There are good argunments against Same Sex Marriage

Procreation and MarriageMy opponent drastically misinterprets my arguments. The societal purpose of marriage may or may not be procreation, I stated the states interests and the benefits of society rely on procreation. My opponent, falsely, claims marriage is about love. But this is highly faulty, now marriage's only needed aspect is love. Now polygamous, bestiality, incestuous, and all marriages are now valid. Further, if love was the reason the government regulated marriage, it would therefore be a states interest to look into all love. Now friendships, affairs, teenage "fun" all of that should be regulated. "The key is to understand the specific type of community marriage actually is—in particular, how it is bodily, sexual, and of a type that would naturally be fulfilled by procreation. In every society, we find something like the following type of relationship: men and women committed to sharing their lives together, on the bodily, emotional, and spiritual levels of their being, in the kind of community that would be fulfilled by procreating and rearing children together. That such a distinctive type of community—marriage—does exist in every society is undeniable. " [1]Although marriage may not be the key reason for marriage itself on a personal choice level, it is undeniable procreation IS a role in marriage, and is a role in states interests. “The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”[2] (aka Singer v. Hara) This point on states interest remains untouched. Discrimination; common SSM misconceptions. This is faulty, as you must determine a few things:-Just/unjust discrimination[s]-If it endangers the constitution I have argued states interests and the benefit of marriage to society. Hence I have this whole debate proven it is just discrimination. Then the argument on the constitution must come into play for it to be a valid argument (as the definition ins round one show government interference). I will quote the constitution part:"Before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded."[3]Sex, indispensible marriageMy opponents claim is hetero marriage is not vital as any sex makes children. But this is a failed look at why society should prefer heterosexual marriage over heterosexual sex. "Spouses to a marriage tend to be happier, healthier, and wealthier than unmarried partners. This is documented in the recent book by Waite & Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (Doubleday, 2000). Children of married parents tend to develop in a more healthy way, both personally and in their interaction with society, than children of divorced or single parents. See Waite & Gallagher on this too."[4] This is essentially saying yes, sex makes babies, but marriage leads to healthier and better babies, hence a better society (looking on a procreation side) comes from marriage, hence marriage is still indispensible. And yes, heterosexual marriage (I agree with your assumption on the speigel argunment) is invaluble to raising a healthier society. Infertiles My opponent main claim is infertile couples do not fit the case as they are not procreating. This is false, you have failed to prove the fertility rate argunment (argued later) and you have also failed why infertile couples are the same as homosexuals. If I recall, I argued they are part of a real marriage (as they can still use their organ[s] in a proper function), and they coincide with my case on protecting marital norms. Now to the fun part. My opponents claim is places with no SSM have less fertility rate (or is declining faster). First, this fails to take into account other factors, as SSM is not an only factor. So not being able to take into account factors already puts a cloud over the creibility. Also, correlaton does not mean causation, hence the argunment here is invalid. Marriage in the netherlands, for example, has seen negaive fertility, divirce etc. a decade later after the marriage law was passed. [5] Although as stated correlation does not equal causation, your argunment invalid, my counter statistic is even more detailed (as it is more then a mere correlation graph). Either way, point refuted. I am sorry, but flawed graphs "disprove" my paper, and more reliable statstics refute yours. And there is still the correlation causation argunment if all of our stats are viewed by viewers "faulty". Vitro insemination My opponent falsely claims I said gays where parasitic, I never said that, I said vitro and artificial insemination is, you misread the argunment and your argunment here is likely to make me look bad. I have NOT ONCE in this debate insulted a homosexual. My opponent cites claims showing they are not parasitic, this is a red herring. I NEVER said homosexuals where parastic, but their artificial ways where. I said homosexuals families (aka vitro insemination). My argunments before that hinted what I was saying. Anyway, SSM has hurt netherlands in ALL of the categoies you said it helped england with (whilst using biassed sources).[5] My opponent then claims lower divorce rates follow SSM passages, once again, correlation DOES NOT MEAN causation, further, I have provided countr evidence and your data ignores other factors. No effect on marriage I already argued this, whether it has effects on heterosexuals is irrelevant, as it still has NO bearing on the states interest in marriage, its institution, or my case. But I already proved SSM raises wed l birth rates, divorce, has little effect on gays (rarely get married), and lowers overall marriage rates. [5] It has an effect. Cousins Ah, your case supports mine: "Yes, the reason that cousins cannot marry is because they produce deformed children." Round 2. Now, I argue marriage is about procreation and child rearing, this effects child rearing, hence the argunment helps me, and essentially proves my point. Speigel 1. I agree marriage is about procreation, love, and child rearing. But, love itself has no bearing on how we create the laws. 2. No, it is not, as you must define what marriage is, hence marriage is not applied to homosexuals under my argunment, his etc. Further, I have proven it to be just discrimination, which is socially ok. 3. I refuted this above, marriage and men and women creating offpring in marriage is inispensible. (low on room, hence short responses) 4. Infertiles can still form real marriages and be in the publics interests, hence they can still be married under the argunment, you fail to prove your infertile argunment. [3] 5. I never said they did, I said their offspring (vitro fertilization) is. Note: Many of my opponent argunments here didn't even relate to the speigel argunment. CONCLUSION: My opponents case relies on many false, misinterpreted, or faulty data that was easily refuted and debunked. I urge a vote for me hence my opponent has not refuted my argunments, rather dodged them. VOTE PRO _____________[1] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...; [2] Duncan, William C, “The State Interests in Marriage” 2004 Ave Maria Law Review.[3] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)[4] http://marriagelaw.cua.edu... [5] William C. Duncan, "THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF DUTCH SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE: HOW IS MARRIAGE DOING IN THE NETHERLANDS?" iMAPP Research Brief, Vol. 4, No. 3, May 2011