Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

Statements and Rebuttals: S1: I will begin my case by stating...people will be irrelevant. R1: Let me begin by stating that my opponent presented absolutely no qualifiers for his claims. For example, he placed arbitrary value on heterosexual marriage, and compared to it an arbitrary value he placed on same-sex marriage. In fact, what my opponent is doing here is drawing a conclusion based on the logical fallacy known as Composition. This fallacy follows a reasoning as follows: 1. An individual example of X has the characteristics A, B, and C. 2. Therefore, all examples of X has the characteristics A, B, and C. Clearly, there is no reason to believe that same-sex marriage is any less important or viable than heterosexual marriage, unless one were to make the mistake of assuming that because they're used to heterosexual marriages, all marriages must include a heterosexual couple. This same logical fallacy is applied to arrive at the second point of your statement, where you indicate that some marriages are for the purpose of procreating, therefore all marriages must be for the purpose of procreating. Indeed, this completely ignores the fact that there are heterosexual marriages between people that are capable of having children, but choose not to. Clearly, that belies the arbitrary definition that marriages must be for the purpose of procreation. In fact, the definition of marriage, as defined by the dictionary, is: marï¿½riage   [mar-ij] Show IPA noun 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation. b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation. 2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation. 3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment. 4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage. 5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism. The accepted English definition for marriage accommodates marriages between same-sex couples, thereby validating their existence as acknowledgeable marriages. S2: P1: Heterosexual marriages are a dispensable means in which human life can come into this world, therefore it has the greatest special social value (because it supplies the first condition for society). P2: The dispensable means by which human life can come into this world is in itself of special value. P3: Everything that has special social value deserves to be sanctioned. P4: Civil ordinances which recognize homosexual marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual marriages. P5: To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust C: Therefore, homosexual marriage is unjust. R2: According to the definition my opponent presented, marriage is a dispensable means by which new life can be brought into this world, which means that it is inessential. I agree with this statement, as one can have children out of wedlock. However, that definition also belies the syllogism that depends on it. S3: Heterosexual marriage provides...the foundation for society itself. R3: My opponent is simply restating his previous point, with further anecdotal elaboration. Due to its similarity to his previous arguments, I extend my same previous arguments in rebuttal. S4: If my first contention true then it paves the way for my second contention. Unfortunately, using my opponent's own definition, I have proven that his first contention is, in fact, false. Therefore, by admittance though this statement, his next contention is also false. Therefore, I will skip that statement and those relating to it. S5: If homosexual marriage is legalized then...it has the greatest impact on society because it provides society's building blocks. R5:This is tantamount to stating that gun rights will result in civil unrest, with mobs of civilians killing one another relentlessly in the streets. It's a logical fallacy known as -- you guessed it, as you called it -- Slippery Slope. Therefore, clearly, this a fallacious claim. S6: In conclusion...The state has no real reason to legalize or support it, therefore same-sex marriage should not be legalized. My opponent provided no reason to believe that the institution of marriage is for the purpose of procreation; in fact, the fallacies in his argument evidenced otherwise. Arguments I will now present two arguments that show how same-sex marriage is a neutral institution that will not have any detrimental effects on society, but will have positive effects for the homosexual community. A1: Same-sex marriage has a historical foundation. Historians indicate the up to 600 years ago, same-sex civil unions existed for the same reasons that the homosexual community outcries for such an institution today, such as federal acknowledgement. These contracts, which conclusively existed in France and Mediterranean Europe, and potentially elsewhere. This institution did not result in the dissolution of these civilizations; conversely, they flourished, with no detriment to their society's capacity to procreate or remain stable. A2: Same sex unions exist in nature. As animals, humans are often confused by proclivities that seem to contradict our reasoning. However, we must accept that our reasoning is imperfect and things that may seem anomalous is actually perfectly natural. For example, homosexuality and such unions are rather common throughout nature. Wikipedia lists over 100 animals that display such behaviors, with compendious evidence. Conclusion My opponent has presented no reasoning for his stance save for logical fallacies and false assumptions. Same-sex unions are actually a natural occurrence, both historically and throughout nature, and accordingly, should be allowed in a democratic free society like ours that remains disestablishmentarian. References http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.nizkor.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...