The US federal goverment should legalize Same Sex Marriage

Ok, first I'd like to start out with the fact my opponent addressed me as "her"....... Dude, I'm a guy XD Anyway, back to the debate. "The government makes laws based off of it's interests, as homosexual marriage does not fulfill the interests the question now is why? Why would the government give these benefits away?" Ok, so my opponent is basically saying that gay couples do not deserve the benefits that come along with marriage because they do not meet the state's interests. The state's interests are limited to (in this debate) procreation. I have one conflicting situation to go along with this argument. Why do infertile couples deserve the benefits of marriage? If the state's interests consist of procreation, and in order to deserve the benefits of marriage one must meet the state's interests, why do infertile couples, who just like gay couples cannot procreate, deserve the benefits of marriage? I understand that infertile couples that consist of a man and a woman still have the correct anatomy for procreation. But at the end of the day, they're not procreating. If the state has a very important interest in maintaining procreation, and they feel that marriage and the benefits that come with it should only be reserved for procreating couples, then infertile couples should not deserve the privilege of marriage over gay couples. In the US alone, 6 million women deal with infertility out of the 60 million women in child-bearing years. [1] A new Williams Institute analysis of Census 2010 data shows that there are nearly 650,000 same-sex couples in the U.S. [2] So, just to put this in perspective, let's assume that out of the 6 million women that are infertile, 4 million of them are married. So that would mean 2 million married couples are infertile. This number of infertile married couples would be more than three times greater than the number of potential same-sex marriage couples in the US. Even if you think the assumption above is ridiculous, even if you reduced the number of married infertile women to 3 million (half of the overall 6 million), the number of infertile couples would still be greater than the number of same-sex couples. The point is that a greater number of couples that are unable to procreate are still given the privilege and benefits of marriage over the lesser number of gay couples that cannot procreate. This is a fact - infertile couples can still marry although they fail to procreate. Because this situation exists, denying marriage to same-sex couples becomes DISCRIMINATION. "If we define marriage as between a man and a woman then say marriage is a right, then marriage in it's nature does not apply to homosexuals, therefore no discrimination occurs as the concept of gay "marriage" doesn't exist, therefore no right is deprived." Since this whole debate is about the resolution "The US federal government should legalize Same Sex Marriage", we cannot limit the definition of marriage to only being between a man and a women. If we did that, then yes, same-sex marriage would indeed not exist. But if same-sex marriage did not exist, then this debate would be absolutely pointless and would, in a way, not exist. If my opponent is trying to go against same-sex marriage by saying that marriage just doesn't apply at all to homosexuals, then why are we having this debate about same-sex marriage in the first place? Marriage should be defined as being united to a person of the opposite sex OR of the same sex. [3] Now, my opponent says I referred to marriage as a right. Yes, I believe it is a right for one to be able to marry. And because of the point I made in the above paragraph (that infertile couples are able to marry even though they cannot procreate just like gay couples), denying same-sex couples the RIGHT of MARRIAGE is DISCRIMINATION. "Once the Netherlands legalized SSM (10 years later) divorce rates are climbing, fertility rates dropping, and marriage rates declining. [5] Everything I said right there disproves your arguments. In countries that legalize SSM see declines in everything, fertility rates (linked to PROCREATION), marriage rates, and then an increase of divorce. [5] Basically everything you said wouldn't happen" I will refute this by saying it is VERY unlikely that what happened in the Netherlands would happen in all countries around the world. There can be so many other factors linked to the decline of fertility rates, marriage rates, and an increase of divorce. There have been a number of explanations for the general decline in fertility rates in much of the world, and the true explanation is almost certainly a combination of different factors. [4] These factors include higher education, economic development, urbanization, contraception, female social roles, government policies, religiosity, tempo effect, and partnership instability. [4] A couple of factors that can lead to a decline in marriage rates include an increase in women's educational attainment and labor force participation, and a rise in cohabitation as an alternative or precursor to marriage. [5] I don't see how divorce rates are affected by allowing same-sex marriage. Reasons for divorce are almost always personal ones between the couple. These reasons may include age when married, stepchildren, money, or drinking and smoking. [6] So to say that legalizing same-sex marriage in a country would lead to the country seeing a decline in fertility rates, a decline in marriage rates, and an increase of divorce rates is preposterous. I have shown that there are MANY other factors that could affect these. All of this happening in the Netherlands after legalizing same-sex marriage is just mere coincidence.---Conclusion--- My opponent's main argument against same-sex marriage once again involves procreation. Because infertile couples are allowed to marry (and they do not procreate just like same-sex couples), denying same-sex couples the ability to marry becomes a matter of discrimination. Discrimination does not belong in the US. The United States is built on a foundation of freedom and equal rights for all. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry goes against everything the US stands for.Vote pro. 1 - http://www.americanpregnancy.org...2 - http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...3 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...5 - http://www.prb.org...6 - http://www.ehow.com...