Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

~~Rebuttals~~ R1a: While the homosexual community is suffering do too intolerance, this does not mean we should make marriage (which is key in every society) suffer instead. Marriage is not a right, rather a tool to make organized procreation so that society can continue to function. Homosexuality does not offer society anything of value and therefore, should not be encouraged by institutionalizing gay marriages. Also, for the last several thousand years the meaning of marriage has been one man and one woman. Any other arrangement would contradicts its basic definition. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. A well know proponent of gay marriage by the name of Andrew Sullivan agrees with this by saying: "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds' It will also pave the way for other perversion marriage to be looked upon as normal, such as polymory (group marriage), Pedophilia, and Polygamy. This would destroy the institution of marriage, and would destroy the family which is the life line of our society. R1b: To the contrary of my opponent, gay marriage would actually hurt the economy. As GOP Chairman Michael Steele has said: Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for. So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money. The legalization of gay marriage would actually hurt small businesses. If The Gays get their way, every male employee who is still single will jump at the chance to marry their best friend or roommate. There will be an overnight increase in health care costs associated with dependent spouses. Never you mind that a civilized society is supposed to support committed relationships and that money spent on health care or other benefits will be returned through a healthier population and increased employee output. R2a: I would like to point out about equality, this is about special privileges. Gay people are just as bound by the law as straight people. A gay person can marry a person of a different gender as can a straight person. The analogy that my opponent gives is irrelevant. Unlike interracial marriages, gay marriage has little to offer society. Interracial marriages offer children which can be used to further society, while gay marriage would promote the gay lifestyle and pave the way for more gay people, and would hurt marriage and the economy like I just stated in my last two rebuttals. R2b: My opponent's point now is irrelevant since my arguments are against any type of homosexual union. ~~My Case~~ C1: The State has no compelling reason to legalize it. I will begin my case by stating that homosexual marriage is not as valuable as heterosexual marriages. The main point of marriage is to sanction procreative type acts. Since homosexual acts are not procreative in type then they do not even qualify as marriages. Let it be made clear that marriage is center around procreative acts in TYPE, so any rebuttals concerning infertile people will be irrelevant. On that note I will now state the following syllogism: P1: Heterosexual marriages are a dispensable means in which human life can come into this world, therefore it has the greatest special social value (because it supplies the first condition for society). P2: The dispensable means by which human life can come into this world is in itself of special value. P3: Everything that has special social value deserves to be sanctioned. P4: Civil ordinances which recognize homosexual marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual marriages. P5: To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust C: Therefore, homosexual marriage is unjust. Heterosexual marriage provides a base under which future citizens can be raised and produced due to the fact that heterosexual union (The joining of a sperm and egg) is possible under this type of relationship. It is for these reason why the government supplies economic and legal benefits to married couples, because it is recognized that these notions are crucial in order for society to be maintained. Therefore, it is just to give heterosexual marriages special recognition because it provides the most valuable contribution to society. Homosexual marriages do not deserve special recognition because it does not provide the foundation for society itself. If my first contention true then it paves the way for my second contention. C2: If legalized homosexual marriage would decrease the value of marriage. P1: Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. P2: Gay marriage will further weaken heterosexual marriage. C: Gay marriage is unjust. As I stated in my last contention, heterosexual marriage is centered on the fact that it is procreative. However, if gay marriage is legalized then it will weaken this very important institution. Now already fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. If gay marriage is legalized people will start to marry only for economic reasons, which will have disastrous consequences for the preservation of our society since gay marriage is not pro creative. C3: Slippery Slope If homosexual marriage is legalized then we will be basically separating marriage from procreation. This will cause a slippery slope that will lead to other sexually abnormal things. There would be no limits to what marriage actually can be. For example, why not let a guy marry his dog, or let a father marry is kid, or let a person who loves himself marry himself? Marriage has more to do with love, it has the greatest impact on society because it provides society's building blocks. I will now await my opponent's response. Vote Con. . http://www.christianitytoday.com... . http://www.giantgayrepellentumbrella.com... . http://wisdomandfollyblog.com... . http://askville.amazon.com...