Gay Marriage

What Marriage is My opponent agrees the current definition of marriage is a comprehensive union, but past definitions are different. But this is indeed irrelevant, as current legal standings of marriage and future ones are the only ones that should affect public policy. The current definition as explained is a procreative relationship, when looking into law rarely would we use definitions from past civilization unless those where the definitions we have adopted. And, legally speaking, since the creating of this nation, marriage is a comprehensive union between a man and a woman in the purpose of procreation [1]. My opponent then plays a semantically structured argument upon my “nature of marriage” argument. Nowhere did I claim the institution of marriage was inherently natural, rather that once marriage was created it was natural for it (the norm) to promote procreation. The right to marriage is often debated amongst scholars. And many of them argue the only reason a right to marriage exists in current society is because “Acknowledging that the purpose of marriage is inherently normative— To foster a certain kind of sexual union between men and women characterized by caretaking, sharing of resources, procreation, and longterm commitment in order to encourage the protection of children and the reproduction of society …”[2] So marriage itself is not a product of marriage, rather the man made institution natural spews marriages purpose. For example, a nuclear reactor is man-made but naturally spews radiation. And the natural purpose of a nuclear reactor is to create energy. In other words, my opponent has failed to understand my argument. My opponent then agrees the state defines marriage based on their interest. He and I agree on the point that marriage, based on the definitions of the debate, is a legal institution regulated by the state. But his argument is claiming some discrimination is occurring. This, in a legal debate, rests on two things. 1) Is the discrimination unjust? 2) Is there even a right to the thing in question? In other words, for my opponent to prove some right is being deprived he must prove some rights are being deprived and that the discrimination is unjust. And so far, he has failed to do so. The constitution This is the only point my opponent has brought up that is actually relevant and/or convincing when discussing a legal situation. The other arguments, in reality, have no effect on the overall public policy and are unconvincing on a legal level. This is the only point, which could put the debate in his favor. And, luckily for me *;)* it is easily refutable. In a legal situation involving the constitution, the debate is fundamentally over what marriage actually is and whether or not marital rights apply towards homosexuals as well. As Girgis, George, and Anderson note: “Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis added] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded.”[1] In other words, unless under a current legal situation the marriage law is not defined as X or Y, we cannot assume any rights are being taken away. In more words, it is unlikely it is unconstitutional unless my opponent can provide a compelling states interest that requests the state define marriage any other way. Why allow SSM? My opponent takes the phrase responsible procreation too responsible parenting, which is irrelevant as studies showed married couples are more stable then otherwise and children are raised best by their natural mothers and fathers connected through marriage [2]. Further, one must ask what effect same sex marriage would have, as I described last round. Further, divorce is not an essential part of marriage like procreation; it is a defect of it. The fact we have liberal divorce laws does not mean the essential property of procreation should be changed. In other words, these laws do not represent the public function of marriage, and if anything may hamper its ability to be effective. Secondly, the point about enforcement is flawed. And yes, it can be enforced otherwise. But how is this relevant to the debate? The point of law is the government exerting its specific influences/wants to certain areas of public policy. As marriage has a public purpose, marriage law is part of the proper purpose of government. There are, indeed, other ways to encourage/enforce procreation but: 1) just because the presence of other means does not mean legislation should be passed, and 2) it doesn’t follow the government should use the other means of encouragement, as those might not be in the proper domain of the government. And to the points that marriage isn’t needed for responsible procreation seem sound, but aren’t. As the public purpose of marriage is unchanged even if procreation is possible outside of marriage. My opponent then criticizes my source, it is online here: (http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2011-rev.pdf) Further, citing foreign evidence is relevant as it shows that the effects of SSM is not good. Foreign evidence is not frowned upon in “America only” debates. My opponent claims the reason rates fell was due to population drops and fertility rates before the ban, but he cites no evidence therefore it’s a bare assertion. Adoption I never cited the public purpose of marriage is family, and if I did it would be a lie. I have proven, however, the public purpose of marriage is procreation and the point stands. I shall leave the point as is as the “family structure” is irrelevant to the legal purpose of marriage. Conclusion: (text got weird (italics)...) My opponent has the Burden of Proof, yet still has failed to give a legal reason to allow same sex marriage, therefore failing to fulfill the resolutions terms. A CON vote is warranted, as his case is good if we assumed it was a religious or societal institution, but we have agreed it is a legal one. Sources: [1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010) [2] Maggie Gallagher, "What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law," Louisiana Law Review (2002)