On balance, is heterosexual marriage is legal, so should gay marriage.

Thanks for the challenge Kohai. As per the agreed rules, I will use this round for constructive, no refutation. Resolution analysis The resolution presupposes that the government has an interest in some kind of relationships. The fundamental point of contention between my opponent and me will the answer to the question of which relationship types provide, on balance, the maximum benefits to society. Since marriage is currently the highest level of recognition our society commonly places on a relationship, justification for our respective positions must be found in an analysis of which relationships deserve the highest recognition. Appeals to equality are fallacious unless homosexual unions are shown to be of equal value to heterosexual ones. It will not be enough for my Opponent to show isolated cases of failed marriage and compare them to loving same-sex relationships in an attempt to discredit my argument. After all, the law is objective and cannot consider every scenario individually. The resolution states “on balance” as well, not “in every case” so isolated incidences ought not be considered when judging this round. Furthermore, a negative ballot is presumed because the negative is arguing for the status quo and historical precedent. If kohai’s impacts are equal to mine, than a Con vote must be cast. Now without further ado, I will move on to my arguments. Why is marriage recognized? This is an extremely important question to consider when pondering the issue of same sex marriage. Why would the government recognize marriage, a primarily religious institution? There are only two probable answers to this, either the government sees a religious purpose in marriage, in which case gay marriages cannot be recognized due to the condemnation of homosexuality by the Abrahamic religions and the resolution must be negated. Far more likely however, is that the government sees practical/societal benefits in heterosexual unions. What exactly those benefits are will be explained in the next part of my case, however if I can show the government to have a justified interest in heterosexual unions that cannot be found in homosexual ones, than a denial of marriage to homosexuals is justified. Is it about equality? The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of every same sex marriage advocate is the belief that it is unjust to deny equality to same sex couples. However if the value of a same sex union is shown to be, on balance, less than an opposite sex one, than it is conversely unjust to recognize them as equal. While I have agreed to not yet refute my opponent’s case, a simple observation is that the main argument is fundamentally based on equality. The value of heterosexual unions It seems impossible to deny that heterosexual unions are extremely important to society. Indeed, the research consistently shows that the best way to raise a child is a married mother and father. Consider the following quote from Sociologist Paul Amato[1]: “Specifically, compared with children who grow up in stable, two-parent families, children born outside marriage reach adulthood with less education, earn less income, have lower occupational status, are more likely to be idle (that is, not employed and not in school), are more likely to have a non-marital birth (among daughters), have more troubled marriages, experience higher rates of divorce, and report more symptoms of depression… Research clearly demonstrates that children growing up with two continuously married parents are less likely than other children to experience a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and social problems, not only during childhood, but also in adulthood.” It may be objected that my evidence does not specify a married heterosexual couple, however an extensive body of research concludes that children raised by their biological parents perform better. Children trends research center elaborates [2]: “An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage… Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development. A study from a diverse team of family scholars [3] found that children raised with married parents: live longer, healthier lives both physically and mentally. do better in school. are more likely to graduate and attend college. are less likely to live in poverty. are less likely to be in trouble with the law. are less likely to drink or do drugs. are less likely to be violent or sexually active. are less likely to be victims of sexual or physical violence. are more likely to have successful marriage when they are older. This clearly shows that heterosexual unions have a large value when it comes to raising children. Such a value must be recognized. So if we accept that two biological parents provide the best condition for children to thrive, than we ought not recognize a homosexual union as being of equal value to a heterosexual one, because homosexuals cannot be the two biological parents of the same child. Thus it stands to reason that gay marriage is unjust. Procreation is also a benefit provided by heterosexual couplings. A society that does not reproduce does not survive, so logically we should place a high value on those relationships which have the ability to perform this precondition to society. Are non child-bearing relationships excluded? This is the only legitimate concern in regards to my position, so I will attempt to preempt it now. The answer is no, heterosexual couples that cannot or will not bear children are not excluded from marriage. The reasoning for this is that procreation is still possible in principle. Recall that in my analysis of the resolution I stated that the law is black and white and cannot take each situation individually. This tells us that since as a rule, married heterosexuals procreate than the state is justified in legislating in the favor of that rule. Unless my opponent can give valid reasoning as to why the state should not pass laws that favor rules over exceptions, this objection to my position falls quite quick once applied to close scrutiny. Conclusion I have shown that the issue of same sex marriage is not one of equality. There is a compelling state interest in heterosexual unions that does not exist in homosexual ones. I will now turn it over to my opponent in the sincere hopes that he will prove me wrong and show the state to have a legitimate interest in same sex couplings. However until that happens I respectfully urge a Con ballot. Thank you. Sources 1. http://www.citizenlink.com... 2. http://www.childtrends.org...3. Ibid