There Are Good Secular Reasons to Disallow Same-Sex Marriage

My opponent has expressed a certain level of bewilderment over my arguments, asserting that I may have skipped over some of his arguments. I will in fact argue that it is Pro who has overlooked a few key points of my position, as well as his own. For example, he claims he argued his definition is objectively true because: "Its model of marriage as a comprehensive bodily union (and only this model) justifies (a) the public dimension of marriage [state's interest] and (b) the private dimension of marriage [real sexual union]. All other attempts fall short in either regard." The last sentence is entirely new, as well as being borderline absurd. What Contradiction has done here is assert that because his definition is the only one the state could use, therefore that must mean that is the objective nature of marriage. This doesn't follow. It assumes that the objective nature of marriage is actually something the government could, under his own unnecessarily strict terms, implement. Perhaps the supposed objective nature of marriage is actually a definition that the government can't apply. Now this wouldn't help my opponent, because he understands the terms of the debate is whether to specifically ban Same-Sex marriage (SSM), so his argument must simultaneously advocate for straight marriage while giving a good reason to ban SSM. So his argument boils down to claiming the objective nature of marriage is what he claims it to be because that is the only definition that would satisfy his burden. Despite his assertions, I have not engaged in any question-begging, but quite clearly he is guilty of it here. As it stands, my opponent has given no discernible method for ascertaining the alleged objective nature of marriage that isn't blatantly circular. Without such a method, he can't even say he knows this nature involves the coupling of two person, let alone the coupling of two opposite sex people. Ignoring everything I've said against his argument, it still fails. Not only does my definition imply both a State interest (child-rearing\baring, promoting mental\physical health, social stability) and a private interest (as my opponent argued "love" is a private institution), but it serves a greater State interest than my opponent's definition. My definition allows us to incentivize more child adoptions, additional healthy relationships, additional healthy childhoods, and do so for a larger percentage of society where no individual is precluded from both the public and private purposes because of their sexual orientation. My definition speaks to marriage being about the bond between two individuals, and the State can utilize that bond for the above purposes, just like in my driver's licenses example. Speaking of which, Pro responded to that portion, though missing the point entirely. He asks: ". . . they [minorities] deserve marriage rights regardless of what people may think of them. But how can this be if marriage has no core essence?" People have a core essence. Minorities deserve marriage just as much as the majority, because they are people too. As has been the case this entire debate, my opponent misses the human element. Were it the case that the best course of action was to deny minorities rights, it doesn't mean that minorities can't deserve those rights. There are plenty of things people deserve but don't get. I reject that it would be the best course of action given Pro's scenario, but that's irrelevant to the point. His argument simply does not follow. My evaluation isn't arbitrary, it's simply based on people. I'll remind my opponent that government is for the people, by the people. In short, Pro has no mechanism to uncover what the objective nature of marriage is that isn't based on circular reasoning, even ignoring the circularity of the argument it still fails factually, and ignoring that it actually disproves his own argument, and elevates mine. "Accordingly, Con argues that unless same-sex marriage results in harm to society, that it may not be restricted. But this principle can be attacked on various grounds, none of which he has adequately responded to" I'm not merely arguing that banning SSM requires a harm, rather I've demonstrated that banning it does harm and implementing it does good. My opponent has not attempted to refute these claims, but instead seems to bite the bullet that his position will sacrifice a lot of good in exchange for a lot of harm, but it is the right thing to do to protect marriage. He does argue that there will be harm by promoting a false sense of sexuality, but that assumes his definition, and also doesn't give a reason how that would actually harm anyone. In this regard, Pro has still not met my challenge, for I asked for a tangible harm, one he admits doesn't exist. This should be easy if indeed SSM harms society, but his silence on this matter is deafening. However his own definition of harm "an attack on well-being, flourishing, or proper functioning" is not met, for SSM does not negatively affect any of those for people. Therefore Pro's assertion that harming marriage implies a harm on people does not follow. "in order to know whether same-sex marriage is itself harmful or results in harm, we first need to know what a proper marriage policy looks like." This response is grossly incorrect. In order to understand what the harms to people are, we need only understand people. Imagine that I inject you with a completely unknown substance. Despite the fact we don't have any idea what it is, we can clearly understand what the effects are of using it in a particular manner. It could be that the objective nature of marriage is actually harmful to society while getting it wrong would bring happiness and prosperity. As I argued before (and Pro ignored), any justice that sacrifices the well being of humans for that of institutions is no justice at all. "As I pointed out (with no reply), the mere fact that different societies treat something differently does not imply that it has no objective nature." In fact I did reply. I stated explicitly that without appealing to the past, one has no way of ascertaining the objective nature of marriage, should it have one. "A son who thinks of his mother as his wife and not as his mother does not thereby change the fact that she is his mother." Pro is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. Being a mother and having a mother-son relationship are two entirely different things. Imagine if someone's father is killed before that person is even conceived, they have a heart attack right after sex. That person will be that individual's father, but they won't have a relationship together at all. Pro's argument fails to address the actual issue. "I have argued that marriage should be construed as a natural institution rooted in an act of comprehensive bodily union." My argument doesn't presuppose the falsity of his position, it demonstrates it. How people behave in and treat their relationship affects its nature, this is demonstrable. Pro is question begging by assuming that marriage must be a natural institution rooted in biology, but he discusses it as a relationship and that is simply not how relationships work. I should point out that unlike me, Pro gave no source for his definition of secular. To counter Pro's note citing Gallagher, I'll actually cite experts in the field of child care, The American Academy of Pediatrics: More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.[1] [1] http://tinyurl.com...