The United states goevrment shoudl legalize SSM

I thank Con for posting his flawed argument. REFUTATIONS: 1. The states interest in marriage is procreation. This is an absurd claim. If the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and thus is denying homosexuals the right to marry upon that grounds, all couples that cannot/do not/will not procreate should not be granted the right to marry. This means sterile couples should not also be married. Those who cannot financially support children should be denied the right to marry. Couples who do not wish to have children should not have the right to marry. There is no logical reason to prevent homosexuals, above and independent of all other groups, to not have the right to marry. And all of this is under the false assumption that gays cannot procreate. 2. Homosexuals cannot procreate. procreation (n): the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process [1] A. Fertility. This is clearly false. Homosexuals are free to procreate. What scientific evidence is there to point to homosexuals' inability to procreate. Gays are not sterile. Gay males can easily procreate with females. The fact that they may or may not choose to (just as straight couples may not have kids) is irrelevant. Such an argument would be hypocritical. B. Artificial insemination, surrogates, sperm donors, etc.. Gays often do not have children through others. The fact that these forms are not with each other is irrelevant for two reasons: i. Heterosexuals use these methods as well. ii. They are in concordance with the definition of procreation (see above). Participation of both sides in the biological process is not necessary. In 2000, it was estimated that 326,000 households were gay/lesbian's with children. [2] 3. The state has no reason to legalize it The logic behind this conclusion is flawed, thus invalidating the conclusion itself. 4. Heterosexuality's exclusivity of aid to progression of the species "These heterosexual relationships create children which help further society. Without these couples the human race would die off due to lack of reproduction. These couples actually further the human race, as without them we would die.... The point is without these couples we would not exist, therefore these couples benefit us as they keep our existence, and keep us from losing natural selection, as reproduction is necessary." As was shown above, homosexuals contribute to successive generations of the population as well. Without having a gay person as a host or sperm donor, many individuals of our species would not exist. Heterosexuality is neither exclusive in its contribution to the population, nor does it always contribute at all (heterosexuals do not ALWAYS have children). 5. Allowing gay marriage undermines the benefit and recognition they deserve "As heterosexual couples have a social value, they deserve recognition." Using your above logic, homosexuals have the exact same value to society. "the reason heterosexuals get it above their homosexual peers is because of procreation." This claim, which is the basis of Con's ENTIRE ARGUMENT, is unsubstantiated and has been proven false. Thus, his entire logical syllogism is inherently flawed. "They get the benefit for their reproductive ability." Again, if the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and thus is denying homosexuals the right to marry upon that grounds, all couples that cannot/do not/will not procreate should not be granted the right to marry. This means sterile couples should not also be married. Those who cannot financially support children should be denied the right to marry. Couples who do not wish to have children should not have the right to marry. There is no logical reason to prevent homosexuals, above and independent of all other groups, to not have the right to marry. And all of this is under the false assumption that gays cannot procreate. 6. Allowing these relationships denies what they deserve "Allowing gay marriage in a way is saying the thing you do for us; furthering the human race, is no longer important." Yet gays actually help further the species while a large portion of the heterosexual population does not. Again, if the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and thus is denying homosexuals the right to marry upon that grounds, all couples that cannot/do not/will not procreate should not be granted the right to marry. This means sterile couples should not also be married. Those who cannot financially support children should be denied the right to marry. Couples who do not wish to have children should not have the right to marry. There is no logical reason to prevent homosexuals, above and independent of all other groups, to not have the right to marry. And all of this is under the false assumption that gays cannot procreate. IN FACT, 300,000-500,000 children had homosexual BIOLOGICAL parents in 1976. [3] Despite the fact that I do not have the BOP, Con has stubbornly insisted I post an argument. ARGUMENT: 1. There is no reason to withhold certain rights from a certain group of people over other for no reason other than their sexuality. 2. State's interest. P1: The states interest in marriage is procreation [4] P2: Homosexuals can procreate C: Therefore the state has reason to legalize it. You may notice this is Con's argument. I have proven P2 true, thus, using Con's logic, homosexual marriage should be legal. Con used this very argument, thus he by default accepts P1 as true. Again, all is legal until illegalized. Con has not made a case for why it should be illegal (remain illegal). It is HE who has the BOP, but I posted arguments regardless. CONCLUSION: Con's arguments have been thoroughly refuted. He also cannot post more arguments as, as per acceptance guidelines, there will not be new arguments past round 2. His arguments are based on one primary claim: homosexuals cannot reproduce. This has been proven false. Vote for the stronger refutations. SOURCES: 1. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://www.frc.org... 3. http://adoption.about.com... 4. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF)