Gay Marriage

Rc1: Procreation is nothing to do with marriage His argument here is it is impossible that this is true because infertile couples still get married. My opponent misinterprets this argument to the extreme. I have stated multiple times procreative type unions. The government wants a climate for procretive type acts to further the human race. [1] Infertile couples can still form procreative type unions forming a climate for procreation to fufill states interests. They want married couples to procreate to further the human race and society. [2] That's a logical purpose in marriage. He then claims a unsupportd claim of procreation is not a valid interest in today's world. May I ask why? Propagating society in a responsible manner is always a benefit to us and the state. I do not see why procreative reasons need not apply in the modern day world. He then brings up the equal protection. As I have already refuted this, and he just keeps pushing unsupported arguments, I will refute this in new ways. As stated this assumes marriage is a right. I will play along as either way this is refutable. Before one can determine if marriage is discrimination one must first determine what marriage is. [3] As marriage is efined as a man and a woman it cannot apply to them, even if it was a right. "So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place." [3]Marriage only applies to heterosexuals. If marriage is a right still no discrimination is occurng as same sex "marriage" does not exist. My opponent then claims it violates common sense. Common sense is defined as sound judgement based off of facts. [4] am stating well known facts as the goverment has come out multiple times saying Banning SSM is ok, and that procreation was the reason it is banned. [1] My arguments could be no closer then fact.Rc2: Family My opponent makes an absird comment saying the reason the state is in marriage is to promote love. This argument is infact false. If the government actually cared about lovem they would be regulating any relationship involving love. If love was truely a reason they where in marriage they would regulate every relationship. If you said "mom I love you" the goevrment would then say "hey, u need a liscense for that!". They would regulate people with their girlfreinds and boyfreinds, as they do not regulete these things it scratches out the possibility they are interested in love. My opponent then states amily units. Ok, but how does a family relate to marriage? Adoption doesn't apply to state interests as the state want's new children to be made, adoption is just relocating the kids. Homosexual parenting and heterosexual parenting is actually quit different unlike my opponent claims as homosexuals have higher STD rates, abuse rates (to one another), and are seldom monogomous, and are less commited. [2, 5] Allowing homosexual marriage increases out of wedlock births and is aactually harmful to the overall youth populaiton. [2, 6] (so it hurts kids that are raised in heterosexual houses). My opponent still has not had a case proving a reaso for the state to legalize SSM.Rc3: Blacks vs GaysMy opponent still has not aswered the fundamental refutations I have brought forth. These to things are not comparable. Race does not dictate whether or not one an procreate and fufill states interests, sexual preference is. I will show a quote:"Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. "(emphasis added) [7]Your example does fail on the same grounds I have stated, minorities deserve this as they can procreate and fifill states interests in propagating society, homosexuals cannot. His arguments are false as race =/= sexuality.He then goes onto the same equal protection clause, man the readers are gonna get pissed on hearing my same rant over and over, he has not responded to my first refutations, I will now add a different refutation. This refutation will be about whether or not they deserve the right. Banning homosexual marriage is jt as they do not deserve this privalege, they do not propagate society nor fufil states interests. [8] If they do not deserve these rights no discrimination occurs. Which ever refutation floats your boat, I provided both :). Back to refuting interacial coupes:"It is also argued by those advocating same-sex marriage, that excluding same-sex couplesfrom marriage is the same act of discrimination as prohibiting interracial marriage, whichhas rightly been recognized as a serious breach of human rights. That argument is notcorrect. Because an interracial marriage between a man and a woman does symbolize theprocreative relationship, its prohibition is based on racial discrimination which is wrong. Incontrast, not extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, is not basedon the sexual orientation of the partners, but the absence of a feature of their relationshipwhich is an essential feature of marriage." [8]Rc4: Opposing gay marriage on states interests is illogicalIf anything it is the best argument in the marriage debate. Of there is no reason confer these benefits, why do it? If I had 1000000$, and gave it away for no reason sure it will help the person who got it but it did not fufill my needs. My question to you is why? It is illorical to give things away for no reason, so why? My opponent has first made an unsupported claim here, second not justified why giving away benefits for no reason is logical. The only reason people give stuff away is if there is a reason too. There is no reason to allow SSM. My opponents case is highly illogical as why should we allow SSM? This is her BOP, wich she has not fufilled. Therefore she is on the bottom floor here. I now proceed to urging a CON vote. [1] William C. Duncan, The State Interests in Marriage Ave Maria Law Review (2004)[2] Frank Turek, PROTECTING AMERICA’S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE [3] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy[4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] David Dunlap, In Age of AIDS, Love and Hope Can Lead to Risk, New York Times, July 27, 1996.[6] http://www.weeklystandard.com... [7] http://tech.mit.edu... [8] The Case Against Same Sex Marriage, Margret A. Somerville