Legalization of Same Sex Marriage

Rebuttals+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++My opponent's points 1. My opponent compares homosexual marriages to candy. He is saying that though homosexual marriages do not benefit the society, should we not allow candy too because they do not benefit society? He also says that because we do not value marriage as much anymore and accept homosexuals that the concept of marriage doesn't really matter anymore and can apply to homosexuals. “"homosexual marriage doesn't provide a special societal benefit"-Neither does candy; in fact, it rots your teeth and makes children misbehave. but we still make it and sell it."” “" The concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals because it doesn't conform with society's interest in marriage."-It was Chris Rick who pointed out in his last HBO special that we certainly do not hold marriage in high regards as we once did.” 2. My opponent says that my understanding of the origins of marriage are flawed. According to him for which he has provided no sources for his claims, marriage originated to control and subject women. He also says that due to an example he gives of Mesopotamia. “And your understanding of how marriage originated is also incorrect. We have marriage records from early Mesopotamia, so we know it has been around since the times when women and children were like property to men. People did not see the family unit the same as we do; men would take and discard wives at will, and often had very little direct involvement in their children's lives.” 3.My opponent says that because people procreate outside of marriage it destroys my argument. He says that many married couples choose not to marry. I have already addressed most of the rest of the first quotation in the infertility objection. He then says that I have no reason to outlaw homosexual marriages. “Also, your argument is flawed because there are many people who procreate outside of marriage, and also many married people who are unable or chose not to have children. Should people have to be biologically "fit" for bearing children and also sign a contract to produce at least one child before being granted a marriage license? You could make the same argument using the same flawed principle.” “I understand what you are trying to say, that two homosexuals can't really create the American dream (2 kids, a dog and a white picket fence, etc.), and I agree with you, I am just saying it is not a matter of national concern, and therefore there is no good reason to outlaw homosexual marriage.” +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Rebuttal to point 1 It seems from this we can agree that my opponent has conceded that homosexual marriages do not benefit the society whatsoever! I'd like to fix up my opponent's analogy which doesn't relate and address my argument at all. Candy is far from comparable to the argument and situation at hand. Nobody recognizes and provides benefits to people who eat candy whereas with marriage they do. Marriages are recognized today and supported with benefits in forms which are both economical and legal. An ancient benefit conjured onto a married couple and is said to predate evidence of it existing is the dowry [1] and bride price [2]. The government and/or ancient civilizations sought to soldify heterosexual unions because marriage provides the environment for which to produce and raise children, the reason for the existence and continuation of society itself. "Recognizing that a fundamental purpose of marriage is to engender respect for the transmission of human life provides a corollary insight"[3].Thus the state's/government's/civilization's interest in marriage is procreation and child rearing. The couple's interest could indeed be love but the state's interest is not that. My opponent then says that marriage can apply to homosexuals because the value of it has dropped due to high divorce rates etc. I agree that the value of marriage has dropped, but the concept of marriage which I have gave and stated earlier will never fade unless marriage itself is eradicated. I have stated solid reasoning and evidence in the first round, the reason why marriage even exists which is due to state's interest to protect unions which are procreative. The concept of marriage began with this fundamental idea. If a union such as a homosexual union does not conform with the concept of marriage, then it should not be recognized. Rebuttal to point 2 My opponent doesn't give sufficient justification for his claim that marriage originated to subjugate women.Even if his example of ancient Mesopotamia were true, this doesn't phaze my argument in the least. There is strong evidence to suggest that the fundamental idea pertaining to marriage is a union which is procreative rather than the subjection of women. Yes, as Margaret A. Somerville states: “Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family.” [3] Disregarding all the cultural and societal differences such as a patriarchy (as stated in your example), what relates all marriages is the union of pairs which are procreative in type. Homosexual unions disregards this and should not be acknowledged. Rebuttal to point 3 Regarding procreation outside of marriage, this is very possible but it is mostly due to love and sexual pleasure and is inherently different from marriage. The state doesn't regulate non-marital relationships and friendships because they have no reason to. With marriage we see a number of non romantic obligations involved such as the raising of a family (almost always) and co-operation of spouses. My opponent says many married couples choose not to have children but hasn't provided any evidence whatsoever. A study in Canada on the types of households show most are family households (aka marriage) [4] which supports me. My opponent then claims at the end of the quote that I have no good reason to outlaw homosexual marriage. I have provided reasons for why homosexual marriages should be banned but however, in the beginning of the debate, I said that “5. I am NOT arguing whether SSM should be illegal.” so what my opponent says is irrelevant. I am arguing: “1. I am arguing that the concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals because it doesn't conform with society's interest in marriage. 2. I am arguing that homosexual marriage doesn't provide a special societal benefit. 3.For these arguments which I will justify, homosexual marriages shouldn't be legalized.” My opponent then brings in a definition of marriage which is irrelevant because I am also debating on the concept of marriage so any definition/laws are not infallible. I stated this in the very beginning. He also says that homosexual marriage is a right which I have argued there isn't.Conclusions My opponent doesn't bring forth any arguments on why homosexual marriages should be legalized whereas I have provided a case for why homosexuality should not be legalized. Verily my opponent is that he is pro on the debate, legalization of SSM so he should have provided reasons to legalize SSM but there has so far been none. He has just given rebuttals which I responded to. I have given reasonings and supporting evidence for my contentions and as such my position stands. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Margaret A. Somerville The case against “same sex marriage” [3] http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca...-----> go to canadians in context then ------->households and families [4]