Gay Marriage

It's been quite interesting to do and I'm glad my opponent gave me a challenge :)To finish I will point out the issues in my opponent's arguments, and show him that my side is indeed more logical. Purpose of Marriage"Procreation" is defined by Dictionary. com: "to beget or generate (offspring)", "to produce; bring into being" [1]. This means to give birth to children, not to raise them, so the reason my opponent's analysis of my argument seemed like a straw man was because he had a different definition of procreation in mind. Regardless, I will excuse this and continue to examine Pro's arguments. My opponent misunderstands the important connection of the third and fourth premises, which together adequately show what the purpose of marriage really is. The purpose of the marital union is to promote a public end for the good of society, but it is specific only to procreation and child-raising. These two elements are what makes marriage unique and unlike any other union. Thus, any other societal benefits are irrelevant to marriage. I clearly stated in my fourth premise that the logical definition of marriage must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing. This is the prime reason why marriage is recognized by the state, and the state's intentions are always to promote a public end. This end is to produce and raise the next generation, the generation that will take the wheel next and will ultimately be the future of the world. Additional revenue is not why the state recognizes marriage at all, nor is it about alleviating stress. While these could benefit others, it's not anywhere close to as important as procreation and establishing the ideal family structure that raises up the people of our world. Marriage exists for these reasons. The state never said "hey, we need more revenue so let's create the marital union" because the marital union was never made to fit this purpose. It was made for the reasons I have outlined, and that simply is something that my opponent cannot deny. If we are to combat minority stress and revenue, we use other methods of solving these problems, but marriage was never meant to pulled into these issues. Pro can go on to a website and try to pull out all the so-called benefits of redefining marriage to meet irrelevant problems, but even if he can successfully do so, he does not understand nor can defeat that marriage was meant to support the special purposes of producing children and raising them. I could go through the Internet and try to find disadvantages of gay marriage to throw at my opponent, but it is indeed irrelevant to marriage's unique role in society. Thus, marriage ought not to be changed, but to remain as it is for the good of children and our future society. To be fair, I will still rebut Pro's arguments of "societal benefits" of extending marriage to other couples. Psychological StatesPro begins this by claiming that civil unions do not reduce minority stress as much as marital unions do, and cites two sources (#1 and #3 are the same). However, neither of his sources actually back his point - they focus on the effects of gay marriage vs no unions at all and do not agree with Pro's assertion that civil unions are not as good. In fact, source #1 states, "Therefore, be it resolved that the Indiana State Medical Association (1) recognizes that exclusion from civil union or marriage contributes to health care disparities affecting same-sex households. .". Since exclusion from civil unions are detrimental to health issues of homosexual couples, there is no reason to assume that domestic partnerships are part of the problem. Thus, Pro's claim is null and void. My opponent attempts to overturn my voting analogy by saying, "in voting, since it at least in theory impacts government, it is crucial to ensure that participants have some level of maturity". What he doesn't recognize is that voting requirements do not include or exclude people based on maturity. Some adults don't have such maturity, yet we don't exclude them. True, some minors could probably vote effectively, but we don't let them either. The point is that rules are general propositions based on a presumed connection between the established criteria and the behavior that is desired, even if the results aren't always favorable. And so it is with marriageThe EconomyFrom Pro's round 2 source, the states that legalized gay marriage saw a difference of about a few hundred jobs. However, a few hundred jobs are hardly anything when it comes to the state level, where in many states there are millions of eligible workers. If gay marriage were to be legalized, its effect on the economy wouldn't be that huge, and as I said before the purpose of marriage isn't to provide the state more money. Marriage ceremonies can be made regardless of whether SSM is legalized. This argument just isn't strong enough to prove that marriage isn't what it really is. StabilizationBecause Pro failed to show that civil unions are "very harmful" as he says they are, this argument is also null and void. It would have been great if Pro had elaborated more on this and showed us *how* it stabilizes society, but he didn't really do that very well in the second round and just posted links, which prove nothing, in the third round. He could have advanced this point further but even if he had successfully shown that gay marriages stabilize society it does not knock down the case for civil unions. Child AdoptionIn the first round I proved that children need a mother *and* a father, and that heterosexual parenting is beneficial to children in several important areas. My adversary asserts that marriage is beneficial to children, yet doesn't show how same-sex marriages are equally beneficial to children as heterosexual unions are. Neither does he bring civil unions into the equation despite my emphasis on how domestic partnerships provide the same rights/benefits as marriages do. He then cites a bunch of sources that are very unclear in this area and don't even back up what Pro originally said. He quotes nothing, which doesn't help either. Not to mention he has avoided the evidence I have presented in the first round. It seems as if he made a desperate Internet search to find links to throw at me regardless whether they follow his logic or not. Constitutionality The same thing is asserted by my opponent: that because she judges think the bans are unconstitutional, then they must be. This is flawed logic because it is appealing to authority, which is fallacious. The courts did so under the notion that homosexual couples were being treated "unequally" and thus they should be allowed in marriage. I have been very clear that marriage is to fuel two specific purposes: procreation and child-rearing. The state regulates marriage to fulfill these purposes and to place special status unto those who can bear children and those who are the best at doing so. Homosexual couples do not fit this criteria, so it cannot be discriminatory to disallow same-sex couples into this unique union. Equality must be served under the proper regulation it needs to be legitimate. SummaryPro starts this debate by listing reasons for why gay marriage should be legalized and "refutations" of the other side. I presented my case of why marriage is logically existent between heterosexual couples, not other unions. I also provided rebuttals to my opponent's objections towards arguments against SSM. Upon reading my case, Pro drops all his arguments, including infertile/old couples, popular opinion, religious legislation, etc and completely scraps his original case. He then attempts to show problems with my third premise by saying that marriage was meant to serve *any* end, which is a total misinterpretation of my case. Marriage exists to serve specific purposes, not just any random one, which I thoroughly explained. My opponent then goes on to procon. org, which shows both sides of the issue, to find pros of gay marriage in order to try to debunk my case, but fails to do so. He makes a desperate Internet search and finds a bunch of links to throw at me that don't even follow his assertions at all, and is very unorganized in his attempts. Even if he could find several pros, it wouldn't overturn the specific purposes marriage was designed to satisfy. Pro's tactics of dropping arguments, cherry picking them to look sensible, and misrepresentation of my case contribute to his failure to fulfill the BoP. He hasn't gotten close to showing my case false, and by avoiding much of it he concedes to what marriage really is. Vote Con :D= Source =[1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...