The Great Gay Debate Regarding Marriage - Debunk

A definition of union as well as the definition of union I believe Jim Spiegel refers to is the uniting in marriage; also sexual intercourse. [1] 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)." Sexual intercourse between a man and woman is not absolutely necessary (indispensable) for humans to come into existence as artificial insemination also leads to human existence. What are indispensable are male sperm and the reproductive track of a female in order to create life. 2. "The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value." As sexual intercourse for the purpose of procreation is not indispensable it has no special social value. 3. "What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction." As no special value exists no social recognition and sanction is deserved. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. As no special value exists there can be no rejection. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. Since no special value exists, it cannot be denied and is therefore not unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. Therefore, gay marriage cannot be unjust. Jim Spiegel's argument relies on the premise that sexual intercourse/heterosexual union is absolutely necessary (indispensable) for humans to come into existence. However, the procedure of artificial insemination proves this to be a false. As my opponent is defending a philosophical argument I will use a philosophical definition of marriage as a lifetime commitment to constantly provide emotional intimacy to your spouse, thereby uncovering your true self and, ultimately, your unique purpose for being created. "Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition…." The reasons people get married vary greatly and it's conjecture to state that the core of marriage is procreation. According to data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau 46% of married couples do not have children. [2] Although the data includes children who have grown and left the family home and young married couples who do not have children yet, the number stands at 26,896,000 out of 58,410,000 married couples. There is no data available as to how many married couples never had children but even eliminating half of the 26,896,000 would leave 13,448,000 or 23% of married couples with no children. Of the married couples with children, there are no statistics available as to how many were married as a result of an unplanned pregnancy. However, one can conclude that if the primary purpose of marriage was for the purpose of procreation the percentage should me much higher, even when taking into consideration heterosexual married couples that are unable to conceive. To further enhance my argument against procreation being the core of marriage take into account that approximately 50% of first time marriages end in divorce while length of marriage for these couples has an approximate average of 8 years [3] and 66% divorce without having any children. [4] Surely, if procreation is indeed the core of marriage why would 66% of married couples not have children within the 8 years of their marriages? Taking into consideration those who choose not have children, for personal or economic reasons, and those who could not conceive the percentages should be much lower if procreation is indeed the core of marriage. "Why is the state so concerned about regulating marriage to begin with? Why doesn't the state, for instance, regulate friendships as well?" When a couple enters into a marriage they are entering into a contract. As a person who enters into any contract there are requirements, stipulations and contingencies within the contract. There are also existing laws that have to be accounted for within the contract and whether or not the contract is legally binding in jurisdictions outside of the jurisdiction in which contract was entered. When a person enters a friendship there is no contractual obligation. One can cease a friendship at any time without legal consequence. My opponents entire argument is based on the belief that marriage is grounded or centered on procreation. He discounts those who marry solely for commitment and companionship. As his entire argument is based on procreation he can just as easily attempt to use the accidental procreation argument. Based on his argument it not reasonable to suggest that marriage is exclusively heterosexual and that states should not recognize same sex marriage. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington D.C. allow same sex marriages and states such as New York, Maryland and Rhode Island recognize same sex marriages. The question that needs to be asked is why aren't more states recognizing same sex marriage, especially when there is growing support for the U.S. in allowing it? [5] I now turn the debate over to my opponent. SOURCES 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://surveysez.com... 3. http://www.census.gov... 4. http://www.divorcerate.org... 5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...