New Gay Marriage Debate

Thank you for your response. My opponent attempts to refute my definition of marriage by literal giving me sever definitions of marriage. However, what my opponent doesn’t realize is that this debate is about how we should define marriage and is not about the literal definition of marriage itself. Although, none of those definitions are wrong, all of them give to general of a sense of marriage. I agree with all those definitions, but I am simply taking the definition further by saying that marriage should only be between man and woman. We are both of our arguments should go towards defining marriage in a way that best benefits society. My opponent compares gay marriage to women’s rights and African American rights. The problem with my opponent’s assertion is that being against gay marriage does not have unjust discrimination unlike denying women and African Americans rights. “The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X.” “the state's granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination.” My opponent goes on about how marriage benefits are granted to heterosexual couples because they often times buy houses and procreate and that the only difference between traditional and same-sex marriage is procreation. My opponent says in order to make of for the lack of reproduction homosexuals can adopt. The buying of houses is extremely irrelevant to all of this seeing that it is not a necessity for marriage at all. Actually, there are many differences between a homosexual and heterosexual relationship besides procreation. Let’s again look at the reasons why the state recognizes marriage in the first place. Marriage is a private relationship that can benefit society publicly. The state recognizes marriage because of these public means. Heterosexual relationships have an inherent link to procreation and the proper raising of children. Through their natural and loving relationship, when it is fulfilled at its best it will naturally produce children and those children will naturally have a father and mother. Homosexual relationships do not share this link to children and it would not be in the state’s best interest to support any kind of institution that distorts this image of marriage, because this definition of marriage best benefits society. There are two reasons homosexual couples adopting is not enough to allow gay marriage: I have already shown that homosexuals naturally do not raise children properly for society. Homosexuals cannot pursue a relationship that naturally beings children into the world through a loving relationship. I talk about how allowing anything but marriage between man and woman will distort and the meaning of marriage and my opponent responds with how we though the same with African Americans. Discrimination against African Americans was solely based on skin color. In order for this to be an equivalent to gay marriage, people who want to defend marriage between man and woman would only be doing so because they do not like homosexuals for being homosexual. However, we could care less about whether a person is homosexual or not, we just care about getting marriage right so it may best benefit society. My opponent asks for proof on how heterosexual marriage best benefits society. It’s funny that he has to ask. Heterosexual marriage through its natural relationship heterosexuals pursue inherently has a special link to procreation and the proper raising of children. Only society’s that have young to replace the old and societies where the young are properly raised can truly thrive. No other type of marriage benefits society like this, or as well as this type of union. My point in the government and marriage section is that the government must draw a line at marriage where it best benefits society or else the image of marriage that is good for society will be distorted until marriage is just a union for two people that love each other. My opponent talks about how allowing gay marriage won’t affect our population. This is irrelevant seeing that not wanting gay marriage to be recognized is not because of our population, but is so that the meaning of a marriage that best benefits society does not get distorted. Allowing same-sex marriage does not affect the survival of humanity, however, it does affect the society as a whole. One must only look at other countries that have legalized same-sex marriage for years now. Many couples don’t even get married because its meaning was completely lost, most first-born children are born out of wed-lock, and many couples only live together but do not have long term commitment. These are some of the negative effects that same-sex marriage can bring. My opponent attempts to refute scientific evidence over how homosexuals are not as good at parenting as heterosexuals with his own opinion. This simply will not do. My opponent must provide some kind of evidence against me to actually debunk my source. My opponent then just decides to generalize everything as “anti-gay propaganda” because it seems that he can’t actually find a way to refute my claims. My opponent completely misses the message of my analogies and instead tries to laughably take them quite literally. The point is, although some homosexual couples can raise children just as good as some heterosexual couples,doesn’t mean we should allow them to marry. Heterosexual couples are naturally geared to raise children properly whereas homosexual couples are not. Again, heterosexuals have a special link to children, and it is in the State’s interest to support that, and not something that does not have that kind of link. I await my opponent’s response.