Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the United States of America

Let's have fun! Secularism"The United States of America is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation, founded on the principles of federalism, republican democracy, and individual liberty. "My opponent's first argument is entirely irrelevant. What my oppnent argues is that the United States of America is a secular nation, not a Christian one. The reason why this is irrelevant is because she is immediately refuting a point I never made! She and I both agree marriage is a secular institution and my case will be fully secular and have nothing to do with religion. This is should be seen as an observation as this does not help my opponent's case at all. It does not help or hurt her. "Marriage is the legal union between two romantically involved individuals, and because of the traditional understanding of romance and a bigoted attitude towards homosexuals, it was officially defined as the union between two individuals of opposite sex by the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. " My opponent then argues that marriage is about love, which is an extremely poor argument. Marriage is a secular and legal institution. I will give two examples here (remember my opponent's argument is on two loving individuals in a solid relationship and mine is marriage between a man and a woman to promote the state's interest in promothing procreative type unions):My opponent's view is highly flawed. Why does the state not regulate ordinary friendships or something that is more compatible to marriage, relationships of those who hold some loving virtue? Why does this not have regulation? The answer is obvious to many: ordinary friendships have no effect on the political common good to warrant regulation and recognition! Sheriff Girgis, Brian T. Anderson, and Robert P. George note, "ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in structured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation. " Essentially, that's what I said. [1]Now why does heterosexual marriage deserve recognition? Heterosexual union builds procreative type unions as well as stable families which promote healthy and growing society. In other words, marriage serves a certain public purpose which homosexuals cannot fulfill: procreative type unions. Marriage, therefore, warrants legal recognition. As we can see, the "love" argument is extremely weak and will not give my opponent ground in a debate about legal institution in marriage. Now, the sole contention in my opponent's case is we are bigoted, and discriminating against homosexuals. I am offended by being called a bigot and see it as ad homeniem. Regardless of the intention, let's really turn the argument which keeps my opponent afloat upside-down and sink it. Civil RightThe same-sex marriage debate must resolve around one sole contention: what marriage is. Already showing competing views, and how one is logical in a secular society, I now refute the weak contention that we are depriving some basic right. Girgis et. al. notes:"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]In arguing some type of discrimination is occurring, my opponent is assuming such a right to same sex marriage exists. Only if this right exists does the argument hold, and in doing so she only begs the question. If no right to same sex marriage (different from marriage) then the contention of discrimination is irrelevant to the legal debate. Being denied a privilege, therefore, is not unjust. If marriage is defined as a man and a woman, and the right to marriage exists, then there is no right to homosexual marriage as it simply does not exist. Let me s this in a more clear manner: a right to marriage DOES exist, however marriage does not include homosexuals, therefore no right to same sex marriage exists. So, to determine this debates outcome, we must define what marriage is. What Marriage IsThis is my case as well as a rebuttal to the "discrimination" point. So, as stated above, marriage is a right. But why is it considered a right? In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Supreme court gives us insight: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race. " The right to marriage only exists because only societies that reproduce can continue. As Maggie Ghallager notes in her paper in the Louisiana Law review, "In every complex society governed by law, marriage exists as a public legal act and NOT merely a private romantic declaration or religious rite. . .. While marriage systems differ, marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce. "[2] [emphasis added] Only when marriages pubic purpose of procreation is understood can we make a intelligent opinion about what marriage is. This is why the state subsidizes this union and considers it a legal union, and excludes homosexuals and other relationship types. As homosexual marriages are not procreative type in principle, they cannot be considered marriages. So, they are NOT being deprived any rights because their relationship really isn't marriage and, therefore, they cannot apply to those rights. Now, my opponent keeps hammering the point that I need to do this and I needto do that. However, if anything, my opponent has the full burden of proof to prove homosexuals are being denied certain rights. Sadly, she has not successfully proven that point. ===Summary===Brute Apologia notes, "Heterosexual relationships can procreate by the nature of their complimentary kinds and as such, provide the foundation for the existence of society itself. Thus, it naturally holds a special social value in comparison to homosexuals, which are incapable of sexually procreating by the nature of their relationship. . .. The government has good reason to protect and promote such relationships but it has no reason to regulate private relationships that are only beneficial to the partners in question. This is the proper legal function of marriage, regardless of one's reasons for getting married. "[3]In other words, many benefits are given to marriage which cost a lot of money. Heterosexuals are able to repay such a cost through their ability to be special to society and promote its existence. Homosexuals, on the other hand, cannot fulfill this legal function of marriage and, therefore, can be denied these benefits. Alan Keys (video) fully explains the position. Good luck to Pro, and I urge a CON vote. Sources1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, ï¿½€œWhat is Marriage? ï¿½€ï¿½ Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)2. Maggie Gallagher, ï¿½€œWhat is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law,ï¿½€ï¿½ Louisiana Law Review (2002)3. . http://debate.org...http://www.youtube.com...