Gay Marriage I

Thank you ScareltGhost, it’s a pleasure to be debating this issue with you once again! I will present my argument in the proceeding paragraphs, but first I’d like to point out a two things: I will not be defending the status-quo and I will not be defending a traditional conception of marriage. (That is to say, the history of marriage will be irrelevant to the case I am about to present) I will be arguing for a conjugal conception of marriage, between one man and one woman, from the ground up. Our Biology and Individualistic Society We, as people, are pretty self-sufficient. We can change food into energy and waste, we can move long distances, and we can perform tedious tasks and so on. In fact, nearly all of our bodily organs, such as our skin, heart, liver, kidneys, bladder, immune system etc. perform their functions perfectly well without interacting with any other human being. There is only one exception to this: Our reproductive organs. An individual, no matter how hard he/she tries, cannot operate his reproductive organs correctly without calling upon a member of the opposite sex. He/she requires another individual to perform coitus, the correct biological function of our sexual organs. [1]Now let’s take a step back and look at an individualistic society, where the base units that comprise society are individuals. Individual units are indivisible and have an orientation towards improving their own quality of life, as demonstrated by natural greed. Also, as stated above, each unit is nearly self-sufficient, capable of doing any tasks that our biology allows for aside from reproduction within its unit. This is not the same as saying individuals are incapable of performing coitus; of course they are, they can come together at any time and commence in the act. But this isn’t a solution to the inherent lack of ability in the base unit of society. Therefore I propose that the government, which oversees society, should condone a unit that would compensate for this lack of ability. It will be comprised of a man and a woman, who by their own natural (or society driven) desires would enter in the union, and be called a marriage. It would be an inseparable bond, only broken through infidelity or violence, and those comprising the union would work for the greater good of the unit. The government would be required to enshrine the union, as there is no social guarantee that the two would stay together through emotionally or economically tough times without force. But that is alright, because they willingly entered the union knowing that force holds it together. The union would also be oriented toward raising children, as evolutionary biology explains that parents have natural urges to see the continuation of their genes, or children. [2] So here is an overview:Individuals:IndivisibleAlmost entirely biologically capableMotivated by self-gainCapable of raising children with/without help from another individualMarriages:Inseparable (aside from infidelity and violence)Entirely biologically capableMotivated by self-gainOriented toward raising children (two people raising their biological children; evolutionary ideas)So that is the baseline case for establishing marriage, or a government established union between two people, in society. It does not necessitate tax breaks that are currently in place, or any other actions other than merely keeping the bond together through the governments sole ability; the application of force. So what does this have to do with Gay marriages? Well, lets look at an overview of what a gay marriage is comprised of:'Gay' Marriage:Inseperable (aside from infidelity and violence)Almost entirely biologically capable (cannot perform the function of our reproductive organs)Motivated by self-gainCapable of raising childrenSo, as we can see, a homosexual couple does not actually improve on an individualistcic base unit. My opponent then, in order to make his case, needs to establish why marriage should be recognized in the first place with reasoning that allows for homosexual couples to be included in the union. Until he does that, or negates my argument, I find it safe to say that since a union of two people of the same sex does not improve on an individualistic base unit, which is the entire point of marriage, they are incapable of actually forming a marriage and should be excluded from policy that aims to recognize real marriages. .. Common objections:Infertile couples! ?? !? !? !? ! The most notable one, and so I will start with it, is that infertile couples can't have children, and therefore cannot form real marriages. But my argument doesn't require couples to have children at all. It simply argues that there should be a societal unit that completely fulfills are biological functions, which is a marriage. People who can't/don't have sex? !? !? !? !? ! Another to my case specifically is that people who can't/don't have sex can still be married. And I say sure, they can be married in the eyes of the government but they aren't actually married. Marriage policy is aimed at trying to recognize as close to real marriages as possible, units that are self-sufficient in exercising their biological practices. There will always be some exceptions, and whether we want to go far enough to check if males have penis's is up to debate. I don't think we need to stress the importance of sex in these relationships though, it has always come naturally to have sex with the person you are living with, at least in our society. WHAT ABOUT DA BLACKS? !? !? !? ! What about African-American miscegination? It fits in entirely well with my line of reasoning. It is true that during the 1940's-60's they used a lot of similar arguments against SSM, they didn't work because basing marriage policy on the color of the bride and groom didn't make sense. If they actually made sense, I'd be against interacial marriage. But they don't, so the point is mute. .. I've said all that I want to say. Hopefully my point came across clear enough, and I anticipate a good (hopefully not copy/pasted) round from my opponent.