is this reasoning backed by a reliable source?
- Does this even relate to the resolution?I would argue the resolution is 100% negated.Same-sex Parents and Their Children
Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. In fact, one comprehensive study of children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers concluded that children raised by same-sex parents did not differ from other children in terms of emotional functioning, sexual orientation, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, learning and grade point averages. Where research differences have been found, they have sometimes favored same-sex parents. For example, adolescents with same-sex parents reported feeling more connected at school. Another study reported that children in gay and lesbian households are more likely to talk about emotionally difficult topics, and they are often more resilient, compassionate and tolerant.
III. Homosexuality is not natural
This contention shouldn't even be considered. He had no reasoning besides his own opinion. He has the BOP. Its up to him to prove that homosexual love is un-natural. What makes him think this? Is it religion? To make us believe a religious argument, he must first prove god exists, and that divine entity disapproves.
He has done no such thing.
Homosexuality Is Natural
September 10, 2013
It is often argued that homosexuality or bisexuality are not normal, or not natural, and that they have no place on this Earth. This, however, is just a misconception based on insufficient information or indoctrination.
In some ways we could argue that since it happens at all, that it is natural. Unless we assume there is some unnatural external force teaching or manipulating some of us, seemingly at random, that could change what we were sexually attracted to. Of course some people claim this to be the case; claiming the cause is the media or the devil, and unfortunately some naturally homosexual people believe that too, living a life in denial, or attending some conversion therapy in an attempt to ‘be normal’.
Read more: http://www.exposingtruth.com...;
IV. HIV connection to marriage
Simply stated, there is none. He even had his statistics wrong. The government has a 5% census of homosexuals in America, with research services projecting 11% as the total populous who has sexual attractions to the opposite sex. As for HIV control, this is wildly misconceived.
His OWN source, says that the spread of HIV is not inherent in only homosexuals. A hetero sexual commiting sodomy, which happens a lot more than you might think, is just as likely to get or give aids than a homosexual couple. Not onlu does this have nothing to do with marriage, but its a slanted statistic that he used in his favor. Unless my opponent can connect aids with marriage, or prove that HIV is genetic in homosexuals (Which means he has to concede his natural argument).
He has already contradicted his old contention.
V. Mental Illness
Once again, I am left wondering how this connects to marriage. Are you saying depressed people aren't allowed to get married? What about those who are not depressed? I bet he was unaware that 40% of the TOTAL population expiriences some form of stress, axiety, or depression.
We can easily see him slanting statistics in his favor again.
My opponent gave it a good go for his first debate, but he has dug himself into to deep of a hole. I call for him to concede the debate, unless he can defend all his slants, sources, and fallacious reasoning. I wish my opponent luck in future endeavors, and he is welcome to ask for advice at any time.