guy marriage

My opponent misinterprets my arguments. strawmans. My argument is based on there is no reason to allow same sex marriage, and that heterosexual couples have a special part of society (procreation) which should be heralded. He makes 3 main arguments, and all are weak. 1. They feel that way Just because someone is "born that way" is not a legal precedent to allow something. One could argue psychopaths are born that way, and they are humans, and therefore we should legalize murder. Being naturally born that way is NOT a legal precedent for anything really. One could also argue, as blacks are more prone to commit crimes, that if I am a born black (actually for all minorities). Point being being naturally born that way is irrelevant. 2. Blacks are like gays This antisemination comparison fails. This analogy fails because it essentially claims there is no difference between race and sexual preference. Race is irrelevant to marriage, gender/preference is in fact relevant. My case refutes the analysis, as I argue the reason marriage is defined is because of procreation. Race is irrelevant to procreation, being homosexual changes the whole situation. As preference is relevant to the debate of states interest, the state can now regulate it based on this reason. With this, the state has principled reasons to prevent homosexual marriage but not racial marriage hence banning SSM is ok, and banning racial marriage is not. 3. We are all equal This is assuming some type of right is being taken away. Before you assume some right is being taken, one must ask what marriage is? No one can make any valid claim without answering this question. To claim liberty is being violated, the liberty (in this case marriage) must be defined. In arguing that some equality or liberty is being taken away, he is proposing there is some pre existing right to marriage. This begs the question if the right exits. If it does not no equality or liberty is being deprived. Though I do agree this right exists, this does NOT hurt my case as this right is irrelevant. "Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded."[1]As marriage is defined as a man and a woman, the right is irrelevant and no equality or liberty is being deprived, this crumbles his case. Marriage is heterosexual by nature. Homosexual marriage simply cannot exist as it would not be marriage, and hence no right is being deprived. Even if they are a suspect class and "born that way". As marriage is defined as a man and a woman, and is heterosexual by nature, a right to gay "marriage" simply does not exist. Meaning your main argument fails. His minor points:1. Punishing them Disagree, having taxes punishes us but we still have them. To help people lets make them 0%!! But thats against states interests therefore it will not be done. Benefiting people is good, but if there is no reason too do so it shall not be done under law. It would benefit millions if we had no taxes, but if we did that the state would whither away. It is against their interest. It is against states interests to allow SSM under procreative reasons.***Response to his answers:Your argument is based on a love long term relationship, which I refuted last round. This fails as ordinary friendships have no effect on the political deeds and therefore do not warrant state regulation. "Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them? It is simply because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in structured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation. Marriages, in contrast, are a matter of urgent public interest, as the record of almost every culture attests—worth legally recognizing and regulating."[1]Why? Because the states interest rely on procreation and child rearing. Love is not a reason to legalize something. ***It does not matter what the state wants? So their interests do not relate to their laws? I think this is illogical as the state regulates the business and therefore has wants/needs from that industry. Their interest is procreation so giving them benefits or nothing is illogical and as there is no sufficient need to allow it states interest is omnipotent in this debate. ***Your reasons above are refuted and highly weak.CON has disproved all of pros points. [1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)