A Good Debate on Gay Marriage

Many thanks to bsh1 for inviting me to debate this important issue with him. I look forward to what I strongly believe will be a great debate! As per the rules established in the first round, I will not directly rebut my opponent's arguments this round. Rather, I will be just proposing the framework for my case. Moreover, I will try to be somewhat brief, keeping in mind that my opponent was facing serious time constraints when typing up his arguments for this round. Now, on to my case...THE EXCLUSIVITY OF MARRIAGEBefore discussing the issue of whether or not same-sex marriage, we have to ask a big question: What is "marriage"? I will tackle this question by describing its functions and implications in our society; hopefully, through my discussion, we can have a clearer idea of what "marriage" means in our society's social and legal realm.Well, when people enter a marriage contract, they are granted an exclusive legal status. Federal law grants 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections on the basis of one's marital status [1]. Indeed, marriage is not a "natural right," as many "equality" advocates have often suggested [see: 2]; marriage is a privilege that enables people to have the government invest in their legal status. And based on intuition, marriage must remain exclusive in order to be meaningful. Even the most devout same-sex marriage proponent would not say that the government should recognize a marital union between a man and a revolving desk chair, for example. Whether same-sex marriage should be legalized or not is not relevant to the principle of "equality"; rather, it is a question of whom we ought to exclude from the exclusive legal doctrine of marriage. In other words, where do we draw the line for marriage, when a line must be drawn?DRAWING THE LINE FOR MARRIAGEWhy does the government recognize heterosexual marital unions--and why does the government invest in them with a multitude of social and fiscal benefis (e.g., tax exemptions)? Why doesn't the government grant the same exclusive status to people who consider themselves "friends"?Marriage is unique in that it is a bodily union that promotes a stable institution of childbearing and rearing. A heterosexual marital contract, at its core, upholds a union that can internally reproduce and raise its own biological offspring. A homosexual union cannot bear children internally, and when a child is raised, it is not the child of one or both of the parents in such a union--and this creates a demand for children whose biological parents do not want them; homosexual unions do not meet the standard that makes stable heterosexual unions a current staple of the United States' legal realm. The heterosexual union of marriage provides an essential function that a society depends on: an internally stable and efficient family-based system that creates and raises future citizens of the society... and, further, this essential function cannot--on a fundamental level--be carried out by a homosexual union. THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF "EQUALITY"As I stated earlier, marriage is a privilege, not a right. It comes with government-granted "positive rights" (or entitlements) that can only be justified by some sort of utilitarian function of the marital union. Therefore, marriage is inherently imposed on some people (through necessarily exclusive governmental benefits), and a standard needs to be set. Without a standard, we create an all-inclusive institution, and it becomes absurd for the government to subsidize (and thereby incentivize) it. With complete (hypothetical) "marriage equality," after all, there is nothing wrong with a man to marry a dog... or a hockey team... or a table. Of course, there must be a standard; a man should not be given tax exemptions for "marrying" the sun. A standard needs to be set; a line needs to be drawn. Complete marriage "equality" is a slippery slope to a continual redefinition of marriage until it is all-inclusive, and an all-inclusive definition of marriage cannot justify the (utilitarian) exclusive legal status and benefits that the government currently grants in order to subsidize/incentivize marriage. CONCLUSIONWith these central claims and the axiomatic tenets they carry, I will be looking to refute the resolution and defend the institution of tradition marriage in the United States. In the next round, I will defend my arguments and refute those of my opponent. I look forward to my opponent's future arguments/rebuttals.Thank you.---[1] https://www.hrc.org...[2] http://www.marriageequality.org...