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

Oh, how the mighty have fallen! Yes, you have responded to me, but in your response I see more of my own quoted statements than of your rebuttals to them. Redouble your efforts lad, or you'll soon be overwhelmed by volume and unnecessarily drop arguments!http://www.youtube.com...Contention I - The interest of the stateMy opponent has decided to ignore the empirical evidence I provided which establishes that the interest of the state and what is good are two separate things, but not only that, it fails to address the issue of 'what should be done' entirely. Instead, it talks about how the interest of the state is the same thing as the interest of its citizens, and how to assert otherwise is to endorse fascism. Additionally, it reasserts that what is in the 'interest of the state' is good, but does not reject the examples I gave and does not actually back up its assertion.The 'interest of the state' is the same thing as the 'interest of its citizens'Along with establishing that 'what is good' is separate from 'what is in the interest of the state', my previous two examples (Reconstruction and the nadir of American race relations) provide evidence that 'what is in the interest of the state' and 'what is in the interest of its citizens' are distinct. African-Americans are all citizens of the United States, and the government acted very contrary to their interest in both of the listed examples. As well, we can look at the topic and find a status quo example where 'the interest of the citizens' is divorced from 'the interest of the state' by my opponent's own reasoning! At the same time, we should recognize that all of these things are dynamic, and it's best to be wary of those who monopolize the 'interest of the state' or the 'interest of its citizens' to further their own ends - as my opponent clearly does.The assertion that the 'interest of the state' is different than 'the interest of its citizens' is fascistIn actuality, one of the most basic elements of the fascist ideology is the recognition of the interest of the state as being the same thing as the interest of the citizens. It is this heavy-handed thinking that justifies (for fascists, anyways) empowering the state and eliminating pluralistic forces (dissenters), and it is this same heavy-handed thinking that is necessary to rationalize the violation of civil rights that my opponent endorses.Contention II - Definition of marriageMy opponent labelled its response to this contention 'Procreative-Type Unions'. It claims that marriage and procreation are inherently linked - something clearly invalidated by my previous response that points out how marriages are very frequently done without any intent, and in many cases, even the possibility of procreation. My opponent states that all married couples have a link to the next generation of children even if they don't act on that link. This idea has absolutely no basis in reality and no logical merit, it is simply my opponent's rationalization of its flawed viewpoint. Clearly there is a lot of cognitive dissonance floating around on the other side. It then goes on to claim that all marriages are procreative-in-type, even if they aren't that way in effect. Again, this idea has no basis in the real world or any logical merit. The aforementioned dissonance shows up quite nicely in the next section of my opponent's argument, where it apparently breaks down and starts looping because it cannot face the vapidity of its rationalizations:"The state is not merely interested in just making babies, but in making babies the right way (in a way that is linked to their mother and father). So the state's primarily interest is in procreative-type relationships the right way (in a way that is linked to their mother and father). So the state's primary interest is in procreative-type relationships."The dissonance is just radiating out from this section. Look folks, that's the kind of stuff you glance at and then grimace, because you know that all that's holding back this series of contradictions and irrationality is a very, very thin layer of buzzwords that are completely devoid of meaning, and some genuinely pathetic rationalizations.Read his statements and you'll find absolutely nothing of substance in them, just a few vagueries and baseless assertions. Really. though, that's all you can find in a position that's fundamentally rooted in ignorance and bigotry.Next my opponent tries to assert that overpopulation is not a problem, which is of course nonsensical since it wouldn't be called overpopulation if it wasn't problematic. It also claims that procreation is intrinsically good, which is again nonsensical since intrinsic good does not exist.Contention III - Homosexual marriage as a civil rightThis contention went completely and totally uncontested by my opponent in the last round. Since we established that civil rights must be protected at all temporal expense, this debate should go to me already.Contention IV - SourcesThe only important thing to consider about this contention is that sources only contribute to the debate when they resolve issues of fact. No issue of fact that can be resolved by an external authority has even been raised in this debate, and none of the sources my opponent has used have established any factual truths. As previously mentioned, all that its sources have established is that person 'Z' thinks 'X' about 'Y'.SummaryThe interest of the state is distinct from the interest of its citizens, 'what is good', and from 'what should be done'. The last point went uncontested in my opponent's rebuttal, so for all of you flow-apt judges, that's a drop by my opponent. My opponent tacitly endorses the fascist view of state interest, for what that's worth. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation as evidenced by marriage as it exists in the status quo, and my opponent's rebuttal to that claim consisted of nothing more than 'but it does'. Overpopulation is by definition a problem, and procreation is not an intrinsic good. My opponent completely dropped the issue of homosexual marriage as a civil right in the last round. The sources used by my opponent have not established any factual claims about the issue or about anything at all.An aside of considerable importI'm not sure whether to consider the pilfering of my lexicon by my opposition a good thing or not, but what I am sure of is that it has absolutely butchered the actual meaning of the words it ripped from me. There's a saying about great power and great responsibility, and I think it applies nowhere as well as it does in this case. As Chairperson of the International Council of Language I cannot stand idly by while these bilious, sickly things attempt to regurgitate the most beautiful, celestial form of expression known to man - the English language - through their insidious maws. Their diseased tongues are accustomed only to that primordial Black Speech, and so they cannot hope to decipher - let alone apply - the civilized principles that I, and the other members of this most erudite council, am sworn to protect.Keep this in mind, audience! Know well what's at stake here: this is not just some ineffectual socio-political value struggle! No, it never could have been; from the moment I begin reciting the melodic, Akashic truths that necessarily spring forth from this empyrean seat, the lumbering servants of that most infernal power took up tentacled arms against me! This is greater than law, than love, than religion or philosophy - it is that most serene virtue that's been challenged here, that most ambrosial force for good and righteousness that ever existed, it is on trial here, and that trial is a trial by fire! Do not give in to the beaked, shifting not-men that would try and take from you your only and most honest dignity. Stand up, as I do, against this eldritch tide, and vote in favor of the ignis divine!