Gay marriage

Thanks for the debate. ~Refutations~ R1: First amendment explain, as this as of now makes no sense. Arguing the 14th makes sense, but is refutable. This makes no sense. R2: Love Marriage is not about love, in the governments eyes, but rather procreation. In this debate the goverment (sadly) in this day and age now regulate marriage. The question is why? They must have a purpose. The purpose is procreation. If they cared about love they would be regulating other relationships too. As this is not the case, chances are they do not care about love. ~My case~ The secular case against gay marriage: 1." Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust."[1] P1: Procreation Heterosexual marriage laws the ground work for a relationship that creates and raises children. (sperm + egg). Now, the goverment gives many benefits economically, tax wise, etc to married couples. [2] The reason they only give them to traditional couples is because of their ability to procreate. Having children is the only way to continue society and advance our culture and race. As the heterosexual couples are the only people who can advance society in this way, and well pay back the benefits they get through marriage, then they deserve a state recognition. The goverment makes laws based of of interests, and their interest in this case is procreation. Therefore allowing gay marriage would be unjust as it debars the special recognition the heterosexual couples deserve. P2: Is marriage about love? People who are pro gay marriage usually have the claims that marriage is about love, but this is far from true. If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved? They are involved due to some sort of interest. If the goverment cared about love, then they would attempt to regulate and control friendships or non marital relationships. The reason they regulate marriage over these other relationships is because marriage is where you are meant to produce a larger workforce. The reason they do not regulate other relationships is because they have no good reason to do so, at all. The goverment in marriage needs two things: 1) legal commitment, 2) procreation and the ability to raise a child. A boyfriend girlfriend relationship may produce offspring in the process, but as they are not legally binding situation it is easier for them to break apart, and they will not be able to raise the child. A homosexual relationship will be lacking the legal bind, and the ability to produce offspring. Even if we did give them a legal bind, they would not be able to create children therefore not fulfilling the states interest fully. P3: Infertile couples One argument used against the procreation argument is the infertile argument. This objection is a misunderstood rebuttal, they do not understand the debate at point. The argument is not fully based of of the ability to reproduce, but rather a type of relationship in which procreation is possible to start off. It is not an argument fully based of of the argument they can make kids, but also an argument based of of the ability to have the similar effect, a procreative type union. P3: Benefits My opponent without a doubt will start to argue as marriage has benefits isn't it fair homosexuals receive them too? Any society, goverment, or institution that distinguishes marriage in a certain way will prohibit some types of marriage. A prohibition of SSM does not violate the equal protection clause as we must first have a definition of what marriage is. You cannot confirm that a SSM ban is unconstitutional unless we determine exactly what marriage is, and what it is for. [3] It is only unconstitutional if they are unjustly debarred the right. Ex: Is it unconstitutional if we debar a murderer from a gun? No. That is a just cause, and with my secular case against gay marriage I have proven they are justly debarred the right. By saying it is unconstitutional you are saying it discriminates without just cause, and that this group deserves the right. As murderers do not deserve a right to a gun, then it is constitutional. In the states eyes homosexual couples cannot produce offspring therefore do not fulfill states interest, and do not deserve the right. Just because something may have inherent good effects does not mean they deserve the legal benefits. The challenge to my opponent, and the argument he needs to press is: What are the states interest in giving these couples rights? If the State has no reason to give you benefits then why should they? Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits. I urge a Con vote. sources: http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...... [1] http://www.nolo.com...... [2] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" [3]