Gay Marriage

I never said exclude rights, rather that rights was not the main point of this debate, and I specified saying this was likely going to be a main point of contention. The public purpose of marriage By public I hardly mean societies interest, as legal issues and society don’t always add together, rather I am arguing the states interest in marriage as well as the intrinsic value heterosexual unions have. Essentially what I am arguing is what is marriage, and what is the states current interest in regulating this institution? How my opponent and myself answer this will drastically alter the conclusion on whether or not the state should legalize, and fundamentally change, the institution we currently deem marriage. To defend my contention, something that would be legally worthy as well, would be to prove heterosexual unions serve a specific purpose in which is special to heterosexuals. If heterosexuals had nothing to differ from homosexuals, logically no government’s interest would exist. Therefore I need to prove the differences heterosexuals have. Heterosexual unions can procreate; they are therefore complimentary of each other’s actions. This procreation is responsible for societies existence. Therefore are holds a special social value in which homosexuals can never obtain. The government obviously holds an interest in regulating these unions for the simple fact it promotes a healthy environment in which new citizens are produced. The government has an interest in heterosexuals, and therefore has little interest in promoting homosexual relationships that serve little value to the state through marriage. This is the public function of marriage, even if it is not ones personal reason for the decision [1]. The question is what compelling reason does the state have to regulate and allow homosexuals in this way? I have never seen one prove otherwise, which is sad I really don’t like seeming like a bigot (even when I am not :P). Before the state spends millions of dollars on benefits for homosexual couples, it would be beneficial to know they have an interest in doing so. And, love is an insufficient states interest that would promote any benefit worth the millions of dollars. ***Rebuttals*** Why it should be legal I agree marriage is more then a comprehensive union, but also a union which its legal purpose is procreation. My opponent has argued the commonly heard card what we are depriving homosexuals of some benefits. And it seems impossible to oppose gay marriage as we are harming their well being, especially when one argues hundreds of benefits are at steak. But comprehensive looks at the benefits lowers the emotional appeal this argument brings. Describing all of these laws as benefits is misleading. Many of these statutes are like sub points to a contention, they are multiple parts for one benefit. All in all, the amount of benefits is still high but lower then my opponent would cite [2]. Further, this argument may be counter-intuitive for my opponent’s case. The benefits of marriage do exist, as many have been proven to exist. But this helps my case for a compelling states interest. These benefits cost money and rarely bring in substantial revenues, and to give a gift it is logical to have a reason. The reason, though, is procreation. Something homosexuals cannot produce, and therefore the state have no compelling reason to give them these costly benefits. For example, no one would give me a million dollars for no reason. But they would have a reason or an interest in doing so. If I saved their life, they would have a reason. If I were just a teenager typing gay marriage debate argument he would get little benefit from that transaction. So it is logical so assume the state only gives benefits if there is a reason – and sadly for homosexuals – this interest does not exist. SSM and children This is a common objection, as it shows homosexuals have the ability to produce healthy children. There is no objection due to the fact homosexuals can raise children, though the child’s existence is due to heterosexual unions. The normative structure of child rearing only exists amongst heterosexual union, this situation occurred only because the heterosexual couples where unable or unwilling to raise the child. As this is likely true, it shows society has now lost its optimal version of child rearing. And besides, two friends, families, single people, all have the ability to raise children, but this does not mean there is a compelling states interest to label it “marriage”. It also does not mean it is an “optimal” setting for child rearing. So to rebut this argument all I need to do is prove that homosexual parenting is not optimal for a child’s sake. If my opponent proves homosexuals are great parents, this may be the only option for a compelling states interest. Unluckily for my opponent, there is little evidence he has at his disposal. I have seen my opponents source cited many times, it cites studies from the 80-90s and concludes that homosexual parenting has “no difference” or benefit. Though the dates are significant on this (no, not that they are out of date, rather) they have serious flaws to them. Many of the problems of these studies include: Unclear hypothesis or research design Missing or inadequate comparison groups (no good controls) Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements Non-random sample sizes, much of the time other participants asked other friends to join or advertisements put up Samples too small to get any valid results (all studies had this problem except Cameron 1996) Missing or inadequate statistical analysis [3] So as we can see, there is little evidence homosexual parenting studies which my opponent cited are scientifically accurate. And the studies that passed the tests usually showed heterosexuals where better parents then homosexuals [3]. Right to same sex marriage? We hear these arguments all the time that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, and usually the only support you get is the wording of the 14th amendment. I used to hold this opinion, but now that I have actually looked into its rhetoric I have found there is little proof of a right to same sex “marriage”. The debate over SSM is what marriage is, nothing else. As the famous Girgis paper points out, "Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, non-marital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place."[4] So my opponent now must argue homosexuals share a right to marriage with heterosexuals, in doing this, however, he begs the question: what is marriage? For Gays to have a right to marriage, the definition must be along side with them. If not then their claims to a right are constitutionally invalid. As we can see, my opponent needs to show a states interest and why this interest [should] define marriage a certain way before he can win a legal debate. Conclusion: To many readers my opponents case seems to uphold the burden, but if you clearly read the rebuttals there is little legal basis in which one could argue for same sex marriage. Vote CON. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] Baker, Joshua K., “1,000 Federal Benefits of Marriage? An Analysis of the 1997 GAO Report,” Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, (2004) [3] Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D. “No Basis: What the Studies Don’t tell us about Same-Sex Parenting,” Marriage Law Project, Washington, D.C. (January 2001) [4] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)