Gay Marriage

Rc1: Procreation My opponent has still provided an unsourced argument claiming procreation does not effect marriage licenses. My opponents argument is FALSE. Procreation is what decides many SSM and marriage laws, as it is a legitament state interest, and as it dictates many of these laws it therefore effects marriage licenses. [1] My opponent has not provided evidence to justify this claim, I have proven this claim multiple times, and therefore I win this argument proving it a state interests to promote procreation through marriage. My opponent has not been able to refute this state interest argument throughout this debate. My opponents source says nothing about just said. And he also forgot one thing marriage in the US has ALWAYS been, a union of a man and woman, propagating society through procreative type unions. [2] Legally speaking this is correct as there have been marriage court cases where the state argues the states interests is in procreation since the 1900s. [1] As I have stated the supreme court has sided with me on the procreative grounds since 1940. [3] As you conceded marriage was a legal contract, and the states interests are in procreation, then you basically concede SSM should not be legal. My opponent then comes with an unsourced claim with little logic behind it, it is just a blank statement of it never effect marriage licenses. Yes folks, her refutation is an empty statement. She says marriage is not about procreation, well it isn't for some people, but in the states eyes it is about procreation. [1] My opponent has FAILED to refute this valid point. Rc2: Discrimination My opponent has dropped my gay "marriage"argument doesn't exist. To break the equal protection clause, it must be unjust discrimination. [4] They are not being unjustly deprived anything as there is no reason to legalize SSM. [4] Also before we assume it is discrimination one must assume what marriage is. [4] Marriage currently is between a man and a woman, as it is defined as such no right is being deprived therefore it is not discrimination under law. [4] My opponent has failed to refute this premise, and drops it this round. I extend Rc1 and 2. My opponent brings up women in a debate about gay marriage. Well may I ask, how is voting similar to marriage? It was discriminatory as the state had no legitament reason to ban it. As I have stated the courts say if there is no state interest to legalize SSM, then it is unconstitutional. If there is, then banning it is ok. The courts have on many occasions stated the legitament reason to banning it is procreation, the supreme court even has accepted this, and claimed it a pass on the equal protection clause, and not discriminatory. [3] My opponents last argument here is laws change. This is irrelevant, the laws now support my side. The laws actually prove SSM not discriminatory as Same Sex "Marriage" Does not exist. Changing laws does not apply in this debate, as the majority of the laws are against SSM, and well who cares? It is not discriminatory under current law. Future law doesn't apply as we are arguing in the NOW. Is it discriminatory now? I have proven it is not. Rc3: Government evolving It is a conduct violation to provide arguments last round. Therefore I ask for the conduct point. My opponents case here is once again irrelevant. We are arguing the NOW. The state should not legalize as their current interests are in procreation, regardless of popular support. But remember as this is a new argument last round it is customary on DDO that it be thrown out and that I get the conduct points. My opponent doesn't understand my wed lock births argument. As he has not refuted that facts show that SSM changes social norms and increases wed lock births. (sources last round) As he has not refuted this I extend this point. Rc3: Irrelevant and offensive It is not irrelevant as he stated the family unit in gay households are exactly the same. I have proven it is not as they have higher AIDS (and other STD's) and promiscuity rates. My opponent has not refuted these facts. Gays have 8 partners per year this is a fact. [5] My opponent in fact is more insulting claiming this is "incoherent" and "unfounded" and "irresponsible". These arguments are highly sourced and valid, I extend the arguments on the family unit in homosexual couples is NOT the same due to their social practice. I am just reporting the facts, and my opponent basally disregards them and yells bigotry. As there is no sufficient refutation here I extend this argument. Rc4: Race vs. Gays Once again I ave refuted this, and my opponent is very falsified. His only clam is homosexuals can't choose sexuality, race isn't chosen either, therefore it is comparable. It can also be written as this: P1: Can't choose race P2: Can't choose sexuality C: Therefore this compares This logic is highly flawed. Being able to choose or not isn't a reason to compare the banishment of their marriage. This analogy fails on the reasons why these people have been banned from their marriage. People banned form marriage for race was a bigoted government. The states reasons to banning homosexual couples is more reasonable as their interests are in procreative relationships. Comparing these two things is totally false! The minorities where UNJUSTLY denied these rights, homosexuals not so much. [4] One can first not compare them for procreative reasons, no matter the race one can still procreate and fit into the states interests. Homosexuals CAN NEVER do this, therefore the comparison is futile. My opponent then says he conceded they can't choose. That was not a concession. My opponent was refuting an argument that never existed. In the comments he also states he is just clarifying, as it was a clarification it wasn't an argument therefore not a concession. ~Dropped arguments~ Same Sex "marriage" Does not exist Procreation (he drops his main rebuttals) The illogical banning due to states interests Family (saying that's mean is not a refutation, calling it drivel as you did is mean also) My opponent then with the arguments that he dropped as stated above has dropped one half of my case. With this information I should already win this debate. But that's for the voters to decide. Conclusion: My opponents case was highly fallacious and has been refuted. My opponent has not fulfilled her BoP and has dropped many key points to this debate. Her attempted refutation to the procreation argument was uncited, logic void, and was refuted. As I have refuted her case to rubble, her refutation to my case was shallow and sourceless, and her arguments where mainly based off of calling me a bigot or having a "mean" argument, I win these points in the debate. As her refutation to the procreation argument was shallow, she dropped many key points, and had little evidence for the discrimination arguments, I urge a CON vote. I have fulfilled my BoP, my opponent has not. Voters guide: Arguments - me I have cited them in my conclusion and in the dropped arguments section Sources - Not only did I have more but the majority of them come from medical or law institutions Conduct - me, m opponent introduced many new arguments last round, which is customary to be thrown out and a conduct violation S/G - you decide Sources: 1 - William C. Duncan, The State Interests in Marriage Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 2 - Margret A. Somerville, The Case Against Same Sex Marriage 3 - Maggie Gallagher, Rites, Rights, and Social Institutions: Why and how should the Law Support Marriage? 4 - Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage" 5 - Xiridou, 1031.