Gay Marriage

I'll start off by noting that my goal here, plain and simple, is to show you, my opponent and the rest of DDO, that gay marriage can and should be allowed, legally in the US. I am aiming to show you that what is viewed as "marriage", really isn't true. By bringing religion into the discussion, I merely aim to show you all that marriage has no definition, or known origin. It has been both religious and legal, and still is both religious and legal. But there is no known origin, meaning there is no reason why it cannot be changed. 1-What is marriage?In your round one argument, my opponent says: "Marriage is not a friendship as much as it is a comprehensive union linked to procreation." This may be true in our definition, but in the past definitions, they could vary greatly. Women used to be slaves to their husbands; some husbands used to have many wives. Further more, as I showed in my round one arguments, marriage is not in any way necessary for procreation. How many thousands of children around the world, or even just in the US, are born to unwed parents? The number is not known to me, but the fact is, the children are in fact born. So marriage isn't necessary to reproduce, so why should marriage be kept solely to parents? My opponent goes on: "That is, it is a relationship which nature calls for the union to have procreative type acts to encourage procreation, in principle, to help further society." Again, as shown in my arguments from round one, marriage is not a natural occurrence, it is a man made ceremony. There is nothing "natural" about it. Humans got by for thousands of years without it, and every other species get by without it, so marriage is not, by definition, "natural". "As we can see, the states interest in marriage is what legally defines marriage. Not any religious aspects. Now this states interest serves many purpose, chiefly being responsible procreation creates good morals, family structures, and a growing and functioning society." You say that it is the state that defines what marriage is, and that it is geared towards their interests. In other words, discrimination to further an agenda? A legal marriage is simply a legal document saying that two people are legally together, their money now belongs to both of them, etc. Nothing about raising good moral people or creating family structures or whatever. Furthermore, allowing gay people to marry does not prevent any of that from happening. It will not prevent heterosexuals from marrying and raising kids the way they see fit.To sum up this section, I have shown why my opponent is wrong by saying that marriage is for procreation only, that it is natural, and that the state can say no to gay people simply because they think it will hurt society. 2-Why it should be allowed."I said I was for responsible procreation, not just procreation." All a matter of perspective buddy. Two people can responsibly procreate without a marriage. You are assuming that everyone who bears children out of wedlock are irresponsible. This is very much untrue. Furthermore, marriage doesn't make people responsible. Divorce rates are through the roof right now. Nearly 5 out of every 1000 people are doing it [1], the highest rate in the world. So marriage doesn't make responsible people, parents or otherwise. "Monogamy helps enforce/encourage this idea, as it is beneficial for society to do something this important right the first time. In ancient times, when procreation was not responsible, it would not be a states interest, as it does not fund a healthy society."First off, it doesn't "enforce" this idea, especially with the no fault divorces. Secondly, "encouraging" can be done in ways other than legislation. Oh, and to say that procreation wasn't responsible in ancient times, I find that actually rather silly. How do you think we got this far? More than today, Men would stick with their families, legally married or not, and they raised them responsibly, without an authority of some sort telling them they had to. If people were raised back then the way they are today, with Fathers leaving their Wife and children like they do, we'd be worse off as a society. Responsibility was taught without laws, once we start trying to enforce responsibility, that's when it leaves. Modern America is an example. That isn't to say it didn't happen, because it did, but it wasn't like today. "When SSM (same sex marriage) was legalized there was a decline in heterosexual marriage rates, and the rate of flash divorces rose tremendously." You got this fact out of a book, and I couldn't find it on the web. But, the book essentially appears to be about foreign marriages, specifically the Netherlands. This argument is specifically for America, but I will refute this nonetheless.[2] First off, demographically, their population went up less than half a percent the last census. Their fertility rate is low. Point? They're aging. According to a chart found under [3], the majority of people are 40 years old on up. Most people marry under 40 years old. SSM was legalized in 2001. In a chart in 2003 (found under the same link) guess how old most of the population was? 30 years old on up. In other words, they're all getting old, most if they are going to marry and have a family, have already done so.So this statistic you gave is false because 1(It is for the Netherlands (at least I assume, by the title of your book), it could very well differ here in America, and 2(The reason your statistic shows heterosexual marriage dropped in the Netherlands is due to population and fertility rate drops taking place far before SSM was legalized. So why should SSM be legalized? Because it is discriminatory to ban it, as it prevents homosexual couples from enjoying the benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexuals. It is in no way harming to society, as my opponent claims, and all of his reasons for banning it are false, as I have shown. Summing up, I have shown that marriage does not help breed good people, and that my opponents assertions are false, as well as his statistic on SSM's affect on traditional marriage. In short, there is no reason to ban it, as it is discriminatory.3-Adoption-I brought this up as a means to show you that there is a solution to save the traditional family. A sub point if you will. Since nothing was refuted, I'll leave it as is.4-Constitution-"In the constitution it says marriage should be left to the state, I am arguing the states ought to ban Same-Sex marriage. I would also like to note this is irrelevant unless you can prove SSM bans violate the constitution."It violates the constitution to ban something simply because we don't like it. There is no good reason homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to legally marry, so I am saying let's do it! As for the state matter, I agree. I am not saying we legalize it nationally and strip away states rights, I am showing in this debate why it should be allowed. It is up to the voters to decide who has more convincing arguments. Conclusion-I have shown that there is no reason to continue banning gay marriage, because it discriminates against gay people by not allowing them to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals, and I have shown why all of my opponents reasons for banning it are wrong.Vote pro! References-[1] http://www.nationmaster.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.nationmaster.com...