Legalization of Same Sex Marriage

I want to address my opponent's points and restate my central arguments and form conclusions from this. I think it is a better idea for me to provide quotations from your previous response so that my summary of your arguments isn't made up, twisted, or taken out of context etc. Summarizing your arguments also allows to respond better. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent's points 1. In my opponent's first two points at the beginning, he said that homosexual marriages provide special societal benefit because it benefits themselves. He then insists that marriage originated as a contract to further economic goals and provides a source. He says because marriage originated from this, we shouldn't return to it. “1. Homosexual marriage does have value to homosexuals, which are a part of our society, and hence, homosexual marriage does offer special societal value.2. Marriage records predate reliable recorded history. It originated as a contract, usually arranged between families and to achieve economic goals (two rich families become unGodly wealthy and powerful through the marriage of their offspring). Are you suggesting that we return to this idea of marriage? . http://www2.hu-berlin.de...... ” 2. My opponent says that the source he provided shows that procreation was the interest of the marriages for the government. He then says that these same governments promoted homosexuality and as a result of this, they encourage sexual expression (supposedly weakens my argument). My opponent then said that social and cultural values change and that marriage is not necessary for sex. “This source does note that early governments expressed a vested interest in marriage for the purpose of procreation. Good, I have established for you that the government has a reason to like heterosexual marriage. Congratulations. This source also notes that early governments encouraged marriage and procreation, but that these same governments also encouraged homosexuality. They encouraged sexual expression period, but it is a fact that marriage is not necessary for sex, nor does procreation always develop into marriage. ” 3. My opponent says that to deny homosexuals marriage would be unconstitutional, very oppressive and discriminatory to the homosexuals. He also says that because of established laws that say that homosexual marriages are alright then my arguments/theory is useless. My opponent then says I should be proving SSM should be illegal etc. “and 2. It would be unconstitutional. It is called discrimination. Discrimination is illegal in the workplace because it is unconstitutional. It would be illogical to say that discrimination is not relevant here. . .. .I already quoted Webster's for you, there are Gay marriages happening today, so your theory then is proved false by the facts. .. .. You are basically saying we should oppress homosexuals by discriminating against them because we should all accept your view that marriage exists solely for procreation. .. .do you realize that discrimination IS illegal because it IS wrong and to prohibit homosexuals from getting married IS discrimination just like if I refused to hire a completely qualified person strictly because they were homosexual? ” +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I would like to first point out that the very source my opponent gave in his last response will be helping me a lot with regards to my rebuttals. Rebuttal to point 1 My opponent's first statement doesn't make sense. Since same sex marriage would benefit homosexuals , it doesn't mean it benefits the society as a whole. This is fallacious reasoning. The only people that would benefit from SSM are the homosexuals themselves and this is parasitic on the state. Heterosexual unions on the other hand contribute to society in the form of the continuation of society and bringing up of children. Regarding the origin for the institutionalization of marriage, my opponent's own source proves that it is due to procreation. While economic transactions were part part of the marriage, my opponent's source says it is mainly due to procreation. It says: “Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties. ” (bold emphasis mine) [1]. My opponent's own source proves him wrong. Rebuttal to point 2 While my opponent is true that in ancient Greece according to his source Sparta encouraged homosexual relationships, they never ever encouraged homosexual marriages. In fact, homosexual marriages were despised and hated because childless men were hated. My opponent's source proves this. It says: “Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn. ”[1] Homosexual marriages cannot produce children and as such are despised. The institution of marriage indeed because its main purpose which I have proven was procreation (sex) to produce and raise lawful citizens. This proves detrimental to my opponent's case. This was true even in ancient times. In my opponent's source it says: “Their main function as wives was to produce children and to manage the household while their husbands tended to public affairs. ”[1] Rebuttal to point 3 My opponent once again brings up the constitution and discrimination near the ending of his response. I stated at the very beginning of the debate that we would also be arguing what marriage should fundamentally be so any established laws aren't infallible and are up for argumentation. You say that it would be discrimination (deprivation of rights), once again in the beginning I said that if marriage does not include homosexuals and doesn't apply to them, then there are no rights being violated. To say you are being discriminated is to assume there is such a right which I have argued there is not. With regards to proving if homosexual marriages should be illegal, yes I have proven that it should be illegal even though I'm mostly arguing what I stated in the beginning. Please refer to my the beginning of my opening arguements in R2. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Final Conclusions My opponent's reasoning eventually will say that everyone deserves marriage because it is based on sexual love and that they should receive the numerous benefits married couples receive today [2]. I have said that the main interest the state has in marriage is to facilitate and provide a good environment for the production and rearing of children. My opponent still has not given answers to these two major questions regarding SSM: 1. Exactly how do same sex marriages benefit the entire society and provide special societal value? 2. Why should the state be interested in unions which are based simply on emotions? If the state would be interested in marriages based on emotion what is stopping them from regulating friendships and extra marital affairs? My opponent also still has not brought forth any arguments for why same sex marriages should be legalized. I on the other hand have given arguments against the legalization of SSM and even the prohibition of it. Please VOTE FOR MY SIDE! !! Sources . http://www2.hu-berlin.de... [1] . http://www.nolo.com... [2]