Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.

Unfortunately, as my opponent recognizes in his last round, he has failed to criticize my second argument at all and failed to address my procreation argument directly. Therefore, at this point my arguments are dropped and must flow through. Let’s move onto my opponent’s response to the rebuttal I provided. “Incorrect. My point was that the ostensible main function of marriage, reproduction, is no longer required or valued except to keep the population level stable. The "heterosexual union" that my opponent mentions (presumably based on reproduction in addition to child-rearing) has already been effectively done and dusted. Couples today gain more by postponing child-bearing until they have stable careers and lives than they do by immediately having as many children as possible, which was the only kind of marriage pe-modern humans knew. ” Two points on this. Regardless of the need for procreation, the value hasn’t changed. It is necessary regardless of the modern facts regarding the implications of marriage. My opponent needs to provide reasons why marriage is changed by these. He has failed to do so thus far. Furthermore, things that bring about effects are not the same thing as functions. Furthermore, this is almost a clear contradiction between this and the bottom of the page regarding “procreation”. Please cross-apply those points to this. “I don't really see what this means. As I have pointed out, there are many other indispensable functions of modern day marriage that are not contingent on procreation. Con should provide a case for why procreation remains the main function of marriage. ” Two points on this as well. I provided a strong case for why procreation is the main function of marriage, which my opponent has failed to address, therefore it becomes difficult for my opponent to make an argument that would suggest that the conjugal marriage is unsupported. Furthermore, my opponent has not mentioned any modern indispensable functions. He mentions that creating stable family units and raising children, but this is hardly clear on the former and unlikely for homosexuals on the latter. What is meant by “stable”? What does that consist of? Raising children is rare for homosexuals but from my second argument that my opponent hasn’t refuted we know that homosexuals are not the same as heterosexuals when it comes to raising children. “I don't understand remotely what Con is saying by procreation possibly having "future use" to different people, so I'll wait for him to clarify. His second and third points are essentially the same: that procreation is necessary to the human species. However, this objection doesn't make a lot of sense when we understand that institutions evolve over time and according to the needs to the community. If humanity ever required a reinstallment of traditional couple-rearing to stave off an existential threat, it would appear again. If we teleported a group of modern day people back in time to an unpopulated forest 30,000 years, assuming they survived, the same humans would have developed basic tribal institutions and hierarchies even before they gave birth to a new generation. ” My opponent has made a critical assumption about marriage that is consistently applied throughout the case; he assumes that marriages implications necessarily imply what marriage is. Marriage isn’t federal assured procreation but it helps facilitate and promote relationships which facilitate procreation. Therefore, your forest analogy is simply non-sequitur. I mean future use (use in the future i. e. later) by different people (i. e. people not living now). By not responding to this criticism, voters should consider it so far dropped. “Procreation may be necessary for our collective continuity, but that has, currently, close to zero bearing on individual requirements. Sure, if our population took a severe dive and we regressed into a dark ages, forgetting our technology, it's easy to see a traditional conception of marriage taking root again out of the needs of the common folk. But the fact that marriage no longer requires procreation as its main function does not mean that procreation is irrelevant. Most people still do have babies, and the amount of births is currently resulting in global overpopulation. The demand and thus value of human resources would rise if we ever began losing substantial parts of our population, giving people even more incentive to raise children. Supply and demand curves aren't only for prices. ” My opponent fails to see the point I was making about the marriages. It is not necessary that the two individuals decide to reproduce as long as they are able to. The analogy between infertile couples and couples that cannot naturally reproduce is logically the same. As long as they can achieve the organic bodily union they fulfill the requirements for marriage not the consequences of the union. “It is clear that the bodies of an infertile couple can unite organic all through coitus. Consider digestion, the individual body’s process of nourishment. Different parts of that process—salivation, chewing, swallowing, stomach action, intestinal absorption of nutrients—are each in their own way oriented to the broader goal of nourishing the organism. But our salivation, chewing, swallowing, and stomach action remain oriented to that goal (and remain digestive acts) even if on some occasion our intestines do not or cannot finally absorb nutrients, and even if we know so before we eat. ” SHERIF GIRGIS,* ROBERT P. GEORGE,** & RYAN T. ANDERSON*** “As I have pointed out, procreation is still an intregral part of our society. Most couples choose to have children, and even if they didn't (in which case governments would probably step in and reward or force women to bear children to prevent catastrophic population shrinkages), those children still need a stable, social institution to be raised in. This follows to my rebuttal to his third argument, being that humans need to be able to organize themselves to a degree and public programs such a CPS simply cannot control natural societal functions to the degree it would take to raise a quarter of the population and provide for them the psychological and social requirements they need to grow. Child-rearing is still very much anarchic, although federal marriage benefits facilitate and help it. ” Unfortunately for my opponent with this concession my opponent has lost the debate. My opponent concedes that (in the first paragraph) procreation is necessary for the continuation of the human race and has an integral part of society. He says that “(in which case governments would probably step in and reward or force women to bear children to prevent catastrophic population shrinkages)” but why should they not reinforce the procreation community with benefits since they fundamentally insure that negative situation. Furthermore, my opponent agrees that humans need more than individual want to insure procreation. CPS and other organizations are simply not equipped to deal with rewarding the continuation of the human species. As for the point about the federal marriage benefits (for child rearing), it should be noted that the child rearing consistency and well roundedness is better achieved by the conjugal definition of marriage (see the no difference theory). Conclusion Unfortunately my opponent has failed to respond to my arguments and therefore I must end here. I urge a Con vote today. . http://www.youtube.com...