Gay marriage

Defense of my arguments RC1: procreation & marriage Sub point a: not interested in procreation. Then what are they interested in? Not love as that is not a reason, nor a benifit to the state. Procreation is a valuable tool to the state, live is not. Furthermore their acts in marriage make sense, as I cited above a judge said gays cannot make kids, therefore gay martiage is no interest to the state. Their actions preventing gay marriage prove my point. As we know marriage has many benifits, the state wants return. Why do they give benifits? Here's why; Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. (1) My point is procreation gives kids and a workforce, a benifit to the state. Why love? Love has no benifit to the state, there is only one reason they recognize heterosexual marriage over homosexual: procreation. The rest are views held by concerned citizens. Sub point b: Gay marriage would not hurt procreation SSM is one reason for Canada's declining birth rate.(2) their new fertility rates are odd as the rates used to be the same, but after SSM and other liberal laws (not meant to be political war) their fertility rate dropped. (2) they have children 25% less than the US(2) Remember: similar language, population size, demographics etc. so SSM did change the rates. Netherlands fertility rate (SSM allowed); 1.66 kids per womann (3) US fertility rate (no SSM mostly): 2.06 kids per woman (4) Notice we have higher fertility rates. Sub point c: marriage is not only procreation I agree, but that is a reason why martiage is man and woman. There is no benifit otherwise to the state. I never said that was the only reason, rather a reason the state recognizes it between a man a d a woman. "When Massachusetts officials, facing the court case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, set out to defend that state's marriage law from a challenge by seven homosexual couples, their major line of defense was procreation.ï¿½ Making babies, the state argued, was the first purpose of marriage" (5) So I meant the state thinks procreation is a reason to ban SSM, make sense? Also this is from the whole state, the goverments case not one judge. RC2: gays and aids Anal intercourse leads to a high risk of HIV infection. (6) Now why is this significant? Because marriage encourages procreation. "Why is marriage regulated by the government at all? In fact, not only are there restrictions on certain types of marriages, but there are incentives for heterosexuals (not falling into the categories above) to marry. Why should the government encourage — through tax breaks and other benefits — some types of marriages while banning others? The rationale is that males and females, when married, are more likely to procreate" (7) So it encorages you to have sex, allowing SSM would raise aids rates among them as martiage enxorahes them to have smex. In my opinion this is a pro gay argument. Most aids focus is towards unmarried teens, yet there is a growing amount of HIV among married couples. (8) Married couples often obtain aids. (9) My point is there would be a lot more coupled with HIV if SSM was allowed. Also you say people who get aids are "dirty" and don't deserve marriage, that logic means you oppose SSM. RC3: slippery slope You have most interpreted my point, if you legalize SSM, then SSM would be everywhere and in some states it wouldn't work. Also you have not shown any proof that SSM is good. Furthermore the argument says that it would lead to polygamy. This site summarizes my argument well: " It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless" (10) Easy to understand? RC4: benifits of marriage You actually do not explain why just spout a doubtful statistic. Further more that case makes no sense, I have stated the costly benifits to marriage and that it would cost money. It would produce less revanue (tax breaks) and raise costs (benifits). Married couples pay less taxes: 51% of married couples paid less tax jointly than if they had not been married, according to a 1996 Congressional Budget Office analysis. The average amount these couples saved: $1,300. (11) This would lead to less revanue, 10%, then only 51, so 5.1% of America would get a tax break, decreasing revanue raising the deficit. Cost: 2.4 trillion dollars are spent on social security. (12) 51% of ppl are married (13) Number of marriages: 2,077,000 (14) 4 million gays (15) Let's assume 2 of those is 18 or older ready for marriage. Now 3 mill marriages. Current SS cost per couple: 1,000,000$ to the state per couple. Cost 2 trillion. After SSM: New cost to state: 3 trillion. Cost increase in only one category, all you need is google calculator :p Rebbutals: R1: equal protection I gave legal definitions disproving your point. n. the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law (16) They get all of the same legal treatments regardless, hence your point debunked. R2: Satisfying desires Gays are only 10% of the population, more likely less, see second round arguments. Satisfying such a minority is a waste of time and money, see above, especially when there's no right to marriage. Your argument hare is not important, I have already refuted it as well. -out of room soon- Conclusion: I have refuted the earlier points so it's ok. I have torn down his arguments with facts, and have kept mine alive, I urge you to vote con. Thanks. Ps: debating on phone still = hard sources : http://tech.mit.edu... (1) http://www.christianity.com... (2) http://www.indexmundi.com... (3) http://www.indexmundi.com... (4) http://www.profam.org... (5) http://www.avert.org... (6) http://tech.mit.edu... (7) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... (8) http://www.jhsph.edu... (9) http://www.balancedpolitics.org... (10) http://money.msn.com... (11) http://newsburglar.com... (12) http://www.washingtonpost.com... (13) http://www.cdc.gov... (14) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (15) http://www.legal-explanations.com... (16)