Gay Marriage

=Refutations= ---> Relationships (1)The basis of my opponents argument is if I am for them having a relationship we should allow them to have marriage. This, is not a good reason to allow it. Also marriage and a relationship is a totally different thing. Marriage is an institution recognized by law that confers economic benefits to ensue procreative type relationships, this will be more described in my argument. Also the basis of the argument is does not hurt anyone is a red herring and does not necessarily matter. Just because something may not hurt someone is not a reason to allow something. This argument has no weight on how people create/regulate lows on things. The Hurt argument is a red herring. ---> Adoption (2)This argument actually helps my case as I will use the secular case against SSM, homosexual couples cannot create children, this is correct. They cannot fulfill states interests then. Furthermore my opponent must find a link between SSM and adoption. What if SSM has detrimental effects on society therefore hurt the kids? Homosexuals are more prone to higher promiscuity rates (on average) then heterosexual people. [1] This may be detrimental to the children many ways. I am not saying homosexuals should not adopt, but I am asking on how does this influence this debate? And why is this a reason to allow SSM>---> No reason to not allow it (3)My opponents argument here is gays will still be able to have relationships together. As I have stated a relationship and marriage are not the same things. Marriage is a legal institution with the goverment involved, and a relationship is generally a societal relationship with no government involved. =Against SSM=Marriage, as stated in the early part of the debate, is a legal institution where the government confers many legal benefits and economic benefits unto married couples. [2] This hints the government has a reason to be inside the marriage business, and they are in it for their gain. So one must ask: what is he states interest in marriage? This is a good question that needs to be answered, and if the answer is something homosexuals cannot form then they should be excluded from the practice of marriage. And the interest is quite simple and easy to comprehend the logic behind it: Procreative type couples. Now, why procreative type couples? The states interests are in creating a procreative type union to create a societal climate for procreation. [3] They want to encourage people to further the human race! This is a noble goal that has simple logic in the governments eyes. Creating a procreative type environment means more children get created. Now before one can assume this benefits the goevrment, one must ask if this helps society. Having more kids does positively impact society as unless we had these heterosexuals creating children, then society might not exist at all! Now, one must now ask does it benefit the government? If the answer is yes, then it is a legitament state interest. As it already benefits society we can end there as calling is legitament, but if it helps the government it is a big plus to my case. New babies means new souls to tax, and more consumers creating a healthy economy. And a healthy economy = more money to tax. "In a dissent to the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s decision that marriage is a form of sex discrimination, JudgeHeen stated his belief that the purpose of the marriage law is “to promote and protect propagation.” [3, 4]As this is the case, homosexuals cannot fulfill states interests and re pay the costly benefits of marriage the government gives. The state has no reason to allow SSM.References: [1] http://www.bpnews.net... [2] http://www.nolo.com... [3] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)[4] Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 73 n.8 (Haw. 1993)---> If you wanna access source [3] go here:http://www.avemarialaw.edu...