The Great Gay Debate Regarding Marriage - Debunk

I never disputed that a male and female are needed for reproduction. In fact, I stated the following in my response; "What are indispensable are male sperm and the reproductive track of a female in order to create life. " I also defined the term "union" in my response as uniting in marriage; also sexual intercourse [1] which was not disputed by my opponent. As union is defined as uniting in marriage, also sexual intercourse, my position is that uniting in marriage is not a necessary component to procreation nor is the physical act of sexual intercourse, both which is central to Spiegel's argument. "While the statistics he marshalled are impressive, they are an utter red herring. The argument is centered around what marriage is, not on how it's practiced. " I provided a philosophical definition of marriage in my argument by stating the below; "As my opponent is defending a philosophical argument I will use a philosophical definition of marriage as a lifetime commitment to constantly provide emotional intimacy to your spouse, thereby uncovering your true self and, ultimately, your unique purpose for being created. " It is my opponent's position that the central purpose of marriage is procreation which what he feels "what marriage is. " "The point to be drawn from this is that despite the fact that marriage may be inconsistently practiced (This is due more to the responsibility of no-fault divorce laws), this does not in any way change the actual nature of marriage. " No-fault divorce laws have nothing to do with why marriage is inconsistently practiced. Especially when you take into consideration that the average length of time a couple is married prior to divorce is 8 years. [2] No-fault divorce makes it easier for married people to divorce yet the average length of time is 8 years which makes my opponents argument weak at best. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and the nature of marriage and make up many times over the course of history. There were in fact various places and points in history where same sex couples received the same recognition as married couples. [5] I respectfully request that my opponent define the nature of marriage to which he is referring. "Con is actually commiting a common mistake in ethical reasoning, known as the "is-ought fallacy. " Simply because something is a certain way does not mean that it ought to be that way. Thus, though it is true that many marriages end in divorce, you cannot infer anything normative from the nature of marriage from that. " I am not the one committing "is-ought fallacy" but rather my opponent. My opponent's position is that the central point of marriage is procreation but since not all married couples have children they are not practicing marriage in the way intended. "As the central point of marriage is for procreation, they ought to have children or they're not practicing marriage the way it's intended. " "But this misses the very point of the argument. Why is marriage considered a contract? " Marriage is considered a contract as that what the legal system has defined marriage to be. "A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. " [3] The legal definition that states between free man and free woman and out to exist between husband and wife is at the heart of the gay marriage debate. The homosexual community is fighting that those terms should not be included in the in the legal definition of marriage and since it does they feel it's violating their civil rights. The gay marriage debate is not what marriage "is" or what it "ought" to be but rather what the legal definition of marriage is. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 defined marriage as "union exclusively between man and woman. " [4] at the federal level and was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district judge in Boston as violating state rights and being discriminatory. The Defense of Marriage Act is currently on stay until it eventually makes it to the U. S. Supreme Court. So why are homosexual couples fighting so hard for the right to marry? The General Accounting Office issued a report in 1997 identifying "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor" In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003 [4] "The very reason that family law exists is because the state recognizes that marriage as a relationship has the rearing of its future citizens as a goal. " Obviously, if men and woman cease procreating, there are no longer citizens and society as we know it will cease to exist. However, if gay couples are allowed to marry how will this change the fact that heterosexuals will continue to procreate whether in marriage our outside of marriage? Just as not all heterosexuals marry, not all homosexual couples will marry. Gay couples will continue to adopt and Lesbian couples will continue to rear children through artificial insemination. Family law exists to deal with issues facing families such as child abuse, matters of paternity and adoption. One does not need to be married in order to be a member of a family. Conclusion My opponent has failed to recognize my position in my previous argument as I had to reaffirm my position in this round and argues that the primary purpose of marriage is for procreation. No-fault divorce for the failure of many to practice marriage as intended by nature while accusing me of committing a "is-ought fallacy" while actually committing it himself. I feel I have thus debunked his arguments. I eagerly await my opponent's response. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.census.gov... [3]. http://www.lectlaw.com... [4] . http://docs.google.com... [5] . http://books.google.com...