Gay Marriage Ought to be Legalized

Thank you for your response. “Riddled with fallacies of definition, bare assertions, and cherry-picking, I have shown my case as to why gay marriage ought to be legalized. My opponent drops several arguments, he never questions the legality of gay marriage, or the fact that the supreme court ruled 11 times it's a fundamental right to all! He drops my argument of it's historical importance, and uses kettle logic only when it suits him, but ideologically he rests on shaky grounds, and relies on junk science to score partisan points rather than using objectivity and solid studies to make a case. ” “He never went against marriage as a fundamental right to all. He claims it's not a right, but clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with him. Finally he uses kettle logic, he has numerous contradictions, and unlogically sound conclusions. ” Anyone who even read my arguments will know that numerous things my opponent said are untrue and seem like a cheap shot at trying to win. Things I do not explain now I will explain in my arguments later. All arguments I dropped were not dropped at all. If you look back you will see that I either already gave an argument that refuted that point or that the entire point was irrelevant to the debate according to the arguments presented. My entire argument stands on the fact that gay marriage should not be legalized because it is not part of a definition of marriage that has the society’s best interest in mind. I have responded numerous times why the Supreme Court isn’t talking about gay marriage at all and my opponent drops that argument in his final round. I have shown history has no relevance to this debate because it doesn’t matter what people did in the past; it matters that marriage is defined in the interest of the society now. My entire argument is a loop where I must keep on repeating myself because every part of my argument supports another part of it. By no means am I dropping your arguments by having to repeat myself. None of my arguments contradict each other; it is simply a misunderstanding by my opponent. My arguments are all completely sound because each one supports the other; anyways, why would the government recognize marriage in the first place if it wasn’t for the benefits that marriage can bring? There is no need for the government to recognize gay marriage at all regardless of whether it will have consequences or not because the government has no interest in recognizing a relationship that is purely based of emotion. My opponent makes a claim that I made a concession to my opponent because I said that marriage isn’t strictly about procreation. No. I’m not arguing that marriage is strictly about procreation. I am arguing that the government only has an interest in the relationship heterosexuals pursue. By no means is this a concession at all. My opponent brings up history again; I have already explained that history has no relevance to this debate because we are arguing about how marriage should be defined now. The past has no bearing on our arguments. As explained earlier, allowing gay marriage changes marriage from being something that is about the interests of children and the interests of the society, and into something purely based off emotion. The government has no interest in the private relationships of people; the government only has interest in the benefits marriage can bring. My opponent brings up the hypothetical question: A woman from Cuba meets a man from America, they get married, the woman gets her green card, and leaves her husband. The husband is devastated. An abuse of the system does not equal the government changing its position on marriage. It’s just what it is, an abuse of the system. The government still strictly has an interest in the relationship heterosexuals pursue. In fact, the question really has nothing to do with the government’s interest in marriage. It just has to do with an abuse in the system of the government allowing a couple to pull their partner into the country. “If gay marriage is legalized, it's not just recognizing their marriage, it's giving then liberty over their lively-hood to make decisions about their S/O's in critical situations as noted in the hypothetical. ” Perhaps this liberty should be given regardless of marriage. However, just because married couples have certain benefits gay couples cannot have doesn’t mean we can justify gay marriage. Remember that the government dispenses benefits to promote heterosexuals to marry and to reward couples for doing society a “favor”. My opponent talks about how I have only been defending heterosexual marriage and that I have given no reason to not allow gay marriage. The government has no interest in private relationships. Allowing gay marriage turns marriage into something about private relationships. The government now has no reason to recognize marriage at all if it is to strictly promote private relationships. Allowing gay marriage changes marriage from being something that is about the interests of children and the interests of the society, and into something purely based off a private relationship. My opponent seems to be trying to twist my words when it comes to the government’s role in recognizing marriage. It’s very simple, the government is interested in any relationship that has a special link to children and promotes a family unit. As for the study on out-of-wed-lock births, earlier I did show that that could simply be a possible consequence to allowing gay marriage, but like every single study in existence that leans toward some kind of political stance there is controversy over it. Is the judge wrong? I don’t know. Is the study right? I don’t know. However, the information was out there so I used it. Regardless of whether it is true or not I have still shown other reasons why gay marriage should not be recognized. “Also, this has been done in Canada, Sweden, Spain, etc. .. And nothing wrong has happened to those countries as previously noted, and my opponent dropped this argument. ” First off, this “argument” was presented 2 rounds ago and it was in your conclusion. Conclusions are used to summarize your arguments, and are not actually used for presenting arguments in themselves. I already read your arguments so I generally skim over conclusions. Anyways, this does not refute the point that marriage turns into something about the private relationship of a couple. Gay marriage is something that has negative affects after a certain period of time. For example, Scandinavia and Norway have both had gay marriage legalized for quite a while and they are now starting to experience out-of-wed-lock births and the decline of marriage. However, in the first 5-10 years of having gay marriage legalized no negative affects had been seen. My opponent claims he didn’t drop my argument on how the government is only interested in a relationship with a special link to children then states what he had previously said in response, but his response is irrelevant to the entire point. His response was that homosexuals can raise children just as well as heterosexuals but that wasn’t what I was arguing. Like I said before, even if homosexuals could raise children just as well as heterosexuals it would still be irrelevant because the relationship they pursue has no special link to children. My opponent’s argument on infertile couples vs. gay couples does not refute the arguments I previously gave, which states that infertile couples promote the view that the government isn’t interested in the children themselves in necessity, but it interested in the relationship heterosexuals pursue. Conclusion My opponent makes false assertions that my arguments are not valid but gives absolutely no reason why, almost none of his arguments actually gave a proper response to my own because I had to repeat myself, and all arguments that I supposedly “dropped” I had either already responded to earlier, or were already refuted with my arguments.