The United states goevrment shoudl legalize SSM

PLEASE READ: I apologize for missing the posting deadline! This, fortunately, is not a problem. This merely means it will be a 3 round debate. There is no grounds upon which to penalize me in the voting period. I thank Con for his argument. R1: Infertile couples --"The argument is not fully based of of the ability to reproduce, but rather a type of relationship in which procreation is possible to start off." My opponent is clearly mistaken as to what my argument was. This is exactly what I was rebutting. As I stated previously procreation (n): the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process. [1] Procreation does not necessitate the participation of both individuals in a relationship. Gay marriage is very much a procreative type relationship as both members are able to procreate (theoretically). Again, this also ignores the fact that not all heterosexual couples are able to procreate. --"I stated the goverment has argued that they want to create an environment for procreation, and procreative TYPE unions." The evidence Con cites to justify this assertion is Baker v. Vermont case. This is not evidence as "legalize" was defined as "recognize at the state and federal level." Con has not then provided ANY justification for this assertion. R2: Gays and procreation --"Homosexual couples can never produce offspring." This is blatantly, unequivocally, utterly, and completely false. As earlier: procreation (n): the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process [1] A. Fertility. This is clearly false. Homosexuals are free to procreate. What scientific evidence is there to point to homosexuals' inability to procreate. Gays are not sterile. Gay males can easily procreate with females. The fact that they may or may not choose to (just as straight couples may not have kids) is irrelevant. Such an argument would be hypocritical. B. Artificial insemination, surrogates, sperm donors, etc.. Gays often do not have children through others. The fact that these forms are not with each other is irrelevant for two reasons: i. Heterosexuals use these methods as well. ii. They are in concordance with the definition of procreation (see above). Participation of both sides in the biological process is not necessary. In 2000, it was estimated that 326,000 households were gay/lesbian's with children. [2] R3: Artificial techniques Refuted above. R3: The state has no reason to allow it --"The states interest is in procreation to create a environment to propagate procreation to further society" Once again, Con ignored the fact that many heterosexuals CANNOT "PROPAGATE PROCREATION TO FURTHER SOCIETY." Con claims that the State's interest is "to create a environment to propagate procreation to further society." Yet he has ignored the contention that many heterosexuals (infertile, unwilling, etc.) do not fit this criterion, thus, under Con's logic, voiding their marriage rights. Again, if the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and thus is denying homosexuals the right to marry upon that grounds, all couples that cannot/do not/will not procreate should not be granted the right to marry. This means sterile couples should not also be married. Those who cannot financially support children should be denied the right to marry. Couples who do not wish to have children should not have the right to marry. There is no logical reason to prevent homosexuals, above and independent of all other groups, to not have the right to marry. And all of this is under the false assumption that gays cannot procreate. IN FACT, 300,000-500,000 children had homosexual BIOLOGICAL parents in 1976. [3] R4: The aid of heterosexuals --"The state doesn't care" Refuted above. --"naturally they cannot create children" Refuted above. --"for this argument to be valid you have to show the majority of them CAN create children" Unjustified assertion. Why? You have not shown this to be true for heterosexuals. R5: Deserve --"Homosexuals do not create children." Refuted above. --"You cannot prove the point the majority of gays do not procreate and or sperm bank their way to children, rather adopt, which is not a state interest." Refuted above. --"Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation." Irrelevant. This has no bearing on government recognition of the practice. Historically, slavery was widely accepted, as well. This notion is also argumentum ad populum. --"To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples" This is absurd! There was no logical basis for the male-female defition to begin with. And Con has not defended this definition, nor even mentioned it until now. R6: Denies --"I cannot read that as you have no spacing" The fact that my opponent is incapable of reading seven lines of text is both sad and irrelevant. --"many gays start straight then convert to gay" This is ABSURD! The time-again refuted argument that homosexuality is a choice is not valid. Thousands of species have shown homosexuality. Studies have clearly shown a genetic correlation. NO STUDY has ever shown that homosexuality to be environmental (outside the womb). Science has shown it to be the result of hormonal differences which are extant FROM BIRTH. [2] --"Still, the majority of gays still do not have children (5.5 million gay non married houses)." There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't know where to begin. 1) Con is comparing facts from studies conducted 30 years apart. 2) Non-married does not mean childless. In fact, considering gay marriage is only legal in a hanful of states, it is logical to assume the majority of gays are not married. That is the point of this debate. Regardless, Con has not shown how this is relevant. Dropped Arguments: 1. The State's interest in marriage is not procreation. 2. Heterosexuals are in concordance with the definition of procreation. 3. If the State's interest in marriage is procreation, many heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry while many homosexuals should. 4. There is no reason to withhold certain rights from a certain group of people over other for no reason other than their sexuality. 5. Homosexuals have a value to society. 6. Homosexuals contribute to successive generations of the population as well. Without having a gay person as a host or sperm donor, many individuals of our species would not exist. ConlcusionCon has not presented any credible arguments as to why it should be illegal. His entire argument rested on two claims:1) Homosexuals cannot procreate.2) The State's interest in marriage is procreation.The former was THOUROUGHLY disproven while Con provided ONE piece of evidence supporting the second. This was a VERMONT court case ruling. The accepance round clearly stated that "legalize" meant recognition at the FEDERAL level, thus, his one and only piece of evidence was irrelevant.In addition to this, he failed to even address SIX of my arguments.VOTE PRO. Sources: 1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...... 2. http://www.youtube.com... 3. http://adoption.about.com......4. http://en.wikipedia.org...;