Gay Marriage

Hopefully my response to the points you make (Which are very common misunderstandings of the arguments I have presented) will be enough to give you a clearer picture of the arguments I myself have presented. Discrimination and Gay Marriage My opponent seems to be stuck on thinking that the reason gay couples aren’t allowed into marriage is because of their sexual orientation. I will make this extremely clear. The government does not want allow gay couples into marriage because this relationship does not have a direct link to the family unit (therefore making it a private relationship, which the government has no interest in). This denial of gay couples is not because of sexual orientation, rather it is because the relationship does not have the public means of benefiting the society through the family unit directly. If any of this is confusing (such as what it means to have a direct link to the family unit), please refer back to the arguments I made last round, where I clarified my position. If I give out License X to individual who can do Y. There is no discrimination that I do not give out license X to those who cannot do Y. This is because license X is specifically given to only those who can do Y. In this case, license X is marriage, and license Y is the direct link to the family unit. Rebuttals Now, to hopefully clear up any misunderstandings my opponent has with my arguments I will directly response to his statements. “The government does NOT specifically recognize or even consider marriage as a "public benefit" but more of a private negotiation between two people under state and federal law. Exactly what "benefits" do heterosexuals who get married automatically bring to society that homosexuals who get married do not? And where is your source to support this claim?” The government recognizes marriage because of the public benefits it can bring. If the government saw that marriage could not potentially have public benefits, they would not recognize marriage at all and would have absolutely no restrictions on who could get married. The reason the government has been recognizing marriage and promoting only heterosexual marriage is because they recognize that heterosexual couples have a direct link to the family unit which therefore benefits the society. It simply does not make sense that the government recognizes marriage for absolutely no reason. If the government had no need to recognize marriage they wouldn’t recognize marriage. However they do, therefore we can conclude that there is some reason for why marriage would be recognized at all. This is again, for the public benefits marriage can bring when defined correctly. The benefits heterosexual couples bring is that they have a direct link to the family unit, simply by the very relationship heterosexual couples pursue. The family unit is overall great for the society and the government wants to promote these units. Gay couples (and any other relationship) do not have this direct link to the family unit, because they cannot reproduce. This means that the family unit must be created through other means. The government does not promote this type of relationship because it does not, through the natural means of its relationship, create a family. “Again, it is not the government's job to promote any form of family function. And once again, you are contradicting yourself when you claim "the government recognizes marriage for the public benefits it brings, rather than the private relationship of two people" because if the government is "promoting the family unit" then they are in fact intervening into the personal lives of the people involved. But until you provide a source or some form of evidence to support these claims, none of them are valid. If this were true, having biological children would be a legal requirement in marriage but that is not the case.” It is the government’s job to work for the overall efficiency of the society. Promoting the family unit works for the overall efficiency of the society and the government therefore has an interest in means of promoting this family unit. There is no contradiction, rather you are misinterpreting my use of “private” and “public”. A private relationship is a relationship that does not work towards the government’s interest in promoting an efficient society. For example, friendships are a private type of relationship. This is because they directly involve only the personal lives of the friends. A public relationship is any relationship that despite it being through the private lives of others, has a public means of affecting the efficiency of the society. Heterosexual couples have a public relationship because they have a direct link to the family unit, which helps to promote an efficient society. I would like to note that the reason having children is not a requirement in marriage is because the government wants to promote any relationship that has a direct link to the family unit, not the family unit itself. This is logical when dealing with infertile couples. They promote the idea that the government is interested in the relationship itself and not in the means to the end. My opponent explained why other relationships are not involved in marriage specifically. I’d like to note that I understand these reasons and I wrote that I understood these reasons in the last round. I wanted to show that like gay couples, those relationships are also out of marriage because they do not have a direct link to the family unit. Although unlike gay couples, there are many other reasons other relationships are rejected also. “You claim "This is because no relationship except a heterosexual relationship has the means to publicly support the society through its inherent connection to the family unit." Again, please specify and provide evidence to support this claim.” You cannot have me keep repeating myself. An inherent connection to the family unit means that heterosexual couples naturally through their own relationship have sexual intercourse with each other as means of expressing their love for each other, which naturally leads to a family unit. No other relationship works this way. My opponent argues about infertile couples ect. for a while. I explained in this round’s rebuttals that the government is specifically interested in the relationship that has a direct link to children (heterosexual relationships) and not the means of the end of the relationship (meaning the children itself). My opponent argues that gay couples can adopt children and that gay couples should therefore be allowed into marriage. This is not a direct link to the family unit because it requires outside means of acquiring children to raised. Since it is not a direct link the government has no interest in promoting this relationship. “If the government didn't recognize the children of married individuals, there would be no benefits given to a married couple who CHOOSE to either adopt or biologically have children. It may not be a requirement, but those who have children are also recognized under state and federal law. And yes, gay couples have biological children as well which is either a result of or through surrogacy, artificial insemination or previous marriages.” Gay couples however, do not have direct means of having children. That is the point. One of the requirements of having a direct link to the family unit is that through your own relationship only, that the couple themselves have children. Hopefully the response I gave will clear things up for my opponent. I await your response.