Gay marriage in the US

I. The introdution I never argued a federal ban, many of my sources where state based. But, I agree. I think the states should not allow it, at all, and this is what I am arguing. Not a federal ban, rather, a state ban, like a mere suggestion. I believe in states rights. But, I could argue that the defense of marriage act hinders gay marriage unconstitutional. DOMA, an amendment, defined marriage as one man and one woman. [1] [2] The law states:"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." [1] This means that the states do not have to recognize the act, so banning SSM is technically constitutional and allowed. THIS MEANS NO STATE NEEDS TO DO ANYTHING! You claim that The states cannot ban SSM because of a few court cases, I have proven with a constitutional amendment that a SSM ban is constitutional, hence your case falsified. I agree that marriage is a right, but you and I define marriage in different terms. DOMA defines marriage as a Union between one man and one woman, and the word spouse refers to a relationship between one man and one woman. [3] So yes, according to the constitution marriage is a right. Legal relationships between one man and one woman is a right. So yes, but not in your terms. II. Should we Ban SSM? No The states should not for one reason: What interest does the state have? You have not answered this, and it need to be answered. The reason: procreation. If there is no reason to allow SSM in the states eyes, then it will never be done. The reason SSM is not allowed by the states is procreation, and if there is no benefit for the state then why should they do it? [4] Now, as there is no compelling reason for the state to allow marriage then it might as well stay banned. Right with this I have won the debate. You have bit justified 4. III. Harms of prohibition Sub rebuttal: Liberty"The state of being free; enjoying various social, political, or economic rights and privileges The concept of liberty forms the core of all democratic principles. Yet, as a legal concept, it defies clear definition." [5]Thats the legal definition. Now, note rights. Marriage, as I have stated, it only a right to straight people. [1] [2] [3] Now, that being said, as it is not a right for homosexuals therefore marriage is not a liberty. Further more, if SSM is a liberty if 30 states have amendments banning SSM? [6]Now, the constitution says life LIBERTY... Now if it entitles this, and SSM was liberty then those 30 states would not have these bans. As they have these bans it disqualifies this argument. Further more marriage is not a right, [1] [2] [3] (for gays) also each state can ban or not ban any type of marriage. Society can endorse any one way of marriage it likes, so it see choose no SSM then it is not a right. [6] Sub rebuttal: Harm This is controversial, at the least. "He argues that society, either by law or by social pressure, cannot justly regulate any action a person performs unless it is other-regarding; that is, it harms people other than the agent him/herself." [7] So, as it only effects one group of people it technically doesn't hurt the majority. Also SSM has no proven benefits to the couples of these preferences. [8] As it does not help them then therefore it cannot help the kids. Also, why does htis matter? It would actually hurt all of us, as legalizing SSM is nearly permanent, and if you can redefine marriage then whats to stop me from having 100 wives? Marrying a dog? Attempting to change family structure? [9] My point is, if you legalize gay marriage, a slippery slope would possibly occur. Also Gay relationships are on average shorter, therefore it would increase divorce rates, and hurt the institution. [10] [11] Also many homosexuals (most of them) have relationships only lasting 6 months. [12] [10] Only 22% of gay men has kid living with them, and 33% for lesbians. [10] [13] Also gay men cheat more, a Canadian study says only 25% of homosexual relationships lasting longer then one year where monogamous. [14] So basically it would hurt the institution, effecting us all. IV: What are the benefits of marriage? (gay) 1) Source? You claim it brings people together, well so can other things. Also if marriage benefits gays then why is their divorce rate 1.5 times higher? [15] 2) Money: Actually the CBO in 2009 estimated legalizing SSM would increase spending and cost the goverment 596 million dollars. [16] Another estimate says the benefits would cost the goverment 310 million dollars in the benefits. [17] Also, as stated, most married couples pay less taxes. [18] Also, legislation has been passed lowering tax burdens on poorer married couples. [19] So allowing SSM would decrease revenues. 3) See above for my arguments here. Also gays have more domestic violence towards each other. [20] [10] 4) You need a study or source before you can say that marriage helps them, as it s a controversy. You have the BOP as this is a change in the status quo. -out of room, vote con- references: http://www.domawatch.org...[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://thomas.loc.gov...: [3] Tom Lowe, "A Defense of Traditional Marriage" (pre-publication draft) [4] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [5] "A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.," [5]Stephen J. Heaney, "A Marriage Tail," [6] http://www.mandm.org.nz... [7] http://www.catholic.com... [8] http://www.pressherald.com... [9] http://www.frc.org... [10] 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census [11] Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12. [12] "Married-Couple and Unmarried Partner Households: 2000," 10. [13] Ryan Lee, "Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows," Washington Blade (August 22, 2003): 18. [14] http://www.robgagnon.net... [15] J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, et al., "The Legal, Medical, Economic & Social Consequences of New Jersey's Civil Union Law," [16] http://voices.washingtonpost.com... [17] Round 2 of this debate. [18] Donaldson, Samuel A., "Federal Income Taxation of Individuals: Cases, Problems & Materials, Second Edition", page 9. Thomson West, 2007. [19] http://www.acpeds.org... [20]