The Instigator
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Mrparkers
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Same-Sex Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 6 votes the winner is...
Mrparkers
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,510 times Debate No: 34444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

xXCryptoXx

Con

I will be arguing against same-sex marriage, and that marriage should be between a woman and a man.

My opponent will be arguing in favor of same-sex marriage.

There will be no need for definitions seeing that this debate is self-explanatory.

Rules

No semantics, trolling, or anything that would be deemed innapropriate by the average DDO member.

First round is for acceptance.

Good luck!

Mrparkers

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
xXCryptoXx

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate! Good luck and have fun!

Marriage and Procreation

What makes marriage what it is? What makes marriage special so that it should only be obtained by man and woman together? The answer is the relationship that only heterosexual couples can pursue. Normally the argument in support of gay marriage goes along the lines of, “Oh well they really love each other so they should get married!” If marriage was about the emotional connection then why wouldn’t the two people simply stay in a non-marital relationship? There is no point in recognizing a relationship that is only out of love. Obviously, only man and woman can procreate. Without procreation a society could not continue to live or thrive. The reason the man and woman get the marriage benefits is because they are doing society a “favor” per say by procreating and allowing the society to live. This is something homosexuals simply cannot do. Procreation and the proper raising of children are at the base of marriage; it is the main reason marriage exists. This fits the traditional view of marriage, which is between man and woman. Gay marriage gives absolutely no value to society at all as a whole. At the heart of marriage is also the proper raising of children, therefore infertile heterosexual couples can and should also be able to get married. Even though they cannot procreate, they can adopt and raise children for society; therefore they still provide society benefits.


Marriage Between Man and Woman

Now from my last point, it may sound like my arguments go along the line of procreation and the proper raising of children being the only important thing in marriage. While procreation is what benefits society in essence, marriage is more than that.

Men and women are complimentary to each other in marriage, and through the loving (and natural) relationship they pursue. This loving relationship fulfilled at its best (much like a tree that bears fruit) produces children for society and raises them properly to continue societal growth. Marriage between man and woman connects sexual intercourse with love and not lust, sexual intercourse connects with children, and the children connect to being raised and loved by their mom and dad. This is all good for society and is a role in marriage that can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman. Marriage is about the relationship between man and woman, and when that relationship is fulfilled at its best, it commonly becomes a loving family that raises children properly for society. Not only does gay marriage not fulfill this role, but allowing gay marriage actually distorts this role, leading to marriage ultimately losing its meaning.


Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited

There is a limited role that the government should, and should not do with marriage. Hopefully the government would never go as far as to legalize marriages based around pedophilia, bestiality, having multiple spouses, ect. In order to preserve the sanctity and meaning of marriage, the government must draw the line somewhere on who gets married. It logical to see that this line should be drawn at marriage between a man and a woman. Reasoning behind this can be seen in my procreation argument and my argument over the relationships heterosexual couples pursue. Marriages between man and woman benefit society while not complicating society like having multiple spouses could do. Once marriage only becomes an emotional relationship between two people and nothing more, the meaning behind marriage is lost.

There is a reason that the government regulates marriage. This reason is that marriage between man and woman is inherently good in the sense that it has a special link to procreation and the proper raising of children for society. The government would be doing a poor job regulating marriage if they allowed anything that didn’t have the best societal structure interest in mind.

Parenting among homosexuals

Obviously one of the most important things in society is the children and how they are raised. Children need to be raised well in order to keep the society moving forward without problems. Homosexuals cannot achieve the expectations set in raising children well, or even better than heterosexual parents and I will now explain why.

A study taken in July of 2012 proved that homosexual parents fail in all categories in being better than their heterosexual counterparts at parenting.

"Homosexually-behaving adults inherently suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse; therefore, as a group, households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home environments needed by foster children."(1)(4)

A study taken from the Journal of Human Sexuality concludes the following:

  1. The presence of a father reduces the chances that the child will participate in criminal activities and reduces the chances the child will take drugs.
  2. Lesbian mothers make children more sexually active. Fathers help the child stay chaste.
  3. “Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex.” (3)
  4. People have the best sex lives when raised by heterosexual parents.
  5. Fathers help children with interaction among other people.
  6. When going through puberty, the father teaches the son “how to be assertive and how to be a “man”. (3)

violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples, and homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages”. (4)

I will concede to the point that there are homosexuals that can raise children better than some heterosexual couples. To clear up why it still isn’t appropriate to allow the exceptions, I will give this analogy:

“we should not stop warning people about the dangers of smoking just because some smokers outlive non-smokers. Nor should we stop warning people about the dangers of homosexual behavior or parenting just because some homosexuals outlive heterosexuals or parent better.

If laws were based on exceptions, we would have to do away with virtually every law we have. It would require that we do away with all laws against running red lights because sometimes running a red light will not hurt anyone. In fact, it would require that we do away with marriage itself because spouses in some marriages abuse one another and their children.”(4)


(1) http://catholiceducation.org...

(2) Journal of Human Sexuality

(3) Quote from Fanboy in his debate, “Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.”

(4) http://www.allaboutlove.org...

(5) http://www.lifesitenews.com...

Over to you Pro.

Mrparkers

Pro

Because the negative is the instigator of this debate, I will be using this round mainly to address the points made by my opponent, as well as bring up a point that I would like to defend for the rest of this debate.

Definition(s):

Marriage - A social union or legal contract between people that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged.

The affirmative argument:

Marriage is a right that should be enjoyed by all people, not just those that meet certain requirements.

Historically speaking, the reasons for which two people get married have changed dramatically throughout the years. Early recorded history displays marriage not as a display of love between two consenting adults, but as a strategic ploy to establish diplomatic ties between two individuals. Whether or not two people would get married was entirely up to their parents, whose job it was to marry off their children to establish connections with families just as wealthy as their own. In the 12thcentury, this was completely changed by the Roman Catholic Church by declaring marriage a holy sacrament, which defined marriage as a divine tie between two individuals that were destined by God to be together. This idea of marriage was almost completely forgotten by the time the 17th century rolled around and British Parliament passed an act that allowed an individual to divorce his wife.

What does any of this have to do with same sex marriage? Well, the point is that marriage is an institution that has changed several times throughout the course of history. Defining marriage based on what it has been “traditionally” is a near impossible task, because the institution of marriage along with the reasons people have to get married have been constantly changing.

Currently, marriage is about love and commitment, and these two attributes are not limited to being shared by a man and a woman ONLY.

The negative would like to convince you that there exists a certain set of requirements for a marriage that reflect the best possible conditions for which two individuals can happily live together. The big question is this: How do you know YOUR set of requirements is the correct conditions for whether or not to allow a marriage? Who has the right to decide what these requirements are? If the negative would like to suggest that there should be certain limitations on the institution of marriage, then there must be a follow up explanation that explains why the negative has the right to impose such limitations on the rest of humanity.

The negative arguments:

a) Marriage and Procreation

To summarize the negative’s first argument, he states that marriage should be restricted ONLY to individuals who are able to procreate. He states that because of this reasoning, marriage should only be permitted as long as it is between a man and a woman.

There is an obvious, inherent flaw with this line of reasoning. In short, if the negative’s procreation requirement were enacted, the following individuals would not be allowed to get married:

  1. Homosexual men and women.
  2. Men and women who are naturally unable to produce offspring.
  3. Men and women who, by choice, do not desire to produce offspring.

Unlike the negative, I see no reason to restrict these individuals from the right of marriage.

The negative covers their ground on this issue by saying that heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate can simply adopt offspring to make up for their shortcomings, to which I respond that homosexual couples can also do this, making the negative’s point non-unique.

b) Marriage between man and woman

The negative’s second argument goes on to say that procreation isn’t the only reason that same sex marriage should be disallowed, but because men and women are complimentary to each other, and are capable of loving each other and having intercourse that is not based on lust.

The problem with this argument is that the negative fails to explain why all of these things cannot also be shared between two homosexual individuals. Why exactly can intercourse only be done without lust between a man and a woman? Why can only men and woman have a loving natural relationship? Why is a relationship between a man and a woman beneficial to society, but not a relationship between two homosexuals? All of these are questions that are left completely unanswered. This argument should be disregarded unless the negative can provide detailed answers to these questions.

c) Government had a role in marriage, however that role should be limited

In short, the negative’s argument here is that the government’s involvement with the institution of marriage should be limited as much as possible. The negative concludes that the government must inevitably decide upon certain terms and conditions that determine whether or not a couple can get married, and that these terms and conditions should disallow same sex marriage, because of the negative’s procreation argument.

The negative goes on to say that if the government decides that same sex marriage should be legalized, “the meaning behind marriage is lost”.

This entire argument is based off what the negative calls “the meaning of marriage”, however, the negative does not give an accurate description of what exactly “the meaning of marriage” really is. He fails to mention this at all in the entire argument. On that note, he fails to give a definition of marriage at all. Fortunately for the readers, I have given a definition of the word marriage, and with this in mind, the negative’s third argument can be completely dismissed, because same sex marriage does not conflict with the definition that I have provided.

d) Parenting among homosexuals

In this argument, the negative argues that homosexual couples would be unfit parents when compared to heterosexual couples. The negative attempts to demonstrate this by citing the results of a study conducted by the Journal of Human Sexuality in 2012, which unlike any of the negative’s other citations, was not hyperlinked back to the original study. I was unable to find the study on my own, and thus, I am unable to respond to it. I urge the voters to disregard all claims made by the negative in this argument until he is able to provide the actual study that he references.

Unlike my opponent, I will actually link to a study that is essentially a compilation of research done over the course of 30 years that directly contradicts everything my opponent has said in this argument. The study concludes that sexual orientation of parents has nothing to do with either competency or the ability to raise a child.[1]

In fact, the study goes on to say that competency of homosexual parents is negatively affected by the popular notion that same-sex marriage should be illegal and that homosexuals are unfit parents. That’s right, any negative parenting traits that my opponent can slap onto homosexual parents is directly correlated to societal restrictions on their livelihood, which is exactly what my opponent is advocating for in the first place.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, never has the institution of marriage been solely about how many offspring you can produce, and I don’t believe it ever will. There is no reason for anyone to believe that homosexual couples cannot share the same love and commitment as heterosexuals, and it is for this reason, that I urge a vote for the affirmative.

Families don’t derive their sense of worth from being told ‘You’re married, congratulations’. No, the sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other; to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us; that’s what makes a family.” [2]

Citations:

1: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
2: YouTube video above

Debate Round No. 2
xXCryptoXx

Con


Thank you for your response.



The affirmative argument:


I do not believe marriage is a right that should be enjoyed by all people if the current reason marriage exists is to benefit society.


My opponent’s main argument here is that marriage changes a bunch of times over history, so that we should be able to justify same-sex marriage because marriage right now is about the emotional commitment between two consenting adults and nothing else.


Now he begs the questions, How do you know YOUR set of requirements is the correct conditions for whether or not to allow a marriage?”


Thank you for asking.


Marriage is best used to benefit the society. If marriage had no use in society, the state wouldn’t recognize it. Point is, marriage has a rather large role in the well being of society and its best if we define it in a way that benefits society the best. The best way to define marriage for the well being of society is by defining it between man and woman. Marriage between man and woman inherently benefits society in the sense that it has a special link to procreation and the proper raising of children. Obviously society needs children to continue, and it’s a big ol’ bonus if you can raise them correctly.


In addition, the state recognizes the benefits traditional marriage brings so they “reward” them with marital rights. There is no need to recognize a marriage that gives no benefits to society.



Marriage and Procreation


My opponent predictably states that under my logic, couples who are sterile or choose not to procreate should not be able to get married along with homosexuals.


In my opening argument, I clearly stressed how the proper raising of children is just as important as procreation itself.


Marriage is about the possibility, not necessarily the results.


The relationship heterosexuals pursue is inherently good and has a special link to procreation and the proper raising of children. Whether or not they choose to procreate or raise children is irrelevant as long as inherently they can do so.


Anyways, it very illogical to think the government would actually go out of the way to find every heterosexual couple that cannot produce, or chooses not to and not recognizing their marriage; there is no point to it.


My opponent claims that homosexuals can too adopt children to raise, but homosexuals cannot raise children properly for society.


I will further show this in my rebuttals.


Marriage between Man and Woman


Now, this is mostly a cross-examination of my arguments so I will answer accordingly.


My opponent provides no rebuttals, but instead three questions.


A note before I answer the questions, my opponent only seemed to nitpick at one thing that men and women are complimentary on, which is how sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is connected to love and not lust (when used correctly of course; anyone can lust.)


My opponent does not seem to deny that “sexual intercourse connects with children, and the children connect to being raised and loved by their mom and dad” which was the more important part of my statement.


On to my opponent’s questions:


“Why exactly can intercourse only be done without lust between a man and a woman?”


I do not want to stress very much importance on this subject seeing that morality can arguably be seen as subjective and that lust is sometimes not necessarily seen as bad.


What I meant was that only man and woman can connect sexual intercourse with what sex was lf, if not more important.


Marriage is about the possibility, not the act.


Whether or not the couple chooses to reproduce, or to adopt a child is irrelevant as long as there is the possibility that they will. Marriage is about the relationship heterosexuals pursue, and at the peak of that relationship, they naturally benefit society through procreation and the proper raising of children.


Homosexuals cannot connect sexual intercourse with children which can be seen as lustful from a certain moral point. However, this is all very subjective so again, I do not want to stress very much importance over this.


Point is, man and woman can connect sex with children, and homosexuals cannot.


“Why can only men and woman have a loving natural relationship?”


In a sense, any human can pursue a loving relationship with anything.


Heterosexuals only though, can pursue an inherently good relationship to benefit society.


Their relationship is natural in the sense that man and woman were made for each other, and that they again, can connect sexual intercourse with love and procreation which is all good good good for society.


“Why is a relationship between a man and a woman beneficial to society, but not a relationship between two homosexuals?”


The only reason that homosexual marriage could be bad for society is that it distorts the image of the good heterosexual marriage. Otherwise it doesn’t benefit, or help society, and because it doesn’t help society it doesn’t deserve marital rights.


Heterosexual marriage is the type of marriage that benefits our society the best, to allow any other relationship into the marriage would not hold the society’s best interest.


Government had a role in marriage, however that role should be limited


My opponent gives only one rebuttal, and that basically has to do with his use of semantics.


My opponent says I have not defined the meaning of marriage at all through-out my argument, and that providing one definition of marriage satisfies what the “meaning” of marriage is. Not my opponent obviously misinterpreted what I meant by “meaning”. I did not mean the definition of marriage itself, but the definition of a marriage that benefits society the best.


The reason I did not provide the definition of marriage in the OP is because we are actually defining marriage in this debate.


Now I explain my definition of marriage to you (after all, we are defining marriage in this debate.) and that is what I will be what you can look at whenever I say “meaning of marriage.”


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.


Parenting Among Homosexuals


I do apologize for my inadequate source. Here is a link:


http://www.scribd.com...


In response to my opponent’s study, well this should clear it up:


“A persistent claim by those supporting same-sex marriages is that there is “no difference” in the outcomes of children raised by a biological mother and father and those who have been raised by two women or two men. That claim was made to the courts below, and will no doubt be made to this Court by associations like the American Psychological Association (“APA”). But as recent scholarship indicates, the claim is difficult to support because nearly all of the studies upon which the “no


difference” assertion is based are rather limited, involving non-random, non representative samples, often with relatively few participants. Specifically, the vast majority of the studies were based on samples of fewer than 100 parents (or children), and typically representative only of well-educated, white women (parents), often with elevated incomes. These are hardly representative samples of the lesbian and gay population raising children, and therefore not a sufficient basis to make broad claims about child outcomes of same-sex parenting structures.”(1)



In addition, my opponent states that the main reason homosexuals are deemed as bad parents is because of social restrictions on their lively hood. I ask my opponent to please elaborate because I find it illogical to assume that violence among homosexuals partners, drug use, mental sickness, divorces, conduct disorder, suicidal attempt ect. ect. ect. is strictly related to societal restrictions



Back to you Pro.




(1) http://www.adfmedia.org...


Mrparkers

Pro

Countering the negative arguments:

Marriage and procreation:

My opponent tries to defend his argument by saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman because procreation is possible. The negative claims that it is irrelevant whether or not a couple chooses to procreate, as long as they are able to, then they can get married. The first crucial flaw with this argument is that my opponent never gives you a reason to accept this definition of marriage. He doesn’t even attempt to justify this line of thinking. If you choose to accept this definition, then consider artificial insemination. Due to artificial insemination, homosexual couples can actually procreate. Thus, under the negative’s definition, homosexuals should be allowed to be married.

Unlike my opponent, I will give good reasons as to why marriage should not be solely about procreation, but about love and happiness. Contrary to what the negative believes, marriage is not all about procreation. People can procreate without getting married, and people who get married do not always choose to procreate. On the other hand, the vast majority of marriages center around a couple’s love for each other, and their desire to be 100% committed to each other. Almost every single wedding vow is centered around love and commitment, not about procreation. Couples don’t get married just so they can have kids. Clearly this is not what marriage is all about.

My point is simple: Love and commitment is not limited to heterosexuals. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are BOTH human beings that are capable of sharing the exact same kind of love for each other, and it is for this reason that marriage should not be restricted to just one group of people. There is no reason to treat a portion of the population as second class citizens who do not share the same rights as everyone else. I am curious to see exactly why the negative feels that homosexuals, who make up roughly 3.4% of the U.S population [1], do not deserve to have the right to marry the person they love.

Marriage between men and woman:

My opponent makes several unsubstantiated claims throughout his defense of this argument. The negative claims that “Heterosexuals only though, can pursue an inherently good relationship to society”, but fails to explain why. He also claims that “Man and woman can connect sex with children, and homosexuals cannot”, and again, fails to explain why.

The last thing the negative does in this argument is claim that homosexual marriage is bad because it “distorts the image of the good heterosexual image”. Again, my opponent fails to explain how they do this, and my opponent also fails to explain why the heterosexual marriage is good and why the homosexual marriage is so bad that it distorts everyone else’s marriages.

I urge the voters to disregard the entirety of this argument made by the negative, due to the fact that he cannot, or will not, defend the claims that he has made.

Government’s role in marriage:

I urge the voters to take notice that in the defense of this argument, the negative completely disregarded everything he has said in the original argument. All he does to defend this argument is say that marriage is about the good relationship that only heterosexuals can pursue, but again, fails to explain why it is restricted to heterosexuals only.

My refutation of this argument is simple: The government’s role in marriage will be the same no matter where they draw the line. The fact that they are drawing the line somewhere remains the same, so the government’s role in this issue will not change regardless of what stance they ultimately take.

Parenting among Homosexuals:

Most of my opponent’s augments rest on this premise. In my last post, I cited a longitudinal study done over 30 years with 154 couples participating. The study’s conclusion found that the effectiveness of parenting was determined by the competency of the parents, and had nothing to do with the parent’s sexual orientation[2].

The negative, as it seems, did not even look at the study, and instead cited a quote that claimed that most every study done on homosexuals must be invalidated because of lack or randomness and lack of participants. The ironic thing is that by posting this quote, the negative has effectively invalidated the paper that his entire argument is dependent on. If the negative wants to claim that most studies done on homosexuals are invalidated, then he must deal with the fact that his paper is a study on homosexuals and thus is also invalidated.

This is beside the point. The point is that the study I cited is referred to as a longitudinal study. By definition it cannot be random; the structure of the study done relies on the opt-in method of selection. It included 154 participants, which is more than the quote the negative cited required. The research was done over a course of 30 years, a random element would have messed up the entire process. To quote the paper that the negative cited: “If one wanted to see the overall outcomes for same-sex parents versus heterosexual parents, one would start at one time and follow the children to a later point in time and then assess their progress without selecting out those parents who had separated”[3].

Now to talk about the negative’s cited paper: The Journal of Human Sexuality. Upon actually reading the paper, I found out that no empirical evidence was actually given to support the conclusion that homosexuals are unfit parents. All the study actually does is cite other studies that are between 10 and 20 years old that make claims that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental health problems, or that homosexual parenting will lead to homosexual children. Nowhere in the entire study is the connection made between these claims and the claim that homosexuals are unfit parents. In short, the paper says that the higher rate of mental health problems will probably lead to unfit parenting, but again, no empirical evidence is ever given to support this conclusion.


Defending my argument:

This entire debate is boiling down to these two factors: Procreation, and the proper raising of children, which my opponent argues are the only benefits to marriage.

As far as procreation goes, I have already explained that if marriage is based solely on procreation, then a number of people besides homosexuals would also be excluded from marriage, which is irrational. My opponent claims that marriage is about the possibility of procreation, not necessarily the results (notice that my opponent’s definition of “the meaning of marriage” has changed yet again). I have already explained that due to artifical insemination, this is possible for homosexual couples and therefore valid.

As far as the proper raising of children goes, you can refer to my critiques of my opponent’s argument to see that homosexual parenting is not any worse than heterosexual parenting. I have already adequately explained why the study I have cited should be taken into consideration, and why the study my opponent cited is clearly flawed and does not accurately demonstrate the claims that it has made.

To summarize:
  1. My opponent is relentlessly arguing that marriage is all about procreation but has failed to give a reason as to why you should accept this claim.
  2. My opponent insists that heterosexual relationships are inherently good, and homosexual relationships are not, but fails to explain why.
  3. My opponent insists that most studies done on homosexuals fail to meet certain criteria, and therefore invalidaded the study that his entire argument depends on.
  4. My opponent's cited paper does not offer any empirical evidence that links claimed poor mental health with unfit parenting.
Debate Round No. 3
xXCryptoXx

Con


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:




  1. “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.”




  1. “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




  1. I have shown that only heterosexuals can procreate in a natural relationship and raise children properly.

  2. I have shown why the natural relationship between man and woman is the relationship that best benefits society.

  3. I have shown why the government should draw a line where marriage best benefits society.

  4. I have shown that heterosexuals are naturally better parents than homosexuals.

  5. 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.


Mrparkers

Pro

A final refutation of the negative arguments:



Marriage and Procreation:


The negative makes the mistake, yet again, of claiming that marriage should be solely about procreation and the proper raising of children, and still failing to give the voters a single reason as to why these claims should be accepted. In the last round, I not only gave a definition of what marriage should really be about, but I also was able to give good reasons to accept these claims. My opponent has failed to do so.


Reasons to reject this argument:



  1. Throughout the entire round, my opponent made no effort to explain why his definition of marriage should be accepted over mine.

  2. I have given enough reason and thought for the voters to accept my definition of marriage, which was given in the last argument I made, and my opponent has made no attempt to refute this.


Premise 1 falls.



Marriage between a Man and a Woman:


This argument rests on the idea that marriage between men and women are the only way to go because of procreation and the proper raising of children. I have already explained that procreation is still possible with homosexual marriage, and my opponent has made no attempt to refute this.


As far as the proper raising of children goes, this claim depends on my opponent’s attachment to the Journal of Human Sexuality, which I will completely and thoroughly refute later on.


Reasons to reject this argument:



  1. My opponent has still been unable to explain why procreation and the proper raising of children are the only benefits from a marriage that actually matter.

  2. My opponent has failed to refute the argument I made about artificial insemination, and depends on the Journal of Human Sexuality to hold up his claim of the proper raising of children.


Premise 2 falls.



Government and Marriage:


My opponent recognized that my argument that the government drawing the line somewhere will result in the same involvement in the institution of marriage, and yet failed to refute it. My opponent continues to repeat himself saying that the government needs to draw the line at marriage between men and women only, yet fails to back up this claim, only telling the readers to refer to his previous arguments.


Reasons to reject this argument:



  1. My opponent fails to refute the counter-argument I made, saying that the government’s involvement will be the same regardless of where they draw the line.

  2. My opponent again claims that the government must draw the line at marriage between men and women and fails to explain why, deferring to his previous arguments, which have all fallen.


Premise 3 falls.



Homosexuals and Parenting:


It would appear that my opponent did not even completely read the counter-argument that I offered. Let me re-iterate why the Journal of Human Sexuality should be completely disregarded when evaluating this argument:


Like I said in my original counter-argument, the Journal of Human Sexuality is simply just a compilation of different studies between 10-20 years old that make claims that homosexuals have a higher rate of mental disorders, or have a higher chance at raising homosexuals, etc. Nowhere in the entire study is any real empirical evidence given that has anything to do with parenting. There is not even a single piece of evidence to be found that says anything about a homosexual’s competency as a parent. All the study is effectively doing is saying “Hey, homosexuals are more likely to raise a homosexual, and they have a higher rate of mental disorders, this will probably lead to bad parenting”, but nowhere is this connection ever established with any sort of acceptable evidence. This is why the Journal of Human Sexuality should be completely disregarded. (note: none of what I am saying now is new content, I have said all of this in my previous argument, and my opponent either failed to read it or failed to respond to it).


Next, my opponent makes a weak attempt at discrediting the evidence that I have offered by saying that, like his evidence, it is just a compilation of studies that point to a different conclusion. This is blatantly wrong. My evidence, like I have said twice now, is a longitudinal study done over the course of 30 years with over a hundred participants. A longitudinal study, in case my opponent is unaware, is a correlational research study that involves repeated observations of the same variables over long periods of time. Even though this study does reference other studies to help derive to the same conclusion, the core of the data comes from a longitudinal study which focuses on observation of children of homosexual couples over the time span of 30 years. This is why my study is credible, because it uses actual data that answers the question “Can homosexuals be good parents?” with an answer that can be backed up using actual evidence.


To finalize my opponent’s defense of his argument, he cites two snippets from the study he has offered, both of which are perfect examples of the kind of evidence that does not answer the question he is asking. Boys being less masculine and less sexually adventurous has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, and certainly do not demonstrate whether or not homosexuals are good parents. The negative claims that my study is biased, which is ironic, seeing a the study he cited was created by NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), which is infamous for its use of outdated and bad science, along with its extreme stance on homosexuality.



Reasons to reject this argument:



  1. This argument, and by extension, my opponent’s entire case, rests upon a paper that does not actually give any sort of empirical evidence that demonstrates whether or not homosexuals are fit or unfit parents.

  2. The study I have posted gives actual evidence that supports the conclusion that homosexuals are just as good, if not, better parents than heterosexuals.


Premise 4 falls.



Why my argument should be accepted:


Like I said originally, my point is that marriage is not all about procreation or about raising children; it’s about an official recognition of the love two people share together. That’s it. I have explained my reasoning by stating that people do not have to get married to procreate and raise a child, and people who are married do not always choose to procreate and raise a child. My opponent has said absolutely nothing about this, it goes unrefuted throughout the round. All my opponent does to criticize my argument is by saying that his definition of marriage is better, but again, offers absolutely no reason to accept this claim.


Marriage is obviously about the love and the commitment people share for each other. When two people get married, they aren’t doing it solely to procreate and raise children, they’re doing it so they can officially proclaim to the world that they’re in love and they are happy with each other. Wedding vows always mention something about love and commitment, which is definitive proof of these statements.


The argument boils down to this: There is no reason that homosexuals should be treated like second-class citizens that do not deserve the right to marry the person they love.



Reasons to accept my argument:



  1. It goes completely unrefuted throughout the round.

  2. I give a definition of what real marriage is about and an explanation about why my definition should be accepted, and why my opponent’s should not.

  3. My opponent has failed to acknowledge that his position treats homosexuals like second-class citizens that do not deserve equal and fair treatment under the law.



Conclusion:


My stance is and always will be that homosexuals are human beings too, who deserve equal and fair treatment under the law. My opponent has not given enough justification to treat homosexuals, roughly 3.4% of the population, like second-class citizens. All of the negative’s arguments have been sufficiently refuted, and the negative has failed to refute the argument on the affirmative side.


With that being said, I urge a vote for the affirmative.


Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by emmie1012001 3 years ago
emmie1012001
it is disgusting to say that homosexual couples are unable to be good parents. It is a disgusting generalisation and goes completely against the fact that homosexual are people too. Not only this but the church has no part in marriage in the modern society. There is no need to be religious or baptised before marying, and is much more about legal binding than religious binding. In this case it is all about giving homosexuals the same right as any other by granting them mariage.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
PRO: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org..., meta analysis, not a longitudinal study.
Posted by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
I don't think Ameliamk1 needed to be countered... he did give a justification for the vote, essentially agreeing with what I said in my final focus.
Posted by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
Someone should counter vote-bomb Babeslayer, he didn't give a good reason to give me 7 points.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
I will vote latter. I have stuff I'm doing right now. Have more time tommarow. :P
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
lolololol
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Wait this is the right debate... I'm being dumb as sh!t right now . I'll vote later
Posted by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
I'll be sure to take that into consideration before I post my follow-up.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
In my argument in Round 3 under Marriage Between Man and Woman I make a typo, I state,

What I meant was that only man and woman can connect sexual intercourse with what sex was lf, if not more important. "

I meant to say, "What I meant was that only man and woman can connect sexual intercourse with what sex was meant for, which is procreation."
Posted by PrinceOfPlease 3 years ago
PrinceOfPlease
I didn't know there was a ranking system on this site. What would be nice is a way to weed out who's a serious participant and who's a troll.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
xXCryptoXxMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Alright, CON easily could have won this. Although his early arguments were kinda weak, he was unable to hold the position in rebuttals. I did not see a con argument on artificial insemination, and if it was there it was not strong enough to reside in my mind. Although easy to respond too, he dropped the argument and failed to prove the procreation argument, which he was treating as more of a means to an end rather than how their relationship is centered towards procreation. And, by this definition, he would have had an easier response to pro. Indeed, he said they can still adopt. Well, so can homosexuals. CON easily could have responded here, too. Instead he was unable to provide empirical evidence, which I think I have provided to him through PM's (and my blog), and was forced to rely on NARTH's study. PRO used a longitudinal study. NARTH's study is not a bad source, but the fact he was unable to provide more evidence (which could have been easy) lost him that point. PRO won.
Vote Placed by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
xXCryptoXxMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Ameliamk1
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
xXCryptoXxMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Babeslayer
Vote Placed by Babeslayer 3 years ago
Babeslayer
xXCryptoXxMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Marriage was already destroyed by straight people let gays marry
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
xXCryptoXxMrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No legal basis for gay marriage being illegal was provided by con.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
xXCryptoXxMrparkersTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's sources were from biased, less credible organizations. In addition, his cited paper on homosexual parenting was rife with poor methodology, lack of any empirical evidence for its claims, and shoddy conclusions. Con's definition of marriage was a bare assertion which he did not defend with reasoning, and he never addressed Pro's rebuttals of many of his points.