Legalization of Gay Marriage

SSM = Same Sex MarriageWhat is marriage ? What is the right to marry ? A court might rule that the right to marry necessarily entails allowing SSM or Incest marriage or polygamy, But so what ? What is of importance is their justification for their ruling. .. .. .. .or lack of. This doesn't answer what SHOULD count as a marriage and what SHOULD NOT. It's worth repeating. .. "The right to marry how ever understood will necessarily exclude some couples from not being allowed to marry" Pro has not disputed this point. But has Pro being able to justify his conception of marriage and how that conception necessarily entails allowing SSM ? that is the question. Cons arguments in support of SSM[Benefits]Pro makes the point that homosexual couples can and do provide a benefit to the community. Well no argument but what exactly does this justify ? All sorts of types of relationships can and do provide benefits to society but this in of it's self doesn't justify that therefore all those relationships should be allowed and recognized as a marriage too. Defining marriage as between a man & a womanPro cites two objections to the state only recognizing relationships that are pro-creative in type as a marriage, those being. ..1) To define pro-creative in type2) That the state recognizing only relationships that are procreative in type allows for SSMPro-creative in type here refers to the necessary natural pre-condition which needs to occur in order for procreation to be possible, ie: coitus. Contra Pro this doesn't entail allowing SSM, since two people of the same sex can't met this requirement. Pros conception of marriage is ill definedFirst I would like to highlight a shift on ground on Pros part. First in order to deny an incest marriage he justified this on. .. "A brother and sister aren't sexually attracted to each other like heterosexuals or homosexuals" But in the last round he denies incest marriage on a different basis as he now claims. .. "As a response I say this: It's not just about sexuality, it's about the inbreeding impact. Children of these parents are prone to disorders and diseases due to inbreeding. "So which is it ? is it the sexual attraction that justifies disallowing incest marriage or is it the "inbreeding impact" that justifies denying incest marriage ? Let's recall all the vague notions that Pro has bought up in order to justify that the right of marriage entails allowing SSM, such as. ..1) "Two people who love and respect one another should be able to share rights and obligations equal to heterosexuals"2) "Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations"3) "If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be"4) "marriage is also about love and the sharing of obligations. "In response to Pros question. .. "Do you call this vague? " Yes, yes I do, and it leads you into all sorts of problems. Recall in the past round I argued. .. "The problem here is that these statements are so vague that you can include all sorts of possibilities under this vague understanding of what can count as a marriage. Can me and Pro enter into a marriage based on our mutual love & respect of debating one another ? should the state recognize such a relationship as a marriage ? Should the state recognize best friends forever as a marriage too ? Should such a relationship now be granted the benefits that go with being recognized as being a marriage ? I think not. "Pro says. .. "a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. "Notice the emphasis on spouses. But what does Pro mean by what type of relationship is allowed to be regarded as a "marriage" as thus the people within it are "spouses' ? Pro merely selects at his own pleasure what counts as a marraige and who counts as "spouses. .. .. .. .because he says so. Pro gives an example of this where they reply. .. "Should the state recognize best friends forever as a marriage too ? " Friends are not spouses that would be willing to share rights and obligations and raise children. "It's at this point that Pros problem becomes more obvious. Cause Pros vague notions of what justifies a type of relationship to count as marriage can be used to justify all sorts of things to be counted as a marriage Pro is forced to step in and arbitrarily claim what should count as a marriage and what should not, what two people should be regarded as spouses and what two people should not. Remember Pros vague notions of what counts as a marriage do not allow for such distinctions, it's all arbitrary on Pros part in response to my counter arguments. As such I submit that Pros has not being able to sustain logical consistency in light of my objections to justify that the right to marry necessarily entails SSM. Closing statementPro relies on vague notions to justify that marraige necessarily entails SSM which forces him to step in and arbitrarily declare what should and should not count as a marriage when presented with counter arguments that show what kind of relationships can also count as marriages based on those vague notions. I presented an argument the state should only recognize relationships that are pro-creative in type and I claim at the very least is a better conception of how we should understand marriage to be and consequently is not compared to anything Pro had to offer in this debate. Vote Con. I thank Legitdebater for this debate.