Gay marriage in the US

C1: Marriage is an institution that relates closely with procreation Marriage, and for a long time, relates closely with procreation and child rearing. Allowing SSM would change this meaning, it woudl change the way the definition stands today. Reproduction is a practice which the future of our race stands, and changing the definition of marriage may change this... historical state. [1] A State supreme court held, 5-4, that gay marriage was constitutional and the reason was marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, and the purpose of marriage is the up-bearing of children. [2] "defines marriage as between a man and woman, is constitutional because it furthers the state's interest of stable, child-producing unions." [2] In Conaway v. Deane, the courts held that we need to promote child rearing, and they want to encourage a family structure aimed towards new children. The states interest is procreation. [3] My second contention is the benefits of marriage, and these 2 contentions are very side-by-side. Why give benefits to marriages that cannot add people to the workforce? These benefits need ot be paid back, homosexual relationships woudl never be able to do so as they could not add to the workforce, whereas heterosexual marriages can. What other reason would the state be involved in marriage? Procreation is the answer, hence there is no point for the state to recognize these unions unless they can procreate. C2: Benefits of marriage, economy, taxes, etc.Tax benefits:1. Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. [4]2. Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. [4]Further more 51% of married couples pay less taxes. [5] Why is this important? Because allowing 4 million more people to get married would add to this. Still how is this bad? Because giving those people tax breaks would decrease revenue, and therefore hurt the economy. Classic question: How? Because one dollar spent on adam and steves marriage is one dollar not spent on medicare, or medicaid, or healthcare, or better bridges, or better roads, or military, or even investing solar energy, therefore it hurts the economy. Other benefits:Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. [4]This would drive up the deficit, which is universally accepted as bad. C3: What marriage isYou must, in this debate:1. Prove the definition of marriage is male female, male male, female female, to win this debate.2. Justify it3. Show it is more beneficial then banning it.4. Show that the gay marriage would benefit state interests, which I have addressed in C1.I must to the same, but must argue for traditional marriage. Let's look first what marriage is: Marriage is viewed as a contract, Civil marriage (what the US has) is where the state controls marriage, and religious forces have little to no play, marriage is defined by laws and jurisdiction. [6] Now, as this is the US, we must stay focused on the US, although studies from other countries are welcome. *just a little side track* My 1 & 4 relate well, according to what we ave to do the BOP is even. Now anyways back to the what marriage is. In C1 I said marriage was for procreation, now, as marriage is controlled by the state as my explanation above said, then the way they dictate marriage is based of of their laws and the state interests. If the state interest is often procreation, as I have stated, then gay marriage in the state eyes should not be allowed. SO based of of what US marriage is, then gay marriage should not be allowed as their interest is procreation. I have just fulfilled 1,2, and 4. Now my next few contentions will justify 3.C4: Slippery slope If we have a major change in the definition of marriage, it is logical to say there could be a slippery slope. After gay marriage what woudl happen? Would polygamy be allowed? Would family values degrade? Most likely allowing SSM would lead to the legalization of polygamy first. [7] People who argue for SSM say if gays should marry, then polygamists should too. [7] Many gay marriage defenders also hold this view, so allowing SSM would inevitably lead to polygamy legalization in the future. [7] It could also lead to marriage with dogs and other non-accepted traditions. [8] The pro-polygamy crowd is using the success of the SSM crowd as a diving board, a step up, to try to pass their agendas, which would further hurt the institution. [9]This argument proves my 3. Banning it is beneficial to allowing it. Conclusion:I needed to do 4 things:1. Prove marriage is between a male and a female: C1 showed marriage is between a man and a woman for th eurpose of marriage.2. Justify that gay marriage is bad: My whole case was dedicated to this.3. Show banning is is beneficial to keeping it: C2 & C4 fulfill this.4. Show gay marriage is not in the states best interest: C1 also proved this. I have proven SSM is not beneficial, and no SSM is preferable. My opponent has to do 1-4 as stated under C3 to win the debate, and has to refute my case well to make sure I do not fulfill 1-4. Refutations will be key, but sheer arguments are needed. My case has to be debunked by him, and he needs to prove by debunking my case I did not fulfill 1-4, I will do the same to him. I have proven SSM is bad, and that I have fulled 1-4. I urge a con vote.I await your response.sources: The case against "Same-Sex Mariage" Margret A. Somerville, PDF, McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law [1]http://seattletimes.nwsource.com... [2]Harrell, Raker (2007-09-18). "Court of Appeals of Maryland Opinion on Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al., No. 44, Sept. Term 2006" PDF [3]http://www.nolo.com... [4]http://money.msn.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://www.weeklystandard.com... [7] "Do We Really Want to Redefine Marriage," Aug. 11, 2010 [8]Glen Lavy, JD, "Gay Marriage and the 'Slippery Slope,'" May 21, 2008