The revisionist position of marriage is worthy of state recognition.

This debate certainly has been interesting and very enjoyable. In this round I will review all the arguments and conclude the debate. Sex vs loveThat's all the my rebuttal was - marriage is not about sex. My opponent has established no other "special social value" to heterosexual union than that their sex can lead to kids. Thus, if I prove that marriage does not recognise sex or the inherent possibility thereof, my opponent's entire case is void. That's exactly what all my rebuttal points concluded - and that's why they aren't strawmen. First, I proved that marriage is not a requirement for procreation. Con first said that marriage encourages reproduction, and I rebutted that successfully in rounds 2 and 3. In this round con changes tack and tells you that marriage recognises the value of the relationship, not the actual procreation. But the only value con has established is procreation! My opponent never justifies why long-term relationships have greater social value than one-night stands, since both are equally procreative, but only one will ever result in a marriage. Therefore my opponent's conception of marriage must be flawed. My opponent also argued that his point is sound that marriage assigns special social value. And I don't disagree - in fact, my harm depends on it. What I've been arguing all along is that the value that it recognises is not the value of sex but the value of love. Despite my opponent's continued assertions, the fact that I agree with one of his premises does not make his entire point "sound". Second, I proved many marry without being inherently able to procreate. There's nothing inherently procreative about marrying a celibate priest, for instance. Therefore, the relationship is also not inherently procreative, because the partners are not inherently procreative. Finally in round 4, my opponent bothers to respond to my case. He argues that my "because the basis of procreation is the coupling of males with females," all marriages with males and females should be allowed. But as I questioned in round 2, why this particular basis as opposed to some other? My opponent does not say. There is no value in recognising procreative relationships if the relationship is not procreative, so marriage must be recognising something else. Third, I proved procreation is more than just conception. In response my opponent claims that "two equal men" are not "of equal value. " I must admit I don't see the relevance of that one, nor does it make much sense to me (how can something equal be unequal? ). He also claims that he agrees same-sex couples can have an important part to play in procreation. In that case, he still needs to explain why encouraging conception is of higher social value to him than encouraging every member of society to do their part for procreation, regardless of their sexuality. Looks like it's a little too late now. My alternative view is that marriage is about love. In response my opponent simply said that it isn't a precondition, whereupon I answered that this is factually false. Regardless of how theoretical this debate is, the institution of marriage is not a theory and needs to be looked at objectively. The fact is that marriage is about love - objectively, because the facts prove the ideology. At best, there is still a lot of reasonable doubt that marriage recognises sex instead of love. My opponent has therefore not established his case, the crux of which was that marriage is about sex. On this basis alone, con has lost the debate. Besides that, he never proved a tangible harm of the revisionist position or a tangible benefit of the traditional position that I have not shown to also accrue with the revisionist position, thereby violating the fifth criteria. On that basis, he also loses the debate. The part that actually mattersThe whole discussion about traditional marriages can be safely ignored by lazy voters anyway. I have the burden of proof, and I met it by providing a harm so compelling that my opponent has been completely unable to rebut it since round one. If I meet that burden of proof, I win the debate. However, in doing so I had to not violate any of the five criteria we agreed upon. This is the only part of my case that con actually contends - and even here, he admits I have satisfied the fifth of the five criteria, and does not appear to contest the first any more. The second criteria was that marriage cannot be a natural right, so there must be some reason for it to be given so as not to break taxpayer autonomy. My model prevented a tangible harm, so revisionist marriage does not simply recognise marriage as a natural right. Of course, that's different from assuming marriage exists by default, which was never a part of the criteria. I can assume that marriages exist precisely as under the status quo all I want, and nothing in the agreed-upon rule prevents me from doing so. My opponent is clearly trying to change the rules in the middle of the debate, which is both unfair and not qualifying of me having broken the second criteria. The third criteria is that there must be no slippery slope. I proved that illegal relationships would never be given marriages. Of course this is jurisdiction-dependant, but just because some states have different marriage laws does not mean a slippery slope automatically happens. My opponent has never proved why my situational case leads to a slippery slope just because it is situational. He claims this is an appeal to authority, but my conclusion that we should appeal to authorities in this case is not based on any appeals to authority at all. An appeal to authority is not a logical step, but it also isn't an illogical conclusion unlike my opponent's assertion. Not that this has anything to do with a slippery slope of course. He finally attacks me for using real world facts. But my facts do not form my argument. My argument is simply that revisional marriages do not open the floodgates to marrying anything and everything. The only "fact" this relies on is that some relationships are illegal, which doesn't at all "beg the question" as my opponent said but refused to justify. Finally he claims I have not demonstrated why bestiality would remain illegal in marriage where it is legal in law. That's because it wouldn't remain illegal in marriage. That's not a slippery slope, though, because a limit exists. The fourth criteria states my opponent's ideology must not be preferable. I've demonstrated this pretty clearly in my rebuttal points, plus my opponent never showed any tangible benefits of his position. He claimed that I didn't show what the harm was in the traditional position, and when I restated it, he says I did not show why homosexuals deserve equal treatment - if you look back to round three, you'll see that I justified equal treatment pretty clearly. I said that without it governments lose the perception of fairness and justice, without which they cannot govern. As you can see, all the criteria are met. My opponent finishes with the analogy of a girl holding her breath for ice-cream. I love that analogy. Imagine if the ice-creams were given out freely to all the boys, simply on the basis that boys were capable of running faster than girls. In the same way, marriages are handed out on a basis not connected with the institution, a basis entirely unwarranted, and a basis that will probably result in big harms in the future. Con says the girl won't die if she doesn't breathe. Maybe it's supergirl, I don't know. But while the economy won't die and government won't collapse if disenfranchisement occurs, it sure won't be a pretty sight. Since the ice-creams are free anyway, I say let the girl have an ice-cream, regardless of her gender. For all we know, she could well be the fastest girl in the world.