Gay Marriage

For clarity in the purpose of the debate here is a resolution:Resolved: Gay Marriage should be legalized in all 50 states. CASE:C1: Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values related to procreation. To truly understand what marriage is, we have to consider the state's interest for it is the most potent factor when we determine if same-sex marriage should be legalized or not. Marriage is not a recognition of love and compassion. Marriage entails love and compassion however the underlying principle of marriage is procreation. If marriage was simply a recognition of love and compassion why would the state have any reason to recognise marriage? The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation. [1] The common objection to this argument is that there are heterosexual couples that can not procreate, such as older couples. However this does not change what the purpose of marriage is by principle, or relating to the definition. Special cases do not determine how we make our laws in today's society. We reason and make laws based on concepts and principles. In simpler terms: does a worm change the definition of an apple? The answer is no, in circumstances it may be part of the apple but it doesn't change what the apple is. To allow same-sex marriage, or SSM as we will refer to it throughout this debate will defeat the very purpose of marriage, to recognize procreation. As I stated earlier the purpose is to maintain the sanctity of society. That is, marriage is fundamentally about children and the civilization of society both now and for the future. My opponent must provide a sufficient reason for the state to recognize SSM. Just because the homosexual population may be relatively large in the U. S. , doesn't meant that the state should recognize marriage. This means that the state should grant rights to the relationship between two homosexuals, not grant marriage. In other words, I am advocating for "separate, but equal". This can be practiced through civil unions. Thus the state's interest in marriage is for procreation and the state has no apparent reason to grant marriage, to homosexual couples. SyllogismI will be defending the following argument introduced to me by Contradiction and proposed by Jim Spiegel:1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. [2]The fact of the matter is heterosexual couples are by principle able to join a sperm and egg. Marriage upholds civilization's reproduction and led to the rise of it in the first place. Heterosexual marriage has a special social value and to permit homosexual marriage would to deny the special value of heterosexual marriage. A heterosexual union allows beings to come into existence thus granting marriage a special value that is indispensable, thus it is unjust to deny its value. BibleAs much respect as I have for the Bible, that isn't a justifiable reason for it to be legal/illegal. I have provided a secular case keeping the traditional marriage we currently have thus my opponent must provide a secular response and secular arguments. Regardless as far as I am concerned Christians do not completely disregard the Old Testament. Is Marriage a right? Pro brings up some discombobulated points here. He states first that marriage is a right. I propose that marriage is a social institution, not a right. To prove it is a right he first must prove that the state is interested in SSM AND must provide a tangible warrant that states marriage is a right. Even if he can prove marriage is a right he must also prove that the right includes homosexuals. He later talks about homosexuality appearing in nature however this is completely irrelevant. Natural phenomena does not conduct whether we legalize SSM or not. I am not saying that homosexuality is bad but am merely upholding the same marriage we have had for hundreds and thousands of years for I see no reason to change it. Finally he talks about gay marriages lasting longer? I would like some warrant for as far as I am concerned homosexuals have proven themselves to be rather promiscuous. Homosexuality is not a choice Not only is the claim completely irrelevant but it has no warrant. I would like a study that when it gets down to it proves homosexuality is not a choice. However, assuming it is, it does not mean that homosexuals would qualify for marriage. All it proves is that they qualify for a civil union, not marriage. The reason being is that the state must have some interest in recognizing SSM, and simply because they don't choose to be that way doesn't mean that the state is interested. Thus we can see Pro has not yet provided a justifiable reason for the state to recognize SSM or has provided any real direct arguments for SSM. I have provided a tangible reason for keeping traditional marriage the same. Marriage is for procreation and permitting SSM denies the social value of heterosexual couples. I know open the floor to my opponent and urge a CON ballot. 1. . http://www.avemarialaw.edu......;2. . http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...