Gay Marriage Ought to be Legalized

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me explain why I have won: My opponent commits an appeal to consequences; that somehow gay marriage is undesirable on the basis of reproduction, and then hints at the notion that it's bad because societies that cannot reproduce cannot survive. But then proceeds to use kettle logic by citing a study that somehow gay marriage causes out-of-wedlock birth rates to increase. As I previously noted with the study, it was 1) not peer-reviewed and 2) correlation is not causation, thus the study lacks legitimacy. Even as my opponent noted gays cannot reproduce, and even admits in the second round that reproduction is not enough to meet his BOP against gay marriage (he “somewhat agreed marriage isn't just about procreation”, that's a concession) My opponent then proceeds to claim that to have governments change the role of marriage is not in the best interest of society, but he dropped my two arguments: 1) marriage may have had differing reasons or justifications dependant on the culture in question, however, one common characteristic is it is about the two people not reproduction (see Emperor Nero of Rome in Round 2 argument) and 2) that if governments role in society is for the best interest of it's people, homosexual marriage is not harmful to heterosexual marriages, however as noted previously it is harmful (as found in P. V Hollingsworth) to prevent gays from marriage, thus it actually IS in the best interest of the state, to maximize morale. There was absolutely no rebuttal from my opponent about this! Other than he thought my historical purpose of gay marriage was irrelevant (but I showed it actually was relevant). My opponent seems to have misunderstood why I put that hypothetical in position there, perhaps I should explain better. He failed to recognize, that even though this marriage by his own definition was legitimate due to it's birthing of offspring, he outright admits it was abuse of the system. This is a huge issue for him to try and counter, because he contradicts himself that governments only acknowledge marriage for birthing (which it can also be used for individual rights, because the wife can leave at any given point and time) and other examples of individual benefits exist. If gay marriage is legalized, it's not just recognizing their marriage, it's giving then liberty over their lively-hood to make decisions about their S/O's in critical situations as noted in the hypothetical. My opponent just took down his own argument here, because if governments only duty was to get kids out of you, my opponent wouldn't have claimed this was an abuse of the system. It was always more about the two people getting married than it was about kids. The divorce would in essence be irrelevant. My opponent claims that marriage is best between a man and a woman, and that's all he has to do to meet his BOP. But this simply isn't true, because I never attacked the institution of heterosexual marriage at all, all I'm arguing for is that homosexual marriage ought to be allowed as well, and he has to prevent it. Again kettle logic, if my opponent is correct and we assume marriage is about procreation, then logically, it would make sense that the focus of marriage be on their desires, because ultimately it's the desire of having a baby that leads to the act of procreation, if it is not and it's about the love of one another, then this is an argument for gay marriage not against it, because love between two men is just as legitimate as a man and a woman as noted in 11 supreme court cases (fundamental right to all argument by Ted Olson) and historically it's been about the commitment to a person or a group, not the commitment to a child (see group marriages and Emperor Nero) Bare assertion fallacy; the studies were illegitimate and the court case he cites them from the Judge noted they were “junk science” and in fact not allowing homosexuals to marry is more harmful. Marriage does not go down the drain simply because homosexuals got married. They cannot have kids. Anything could have caused those birth-rates to increase; a government bursary for instance, or a rise in women's rights, but one thing is certain my opponent s argument rests on the notion that gays cannot have children and thus should not be allowed to get married. Then proceeds to say by using this study, that they cause out of wed-lock birth-rates without talking about it's significance, or for that matter why the study wasn't peer-reviewed; it was junk science, correlation is not causation and gays cannot have kids. That was heterosexuals doing that, not homosexuals. http://www.bu.edu... Finally on the historical notions of marriage, there is a very strong basis of Western Civilization and it's connections to Rome and Greece, in fact their influence can be seen in thought, art, foods, and what our societies have become today because of their lasting influence. They are significant and my opponent makes an appeal to novelty to try and justify his position; simply put if marriage is continuously changing, then it can withstand to change something that already has been tried and showed no damage. There was nothing wrong with homosexuals marrying in Ancient Greece and same as Rome, it made them a tighter-knit community with a commitment to one another. That was it. Also, this has been done in Canada, Sweden, Spain, etc... And nothing wrong has happened to those countries as previously noted, and my opponent dropped this argument. Finally this is silly, I never dropped his argument, I actually did respond to it, I stated very clearly, that Judge Walker found that they can raise kids just fine, that harm comes from not allowing them to marry, and that even if it was about raising kids, you conceded it wasn't just about kids in earlier rounds, and furthermore, gays can raise kids just as well as anyone else. Finally, I also noted, that my infertile hypothetical and gay couple hypothetical have a distinct characteristic, the inability to give birth. Heterosexual couples in essence represent more for the gay side then, as gays can at least get surrogate mothers to birth for them, and in a strange way have that ability to birth, but even if this was not true, that characteristic is still there with one another, and is clearly lacking for an infertile heterosexual versus just a heterosexual marriage. My opponent never made a compelling argument here, and actually just re-asserts his position while never countering my argument. He dropped my argument here. And what marriage really is historically is a commitment to one another as I have previously noted ergo it is logically sound for gays to marry legally, for morale, and historically. Especially the role that marriage plays and has played. Riddled with fallacies of definition, bare assertions, and cherry-picking, I have shown my case as to why gay marriage ought to be legalized. My opponent drops several arguments, he never questions the legality of gay marriage, or the fact that the supreme court ruled 11 times it's a fundamental right to all! He drops my argument of it's historical importance, and uses kettle logic only when it suits him, but ideologically he rests on shaky grounds, and relies on junk science to score partisan points rather than using objectivity and solid studies to make a case. My opponent just re-asserts his case over and over again, he never makes a compelling point. He never went against marriage as a fundamental right to all. He claims it's not a right, but clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with him. Finally he uses kettle logic, he has numerous contradictions, and unlogically sound conclusions. I thank my opponent for this debate. Best of luck in future endeavors. Hitchslapped! Vote for gay marriagevote to kill prop 8! :D YAY!Vote for me! (Pro baby!)