Same Sex Marriage

Now, that we are in the rebuttal phase of our debate, I will sort of work my way backwards through the items in this round and then to the previous round. Thanks for the opportunity to look into this topic together. Let's look at the primary economic objection to SSM. The state governments are trying to compel business proprietors to cater to or celebrate public same-sex wedding ceremonies. If the state did not allow same-sex marriages, then there would be no problem. Business proprietors could serve whomever they wanted to and refuse service to those who were engaging in practices that did not agree with their faith tradition. No one would expect a Muslim baker to bake a cake with the words, "Jesus is Lord over all" on top of the cake for a Christian confirmation ceremony. So, why are religious people who do not believe in same-sex marriage being forced to serve in a ceremony celebrating same-sex marriage? The simplest course of action is to recognize same-sex orientation and not same-sex marriage. Not serving the former would be disallowed but not participating in the latter would be freedom of conscience since it's not a valid marriage. The citation of the legalzoom page by my opponent strengthens my argument. If states distinguished between sexual orientation and same-sex marriage, then there wouldn't be any problem. Many businesses, if not all, who have been economically discriminated against for not serving in public same-sex wedding ceremonies have no issues in serving those who have a different sexual orientation! In fact, Arlene's Flowers who was discriminated against for her stand of religious conscience was already friends with those of different sexual orientation and had already served said customers. "For nine years, she lovingly served the same-sex couple who would later sue her" and request that the state prosecute her faith. [1] My opponent faults me for citing a study that compares the results of child-rearing in homosexual and heterosexual couples. But that is not faulty! That is what we are talking about and what we are comparing. Also, my opponent drops the ball here and does not interact with the negative effects that these homosexual couples produced in their children including greater rates of depression and greater crime rates. A good reason for not comparing the Regnerus Study with the Canberry Study is that the report showed that most marriages (heterosexual) lasted at least 13 years. Since this study began in 2008, that would not be a valid comparison. Also, the ACT has a population of about 385,000 whereas Australia has over 21,000,000. So, no matter what results this study comes up with, it is not necessarily indicative of Australia. Regarding homosexuality in other animal species, that is an interesting point, I grant you. However, what bearing exactly does that have on the marriage ceremony and the inducement to monogamy that the human species maintains? Other animal species might maintain positive balance through forms of homosexual mating, but that may not correlate with the way that heterosexual monogamy leads to order and stability among humans. I would be interested in seeing your full argument on this question. I do believe that Pro misunderstands my position in regards to churches being forced to perform marriages they do not agree with in their faith tradition. This was misunderstood because I was referring to potential conflicts of the current (not yet law) decision under deliberation by the Supreme Court. My opponent argues that the purpose of marriage is not to produce beneficial offspring. That is just plain wrong. It has been contradicted by the courts of Massachussetts. "He concluded that prohibiting same-sex marriage rationally furthers the Legislature's legitimate interest in safeguarding the "primary purpose" of marriage, "procreation." The Legislature may rationally limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, he concluded, because those couples are "theoretically . . . capable of procreation," they do not rely on "inherently more cumbersome" noncoital means of reproduction, and they are more likely than same-sex couples to have children, or more children." [2] Now, I'll move into the previous round. My opponent had commented that marriage is secular. But that's just an assertion. He actually provides no rationale for that claim. History contradicts it, of course. People recognized that marriage was a public commitment before God and if they divorced or broke up monogamy they would be accountable to God for their decision to break up. It was (and still is) a great way to maintain stability and monogamy. Second, it's not merely about chromosomes that one cannot marry. It's about marriage a complementary chromosome in order that children may result from the union which is economically beneficial, both to the state and to society in general. I would define marriage as the union of two people of the opposite sex. That makes the most sense economically and seems the best for society. Thanks again for this stimulating interaction. I look forward to further conversation on this topic. [1] https://alliancedefendingfreedom.org... [2] http://masscases.com...