Gay Marriage

I am going to refute my opponents points while reaffirming my original points. 1: The State's interest-The State's interest in marriage is procreation, you say. Now, I'm not saying we are overpopulated, but as I previously stated, we have over 100,000 children up for adoption, plus thousands of others in temporary homes, who may also end up back up for adoption. So, why would the State be interested solely in procreation, and not in finding homes for the children already created? I have argued that homosexuals can fill this role, by adopting these children as their own. While it is legal in 48 states for homosexuals to adopt, it makes it much, much easier for adoptions to go through if there is a stable home life, starting with marriage. An unwed heterosexual couple would have similar problems adopting, and the two states, Florida and Utah, that do not allow homosexual adoption, disallow it because the homosexuals are not marriage (meaning it isn't solely gays, but single and unwed couples as well). By allowing homosexual marriage, we can give loving, stable families to thousands of children, better furthering society. You state that the public function of marriage is procreation, even if procreation isn't what brings the couple together. You also state that the State wouldn't be interested in providing millions of dollars in benefits to homosexuals. But these benefits will still be available for heterosexuals, even if they don't procreate. So why should heterosexuals receive benefits, that are supposedly meant for heterosexuals to further procreation, even if they don't fulfill this goal of procreation? But homosexuals shouldn't recieve them, because it would be too expensive? Some of the benefits available don't even have anything to do with procreation, but are still important to couples. However, some of the benefits I mentioned are vital for parents and their children, and until homosexuals can marry, and they can legally call themselves the parents of the children, rather than foster parents, some of these benefits will be unavailable to them. Furthermore, I believe creating a stable family setting, where both individuals can say they are married, is much better for the children who are adopted. Studies show that this is so for families with heterosexual parents. The results are much better when the couple is wed, rather than unwed. [1] So I will conclude this section by summing up. The State does in fact have an interest in homosexual marriage, solely from the standpoint of adoption. It will make it much easier for homosexuals adopt, helping to find homes for the 100,000 children up for adoption. It is much better for the children being adopted if the parents are married, so that they have a coherent family unit, with married parents, plus it makes certain benefits (as listed in my previous argument) available for these families. 2: Why it should be legal- I showed in the previous section why the State does in fact have an interest in homosexual marriage. This section will be devoted to the rights and benefits issue of marriage, an issue I do find very important. First off, I agree that some rights available are sub-benefits inside larger statutes, however, that doesn't make them any less important. They are still important, and only available to heterosexual couples. And I disagree that this takes away from the marriage. For example, being able to inherit property from a spouse, or to get discount rates for insurance? These could help financial problems of homosexual couples. Secondly, you say that it would be against the states interest, shelling out millions more for benefits to homosexuals, on top of the millions already being shelled out to heterosexuals. However, there are problems with this argument. First, there is the "marriage tax"[2]. By allowing homosexual marriage, more revenue will be generated through this tax. Second, there is the fact that they can adopt children easier, contributing to society by raising children that otherwise, are going unraised, in state sponsered homes. By making it easier for them to adopt, homosexuals can actually take the cost of raising the children off of the states hands. So I conclude that allowing homosexual marriage actually makes sense for the State, as it would take the costs and obligations of foster children off of the states hands, while helping society by putting these chilren in homes, and furthermore, allowing homosexuals to marry, something that I am suprised is still being debated in 2012. 3:Right of marriage-I have shown why homosexuals should be allowed to marry, why the State can and should take an interest in allowing homosexuals to marry, so my argument on the rights of marriage, based on the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, still stands.4: A quick note-My opponent doesn't agree with the study that I have posted. Personally, I thought that the study was sufficient. However, I will provide another study, under [3] to further back up my claim. This study is a bit more recent (2004), although I don't think that the age of my previous posted study hurts is at all. Just to quote from the study by the APA (American Psychological Association): "There is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation. " Conclusion- In conclusion, I have shown why my opponents arguments against homosexual marriage is wrong, because the State does have an interest in it, as it would help homosexuals adopt, giving a loving, stable, home to some of the 100,000 children available for adoption. I have shown that the benefits available in marriage should be available to homosexuals, and that the issue of cost doesn't make sense, and really is a silly reason to disallow it. I have reaffirmed my point that homosexual marriage is beneficial to society, and allows homosexuals a basic right, to get married. Vote Pro! References- [1] . http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.apa.org...