Gay Marriage

C1: 14th amendment My opponent essentially dodges my Antimiscegination analogy, and proceeds to the secular case against gay marriage. So, my opponent essentially states love is not a states interests, as if it was other relationships would be regulated. But lets first assume procreation is a state interest, as a state interest can override the constitution. But, however, most recent court rulings actually say the states interests in marriage, well the supposed ones, to not override the equal protection clause. [1] Now, as stated, your argument is if they can procreate, let them be kids! Your counter above, somehow arguing it leads to bestiality. No, you misread your case, or admitted your argument is logically flawed. A frogs sperm and a woman's body would not create children, hence your counter fails, also your argument states procreation is the main interest. So, if a lesbian couple can have children, then gay marriage should be legalized for lesbians. So, really, as you are countering the argument you concede the argument is logically flawed. My opponent also claims race and sexuality are not.... they are not the same, yet there are truely even. It is pretty much a fact being gay is natural, and being black/a minority is not a choice, obviously, and that they are all humans. UNDER THE SAME ARGUMENTS YOU ARE USING, IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL TO BAN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, HENCE VOTERS CAN SEE THE FLAWS IN YOUR ARGUMENT. C2: Economics My opponent's second objection shows he did not read my second argumentation, and his (1) is flawed. He claims that there are minimal benefits to allowing SSM, so he concedes there is a small benefit. Before negating this, and showing the economic HARMS of banning SSM, may I point out: It is hard to win an argument on this point, even if you concede is only has minimal benefits, hence you concede it helps. Now, lets look at the conceded argument by con. Small benefit correct? In australia, for example, the prohibition on same sex marriage actually costs the economy near one billion dollars, ~700 to be exact. [2] And in america banning it has larger effects:"California's gay-marriage ban is costing San Francisco $37.2 million a year and the state $490 million over three years, according to estimates revealed in the high-profile Proposition 8 trial." [3]So, lets assume it has little benefit, but banning it has large downfalls. So, my opponents small benefit > large downfall. Now, last round I proved it had large benefits, either way I WIN THE ARGUMENT. Large downfalls from prohibition < small or large benefits from legalization. C3: kidsNo, it is not a straw man. You say the reason for marriage is procreation, which means any HUMAN couple wishing to get married that can procreate should get married. Also the procreative case fails, I will explain this later. As you drop this point, I will summarize: - Gays can be good parents - SSM increases their ability to be parents financially through benefits- Because of the reason above, adopt more - Would artificially inseminate more because they could now afford the children - SSM increases health among gays, hence allowing SSM means they will be better off raising children. - SSM therefore benefits SSM couples AND the kids they will raise* * *Procreation I know you didn't use the Jim Speigel argument, I said if it was put into a syngogolism it would be in that form. So, my opponent essentially said I have not proven what marriage essentially is, well to who? There is no set definition, new Gallup polls show that most Americans favor SSM, meaning to many SSM is fundamentally marriage. I have refuted what marriage fundamentally is, as I provided what marriage is to society, not the government, and I also showed your argument is problematic. You claimed marriage is defined to procreative types, well that makes no sense. Firstly, the government would care less on type, I bet all they care about is the effect of bringing children, as if nothing came of it it has no positive effects, therefore the procreative type is definition of marriage FAILS in the current state of secular marriage, and to society SSM is being accepted. Therefore your what marriage is argument fails. On a social and secular level. My opponent then said traditional norms, ah yes this is where his case collapses. First, laws and definitions change, so your basing your argument on tradition, but if laws change tradition can be overridden. So, this is irrelevant. Now, the argument is whether or not the tradition is beneficial, which it is not. It: 1) Infringes on peoples choice to marry, 2) hurts the economy, 3) is against the constitution, and 4) there is no point in protecting this "tradition". Now, the argument fails unless you can prove tradition is worth providing, and you have not proven that tradition is worth protecting under this law, hence vote pro. My opponents only argument is it is bad for marriage, it is a parasite. No, it is not. In a free country, if people wish to use IVF procedures then they can, and they still create the procreative effect, which is the only logical thing this argument can prove, procreative types play nothing in the law. The government just claims sterile couples are rare, nothing about procreative type. So the argument fails, as it fails to argue anything, and if you hold that artificial insemination is bad then you are against personal choice, and you are saying we like procreation unless it is under a heterosexual union, this is a fallacy. Slippery slope My opponent claims the slippery slope is no fallacy, only if we argue Z. This is false, as it can still be falictic by arguing Y will occur from Z. X = SSM, Y lets say is polymory, and Z bestiality. Now, it can be a fallacy just assuming Y will occur a all. This only works if Y comes from X. Which it does not. Polygamy, SSM, and bestiality are NOTHING like each other, therefore it is a fallacy to assume one will come from another, just like monkeys do not come from humans, things so different will not sprout off like that.Similar arguments like this happened in the cold war, domino effect. If Vietnam fell, so would larger countries, and guess what, Vietnam fell and larger countries stayed the same. This example makes sense as they can actually relate to each other! But SSM and polymory are not alike. The slippery slope is a fallacy. CONCLUSION:Lets pretend the false procreation case was true, we must ask does procreation actually outweigh the benefits of SSM? I have established as case showing HUGE benefits to SSM, my opponents only harm was a slippery slope, a fallacy, hence he has provided no proof that SSM will hurt the country as a whole. I have proven it will benefit the country, he has shown it will have no effect, and only argues what marriage "is". Marriage, in a society, is a social construct, no society (well in the US) thinks about procreation, just a loving relationship. Now, my opponent has NOT shown tradition should override benefiting gay families, the constitution, and the economy. Now, he must show essentially procreation is above everything I have proven, it does not. As his arguments do not override the benefits and the constitution aspect of it, nor do his arguments hold up to scrutiny, I say its hard to ban something that would to hurt society, and only help it. Therefore VOTE PRO.____________________[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...[3] http://goo.gl...