Gay Marriage

Procreation & FamilyProcreation is not, nor has it ever been, a term of condition for granting marriage licenses. For my opponent’s argument to be acceptable, the state would have to require that all marriages result in procreation. In that case it would be perfectly acceptable to prohibit gays from getting married. However, as this is not the case and married couples are in no way obligated to produce children, banning gay marriage solely on the basis that they cannot procreate is illogical.Marriage has traditionally been a contract between a man and woman, the basis of the family unit, and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. The underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains, but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same. [1] While marriage still provides a foundation to preserve morals, as well as civilization, it is no longer simply a union between a man and woman, as homosexual couples are equally capable of fulfilling society’s interests in marriage, such as the union of 2 committed adults and child rearing. Never did I claim that procreation is not a valid interest in today’s modern world, I simply pointed out that procreation is not, nor has it ever been, a term of condition for granting marriage licenses. I can tell you, as someone who is alive and well and loves his life very much, I am extremely grateful to my parents for procreating or else I would not be here to engage in such important debate. However, I’m sure my parents would have taken much offense to someone telling them they must have children in order to have their loving, committed relationship be recognized by the state and the rest of society.No Discrimination?My opponent next insists that since gays have traditionally not been permitted to marry, there is no reason to expand marriage rights to them, and that any prohibiting of marriage is not discrimination, since the definition of marriage has traditionally meant the union of a man and woman. Now, my opponent appears to be an intelligent person, however they may wish to brush up on their American history. Women were not granted the right to vote in the U.S. until 1920. Was their insistence on sexual equality for voting rights invalid, simply because they did not meet the voting requirement of that time? Of course not. Were blacks unreasonable for demanding equal treatment under the law, even though they technically did not meet the legal requirements of the time? Again, a logical person would say no. Similarly, to say that legal rights should not be expanded to otherwise upstanding, moral, committed, productive members of society, simply because they do not meet the current legal definition of marriage is unacceptable. My opponent appears to be stuck in the past by not acknowledging that the definition of marriage has already been changed in many states and countries around the world to include homosexuals. Yet many political groups insist on challenging current legislation that allows gays to marry. Essentially, these opponents aim to deprive gays of legal rights already granted to them, without giving any valid reason to do so. One example that comes to mind was California’s Proposition 8, which was finally ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012. [2] Are these attempts to deprive gays of legal rights already granted to them not clear violations of the Equal Protection Clause? A logical person would concede so. Government is EvolvingCommon sense would tell us that while the government has banned SSM in the past, it has also more recently allowed SSM as times have changed and society has become more accepting of people who are born gay. Examples include New York state last summer and Washington state just this year. [3] Using past injustices as reason to support further injustice is illogical. My opponent then claims that I said the government is involved in marriage to promote love. This is taken out of context as my full statement reads:“The state DOES, however, have an interest in promoting loving, committed relationships that provide a strong family support system in which to raise children.”I was simply pointing out that if child rearing is in fact a state interest in granting marriage licenses, homosexuals are every bit as capable of fulfilling this interest as are heterosexuals. Irrelevent & OffensiveMy opponent then proceeds to spout out irrelevant and incredibly absurd claims, including that gays are seldom monogamous and are less committed. These are simply unfounded, irresponsible accusations that have no place in a respectable debate. My opponent then makes one of the most ridiculous and incoherent statements I’ve ever come across, saying:“Allowing homosexual marriage increases out of wedlock births and is aactually harmful to the overall youth populaiton. So it hurts kids that are raised in heterosexual houses.”As this statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, I cannot respond to it, but simply wished to point out the type of unsupported nonsense being spewed by opponents of legal equality. Race & Sexual OrientationMy opponent then claims that race and sexual orientation are not comparable in terms of discrimination. However, as neither race nor sexual orientation are chosen, it is my assertion that they are EXACTLY the same thing in terms of requirements for what can be considered legal discrimination, as the person has no control over the condition that is causing them to be discriminated against. Remember, my opponent has already conceded that sexual orientation is not chosen, and is determined by biology, just as every respectable scientific organization in the world has confirmed. This includes the American Psychological Association. [4] ConclusionAs my opponent has repeatedly admitted, his only legitimate reason for denying marriage to gays is that he feels they somehow cannot fulfill the state interest of child rearing. As I have pointed out several times, this is simply not true. Even if they could not perform the functions of parents, they would still be entitled to marriage rights as being a parent is not a term of condition for being married. As there is clearly no legal reason to deny gay marriage, I must urge a PRO vote.[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://www.sfgate.com...[3] http://www.reuters.com...[4] http://www.apa.org...