New Gay Marriage Debate

He insisted I have a rematch with him after our last debate, so I will graciously accept. Marriage and Procreation What makes marriage what it is? What makes marriage special so that it should only be obtained by man and woman together? The answer is the relationship that only heterosexual couples can pursue. Normally the argument in support of gay marriage goes along the lines of, “Oh well they really love each other so they should get married! ” If marriage was about the emotional connection then why wouldn’t the two people simply stay in a non-marital relationship? There is no point in recognizing a relationship that is only out of love. Obviously, only man and woman can procreate. Without procreation a society could not continue to live or thrive. The reason the man and woman get the marriage benefits is because they are doing society a “favor” per say by procreating and allowing the society to live. This is something homosexuals simply cannot do. Procreation and the proper raising of children are at the base of marriage; it is the main reason marriage exists. This fits the traditional view of marriage, which is between man and woman. Gay marriage gives absolutely no value to society at all as a whole. At the heart of marriage is also the proper raising of children, therefore infertile heterosexual couples can and should also be able to get married. Even though they cannot procreate, they can adopt and raise children for society; therefore they still provide society benefits. In addition, the state still takes an interest in infertile/childless marriages because it wants to promote a view of marriage as it really is, not just as a means to an end. Marriage Between Man and Woman Now from my last point, it may sound like my arguments go along the line of procreation and the proper raising of children being the only important thing in marriage. While procreation is what benefits society in essence, marriage is more than that. Men and women are complimentary to each other in marriage, and through the loving (and natural) relationship they pursue. This loving relationship fulfilled at its best (much like a tree that bears fruit) produces children for society and raises them properly to continue societal growth. Marriage between man and woman connects sexual intercourse with love and not lust, sexual intercourse connects with children, and the children connect to being raised and loved by their mom and dad. This is all good for society and is a role in marriage that can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman. Marriage is about the relationship between man and woman, and when that relationship is fulfilled at its best, it commonly becomes a loving family that raises children properly for society. Not only does gay marriage not fulfill this role, but allowing gay marriage actually distorts this role, leading to marriage ultimately losing its meaning. Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited There is a limited role that the government should, and should not do with marriage. Hopefully the government would never go as far as to legalize marriages based around pedophilia, bestiality, having multiple spouses, ect. In order to preserve the sanctity and meaning of marriage, the government must draw the line somewhere on who gets married. It logical to see that this line should be drawn at marriage between a man and a woman. Reasoning behind this can be seen in my procreation argument and my argument over the relationships heterosexual couples pursue. Marriages between man and woman benefit society while not complicating society like having multiple spouses could do. Once marriage only becomes an emotional relationship between two people and nothing more, the meaning behind marriage is lost. There is a reason that the government regulates marriage. This reason is that marriage between man and woman is inherently good in the sense that it has a special link to procreation and the proper raising of children for society. The government would be doing a poor job regulating marriage if they allowed anything that didn’t have the best societal structure interest in mind. Parenting among homosexuals Obviously one of the most important things in society is the children and how they are raised. Children need to be raised well in order to keep the society moving forward without problems. Homosexuals cannot achieve the expectations set in raising children well, or even better than heterosexual parents and I will now explain why. A study taken in July of 2012 proved that homosexual parents fail in all categories in being better than their heterosexual counterparts at parenting. "Homosexually-behaving adults inherently suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse; therefore, as a group, households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home environments needed by foster children. "(1)(4) A study taken from the Journal of Human Sexuality concludes the following: The presence of a father reduces the chances that the child will participate in criminal activities and reduces the chances the child will take drugs. Lesbian mothers make children more sexually active. Fathers help the child stay chaste. “Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex. ” (3) People have the best sex lives when raised by heterosexual parents. Fathers help children with interaction among other people. When going through puberty, the father teaches the son “how to be assertive and how to be a “man”. (3) “violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples, and homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages”. (4) I will concede to the point that there are homosexuals that can raise children better than some heterosexual couples. To clear up why it still isn’t appropriate to allow the exceptions, I will give this analogy: “we should not stop warning people about the dangers of smoking just because some smokers outlive non-smokers. Nor should we stop warning people about the dangers of homosexual behavior or parenting just because some homosexuals outlive heterosexuals or parent better. If laws were based on exceptions, we would have to do away with virtually every law we have. It would require that we do away with all laws against running red lights because sometimes running a red light will not hurt anyone. In fact, it would require that we do away with marriage itself because spouses in some marriages abuse one another and their children. ”(4) I will provide my rebuttals in the next round. (1) . http://catholiceducation.org... (2) . http://www.scribd.com... (3) Quote from 16KAdams in his debate, “This House Believes That the No Difference Theory is correct” (4) . http://www.allaboutlove.org... (5) . http://www.lifesitenews.com...