Gay Marriage

InfertilityMy opponent claims that my counterexamples are irrelevant to his claim that marriage as a law is dictated by the principle of procreation. A couple biologically incapable of procreating are no less in violation of this alleged principle than a homosexual couple. Con claims "Heterosexual couples are procreative in type, homosexual couples are not". He does not clarify this. He further misses the purpose of me bringing up adoption. Though adoption is not the same as procreation, I used it as a substitute because it accomplishes the same goal of procreation, which is to raise children. MinoritiesCon completely misses my point. Once again, he goes on to defend the procreation argument and brings up the irrelevant statement of miscegenation, which I never specifically mentioned in my opening argument. Instead, I attacked the apparent logic of Con's initial argument, which appeared to bring up two points: 1. The interests of an apparently insignificant minority are not the state's responsibility. 2. The presence of bigotry against homosexuals indicates that allowing marriage only leads to more harm against gays and lesbians. I attacked these claims by the following rebuttals: 1. Imagine an ethnic minority in a certain country. Just because it appears insignificant, does this mean that the state should not be concerned about its own citizens? 2. The only case where homosexuals would suffer more harm from allowing marriage is if there was an existing violation of human rights in such a country. Con did not respond to his rebuttals, instead bringing up irrelevant points about interracial marriage and focusing on whether marriage is a right, which I would discuss more later in my argument. HealthCon does not exactly clarify what he means by "areas where practicing homosexuality is almost impossible. " Still, I will assume he is referring to countries where homosexuality is illegal. As I noted, this is an existing violation of human rights and is irrelevant to this argument. My opponent also does not appear to have read the new sources I cited. One of them specifically mentioned that it was based off of doctor visits, and the information was gathered from local clinic's. In addition, my opponent has not cited any statistics that indicate his claim that promiscuity would increase by allowing gay marriage. In fact, intuition points to the opposite: that when a couple is legally bound, they are more likely to focus there sexual activities on each other. AlternativesMy opponent forgets that he has stated several times in his argument that the benefits given by marriage to couples can be accomplished by "means other than marriage". His only example has been civil unions, which he appears to concede that I have refuted. He also appears to suggest that the only part of this argument was civil unions, when I pointed out the benefits given to children of homosexual couples. He has not responded to this, or any other part of my argument. State interestThis argument was a part of Con's "Procreation" argument, which I did refute. Regardless, I argue that the state's primary interest is in the quality of lives of its people. I have pointed out how marriage would benefit the gay community. Social institution vs rightNote how Con, in his conclusion, does not address my defense of my human rights argument at all and claims this as "dropped argument". I will repeat my argument. When relating to human rights, marriage is relevant as to the legal, social, and spiritual benefits it allows. In this sense, then, marriage refers to the granting of these benefits in the form of a union. If all citizens are to be granted equal access to these benefits, then marriage must be a basic human right. ConclusionCon's argument mainly relies on the claim that modern-day marriage is based entirely on the principle of procreation. I have provided a counterexample (biologically incapable couples) that equally defies this principle as gay marriage but are legal in most, if not all, the world. Con repeatedly states that this argument as been refuted "countless times", despite the fact that he has been unable to face up to my counterexample. Con's other arguments, regarding health and minority rights, have been refuted. He continues to defend them by bringing up irrelevant statements about interracial marriage and false sources respectively. My opponent's only objections to my argument about gay marriage benefiting homosexual couples is repeating previous refuted arguments about health statistics and taking back an earlier claim about civil unions. Because of this retraction, he has been unable to provide a method for homosexuals to receive all of the benefits that marriage grants, thus being unable to refute my argument that marriage is a basic right. I too would like to thank my opponent for this debate. However, due to the above reasons, I urge a PRO vote.