Drasai's premise for the illegalization of same-sex marriage

First, my opponent seeks to define "state recognised marriage [. . . ] as the legally or formally recognised[sic] union of two persons as partners in a relationship, as recorded in a registry maintained by the state [. . . ] potentially, [able to be] extended to include more than two individuals, however, I submit that this is beyond the terms of this debate. " I agree with this definition of marriage as it relates to our debate. My opponent's position, if I am interpreting it correctly, is that no gay-marriages should be legally recognized in the United States ("I believe that marriage between same-sex couples should remain unrecognised by civil law in jurisdictions where this is currently the case, and revert to this situation in jurisdictions where this has recently changed. ") This position, to put his argument in a few words, is derived from his belief that the love between two people is not relevant to the government and that the only reason that the marriages of straight couples are and aught to be recognized is the government's interest in the offspring the couple may produce. What follows is my rebuttal. My opponent makes a sound and well-thought out argument, and for that I thank him. I will attack, however, his beliefs in several areas. First, Drasai's argument that the sole purpose of legally recognizing marriage is to invest interest in children that might be generated by married couples MIGHT hold more weight if marriage was an institution that had only recently been created. However, marriage is an institution that is deeply rooted in the culture of all humans and has come to mean more than just its legal implications. To be married is to be respected as a serious couple within our society. To be married has social implications that affect daily life in a world where children are taught to think about marriage from a very early age in books and in movies and from the people around them. Marriage was built to be a rite of passage available to everyone, though long before it would be considered whether or not it was built for everyone to marry ANYONE, and was at one point not only a privilege but an expectation. There were few who could get away with not settling down and starting a family without being stigmatized and considered an unworthy member of society. Those who didn't marry, especially women, were considered hags, and through these beginnings, the ability to marry was established as an inexorable right in achieving social equality. More importantly, the government's investment is NOT only an interest in procreation. To be married is to form a family whether children are involved or not, and the government has an interest in FAMILIES, not just children. Members of families have legally recognized privileges when it comes to making decisions for other family members. One important example is the case of a sick spouse. Family members have the privileges of visitation and only a family member can make big medical decisions if the sick individual cannot speak for them self. In cases where a couple is not legally married, blood-related family members have legal precedence over ones' partner, which is especially problematic considering that many homosexuals come from difficult families situations because of rejection of their sexual orientation. Difficult decisions like whether or not to pull the plug on a sick individual falls to the closest blood relatives, whether they should be the one trusted with that decision or not, if their partner is not legally a member of their family. There are other legal implications to marriage that simply do not come with the unrecognized couplings. Sources [1] and [2] list some of these benefits, a few notable ones being: [1]: "Creating a 'family partnership' under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. " "Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. " "Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. " "Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family. " [2]: "Employers who provide health benefits to their employees typically pay a portion of the premium " if not the entire premium. Currently, the Code provides that the employer"s contribution of the premium for health insurance for an employee"s spouse is excluded from the employee"s taxable income. An employer"s contribution for the domestic partner"s coverage, however, is included in the employee"s taxable income as a fringe benefit. " "Internal Revenue Code " 2056 exempts amounts transferred to a surviving spouse from the decedent"s taxable estate. For same-sex couples who are legally barred from marriage, this exemption is not available, creating an inequity in taxation. " Some anti-gay marriage activists argue that gay people should be satisfied with the allowances of legal unification they have, such as the ability to enter into a civil union. But even if the legal benefits of civil unions were exactly equal to those of marriages (they are not [3]), it would not be enough. By giving the marriages of same-sex couples a different name, huge openings would be provided for abuse and discrimination against same-sex couples. Using a different name implies that same-sex couples are somehow lesser, and their unions somehow within a lower legal standing. In fact, same-sex and opposite-marriages should be considered equal because they serve the same goal: to create a family. These families may be created with the intention of raising children as easily in either case. They may just as easily not be in either case. Moving on, my opponent has insinuated that the government should only be interested in same-sex couples because only same sex couples produce offspring. This is simply not true. According to [2], "recent data shows that at least 1 million children are being raised by same-sex couples in the United States. " This is a small number, and it is only so small right now because the hardships and barriers put in place to prevent same-sex couples from raising children are great. Some of these children ARE the product of the couple, when the members of the couple jointly decide to produce children and one of them becomes pregnant (in the case of lesbian couples. ) Some are adopted. The government has an interest in these children and their relationships to their parents too, does it not? While no serious couple is legally obligated to include children at any point in its family dynamic, members of serious but unmarried couples are just as likely to have children as married ones, with married couples being far more stable than unmarried ones, according to TheGuardian. com [4]. This means same-sex couples too, with the only difference being the way in which those children find their way into these same-sex families. Some exist before and without the couple's involvement and some do not. So if the same-sex couples are going to have children no matter what, those children deserve the stability that comes with a legally recognized marriage. Finally, my opponent made several claims to the effect that children should not be taken away from their biological parents to be raised by same-sex couples because this does not benefit the children. His exact words were, "[. . . ] while the jury might be out on whether same or opposite sex couples make better parents, it is difficult to refute the position that children are generally better off being raised by their own biological parents, and both together as much as possible. " Now, here's where Drasai's argument falls outside of logic and reason. I agree that children are far better off outside of the foster care system, and that those put into it suffer for it. But those children will be in the foster system regardless of the existence of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are not GRABBING their children out of the hands of their opposite-sex biological parents. Those biological parents are already giving their children up, and the same-sex couples are providing a home. In the case of lesbian couples with one becoming pregnant, Drasai might argue that the child is being denied access to one of his biological parents. But Drasai offers no evidence to support the claim that genetic relation to parents improves the life of children. Is it, as Drasai argues, the lack of two genetically similar individuals that causes a child to suffer, or is it, as I believe, the process of being put into foster care at a young age that makes a child suffer? In the case of the above example, the child does not go into foster care: they are in a stable familial environment from the beginning. Drasai also makes the argument that the government should put more protections in place to keep parents who may be considering putting their children up for adoption from separating themselves from their children. This point is unrelated, however, to the issue of same-sex marriage. Maybe their SHOULD be better systems in place to shrink the number of children put into the system, but the reality of the world is that there ARE large numbers of children in the system right now, and the existence of same-sex couples will in no way INCREASE the number of children put into foster care. If anything, as same-sex couples gain marriage and adoption equality, far fewer children will be without families. Sources: [1] . http://www.nolo.com... [2] . http://www.hrc.org... [3] . http://www.legalmatch.com... [4] . http://www.theguardian.com...