Same sex marriage

1. a. Conduct I was basically accused of being stupid before I laid down my arguments, this is why I urged a conduct vote. 1. b. S/G You spelled "we'll" as "will" you did not abbreviate it, my point stands. The only reason I posed this argument is because the S/G vote is usually ignored because it's barely ever pointed out. 1. c. "The government subsidizing marriage to preserve procreation SEEMS a valid thing to do. " Yes, we can all see how that might SEEM correct, but with a practically over-populated world, doesn't that seem amiss? More people are born on average than die, therefore, if marriage is only there to encourage birth, marriage itself would have no real benefit to society at all? Bringing in more people than there is money for, jobs for, food for, etc. I can understand the point about "responsible" procreation, but have I not already stated that adopting from other countries does practically the same thing? Homosexual couples can easily adopt from different countries and get the same result as responsible procreation, otherwise known as protected sex that DOESN'T conclude in a baby. Con confuses a few terms here that I will clear up now in order to provide a more clear debate. Con also seems to think that I've confused Procreation with Responsible Procreation. We'll stick to his terms, for now, considering it would seem unwise to try anything else as I have already been accused of straw-manning. "Marriage is not just about procreation, but also responsible procreation. Polygamous marriages cannot provide that, therefore they are unequal. " Con doesn't seem to realize that you can easily have responsible procreation in polygamous marriages. It's as simple as it is with monogamous marriages. Keep yourself safe. Keep your partner(s) safe. Have a reasonable amount of children. Case closed. 1. d. If Con wants to talk about procreation warranting legal recognition, I will not debate him. As he misinterprets my main point here. There are many factors that one could claim are necessary for society to exist. Is there a legal recognition of air for married couples? What about food, water, carbon, nitrogen, and every atom that is needed to keep society going? We can see that Con's point about procreation begging legal recognition is null and void considering if this was the logical approach, we would consider everything necessary for society a legal benefit/recognition of the people. On a legal basis, says Con, my argument about adoption is moot. If he can ACTUALLY prove this, I will debate it. But, because he poses no data, I will explain this further, as if he's continuing to argue it, he must not understand, fully. Con says procreation and child-rearing are basically of epic importance in a marriage, and that is the government's (state's) interest in such legal recognition. However, I have already proven that homosexual couples can participate in child-rearing through adoption. Children that may develop to become a burden to society, as they have no official guidance from a blood-relative, and spend their child-hoods in homes that cost the government money to run, should be adopted. And if not by a couple that can have children, why not one that can't? A homosexual couple, as Con does not want us to forget, cannot procreate to have a child, thus, make the perfect parents to a child with none of his/her own. The state, if interested at all in the economy (as Con also says is vastly important) would recognize homosexual marriages because they are a benefit to the society in this way, as well. **Note that my opponent uses his lack of response against me by accusing me of using shot-gun argumentation. ** **Note that shotgun argumentation is the purposeful posing of so many arguments that your opponent could not possibly answer them all** **Note that my opponent had 1884 characters left of argumentation (almost 1/4 of the total allowed count) and could have responded, easily, to everything I said** 1. e. Yes, the courts have ruled that way before. However, Con fails to realize that the courts don't always rule in the way that they should. Take the O. J. Simpson trial. That's all that will be said. My point does not fail, because I have proven how homosexual couples benefit the society, and therefore deserve the recognition of marriage. Now onto my case. Contention 1. Traditionalists v. Constitutionalists 1. a. Con wants to call me a straw-man again. However, I beg to differ. Con calls me a straw-man debater to cover up for his own straw-man arguments. Not once did I ever mention in this point a single parent. All of my point, therefore, stands. I will extend this entire argument until Con reads it well enough to understand that I am talking about unmarried couples, not single parents. 1. b. Con starts by insulting my argument itself, being that it's "worn out. " However, if you want to see worn out argument, read Con's older debates on this very topic and try to tell me he has changed them significantly. I will argue brief and to the point here, as not much argumentation is needed on this point. Homosexual couples can get married in certain states, correct? This is undeniable. Thus, they deserve equal protection under the law. It is clearly unequal rights if a homosexual couple in one state has more rights than a homosexual couple in another state JUST because one is able to marry, and the other is not. Contention 2. Married couple gets tax deductions. 2. a. I never once mentioned getting rid of taxes as a whole. CON is straw-manning his arguments again. My point here was that the state's interest is unjust. So essentially, Con concedes to the general argument made in this point. However, I will elaborate a bit and cross-apply all arguments that prove that homosexual couples both benefit the society, and achieve the same end as heterosexual married couples. This applies to my adoption arguments especially. Conclusion: My opponent continues to argue about me, and not my debate, therefore I will pose a few last points in order to sum up this debate, and not my opponent. I have proven that homosexual couples are able to benefit the society. I have proven that homosexual couples reach the same end as heterosexual married couples. I have proven that homosexual couples should be granted marriage because it is unjust not to do so. Con has spent more time arguing against me personally than he has developing his case. (This is clear though his arguments about my shot-gun approach, while he still has almost 1/4 of the total character count to write).