Gay Marriage Should Be Federally Legalized

Thank you for your response. Remember I am arguing that not only should gay marriage not be legalized across the United States, but I am also arguing that gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized at all across the United States. This means I will be responding in accordance with gay marriage being completely excluded from the marital institution. Since believe there will be enough character space I will simply quote my opponent and respond accordingly to make sure I contend to everything he states. My opponent seems to take my stance on marriage between man and woman and how it benefits society into acceptance, and chooses for the most part to not contend to very many of my arguments. “While it is correct that the 5th amendment does not guarantee total freedom for anyone to do whatever they want, it does protect equal liberties as ruled by the supreme court in The United States v. Windsor.” The United States v. Windsor only applied to couples are denied marital benefits when they are legally involved in the institution of marriage. For if it wasn’t, then absolutely any relationship that is not included in marriage could sue on ground that they are not receiving benefits. Obviously this applies only to couples who can receive marital benefits, but are unjustly excluded from receiving them. Yes and equal liberties are given. Regardless of sexual orientation everyone can still be married to one person of the opposite sex. What you are arguing for is an expansion of rights for all people to also be allowed to marry someone of the same-sex, but I have shown from my last round’s arguments that not only is there no need to do that, but that it is also not in the society’s best interest. "The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." I did indeed explain that the Due Process Clause only protects from unfairly taking away another’s liberty. I showed that not only do homosexuals have the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals, but I also showed that there is absolutely no need to extend our rights to allow us to marry same-sex couples because it takes away the reason the government recognizes marriage in the first place. “Let's start with the aspect of common sense- there are many heterosexual couples who commit child abuse, and who don't give their children proper attention and care. There are also many single parents raising their children, and even children who have been raised poorly can still survive. It's a loving caretaker who treats their children properly, and teaches their children right from wrong that matters, not the gender of the parents. Also the fact that single parents are capable of raising their children also depletes the argument that their must be a mother or father figure, as said it's how the children are treated and raised that has an impact on them.” In the same way, there are also many homosexual couples that will also commit child abuse, who won’t give their children attention and care, and will be a single parent raising a child. However, this is all simply irrelevant to marriage itself. You see, allowing gay marriage still turns marriage into something about the emotional relationship between two people because the relationship they pursue has no special link to children. The government again, has absolutely no interest in the private relationships of people. Heterosexual couples however, do have this natural link to children to be raised into a natural family. Heterosexual couples still naturally promote and have a family unit regardless of the few who don’t. Gay couples don’t have this link at all, so the government has no interest in allowing them into the marital institution. Again, for as long as the government regulates marriage they have a duty to define marriage in a way that best benefits society; allowing gay couples distorts the reason the government recognizes marriage in the first place and is therefore not in the government’s best interest to recognizes gay marriage. Only a society that produces children and raises them properly will survive. This is a given fact. A society that does not have children will die out and a society that does not raise them properly will not know how to take care of themselves and run said society. Heterosexual couples fit these criteria perfectly because they naturally tend to procreate and have a good family unit. The government wants to promote this because it is good for the general outcome of the society. My opponent argues that gay couples can still raise children properly and that allowing them to be married strengthens this family unit. Homosexual couples do not have a direct link to children and the family unit through the relationship they pursue, so even if they could raise children properly or even if marriage would strengthen the family unit they still don’t have a special link to children nor a family unit because naturally they cannot procreate and have children to be raised by their biological parents. In addition, gay couples only have a special link to having a private relationship with each other which again, the government is simply not interested in. So I argue, either gay marriage is legalized under a total privatization of the institution where the government doesn’t regulate it at all, or the government fulfills its duty to define marriage in a way that best benefits society, which is inherently through the relationship heterosexuals pursue because they have a special link to children and the family unit. “I also raise the question to my opponent of the amount of regard that is given to thousands of same sex couples' children who are humiliated because their parents marriage are treated as a second class marriage, and are unable to receive the same benefits of those of heterosexual marriages.” Well under my arguments there would be no such thing as second-class marriage because gay marriage would not be legalized at all. Also, under my arguments gay couples would not receive benefits at all because they would not be allowed to marry each other. You see under my opening arguments (which you really didn’t contend to) I showed that there was simply no reason to recognize gay marriage at all so really there is no reason for me to argue this since I am already arguing that gay marriage should be excluded from the marital institution all together unless the government stops regulating it. Conclusion Most of my opponent’s arguments relies on gay marriage only being legalized in some states and how that leads to other problems, therefore gay marriage should be legalized everywhere. However, his arguments don’t properly contend to my own because I am arguing that gay marriage should not be legalized at all, therefore such problems wouldn’t even exist. Until my opponent can properly show that gay marriage should be legalized regardless of problems that have arisen from gay marriage only being legalized in some states, he cannot fulfill his BOP. I have also shown that it would be far more beneficial to legalize gay marriage under the circumstance the government stops regulating it. In addition, I also showed that it would be more beneficial to the society for gay marriage to not be legalized for as long as the government does regulate.