A Good Debate on Gay Marriage

The Purpose of MarriageMarriage is a socially (and legally) constructed institution, so it must have some kind of meaningful purpose. Not only that, but it is also socially and fiscally incentivized by the state, under which the legal contract of marriage takes place. Why does the state incentivize marriage, but not "friendship" or just "dating," for example? In order to understand the purpose of marriage, we have to understand what makes it unique for more "mundane" relationships between people that have not been deemed worthy of exclusive legal status. The Exclusivity of Marriage1. I said that marriage is not a natural right. While no one has a natural right to be granted money for our inability to work due to disability (i.e., we do not have a natural capacity to engage in such an activity without infringing on others' natural capacities), some people are granted a right by the state to receive benefits for disability; surely, this does not mean that this "right" must be extended to the non-disabled. In the same way, marriage is an exclusive right for men and women, as I have argued.2. Now, on to my opponent's misunderstanding about the notion of "equality." He states that a chair should not be granted equal status under marriage; however, I never contested this, and I have no idea why he would want to bring this up. The man who wants to marry the chair is who I am concerned about; he may seek equality under my opponent's absurd, borderless idea of marriage. The state must be selective about who receives marriage benefits; otherwise, marital status will become meaningless and the benefits granted with it may as well be granted to everybody, regardless of marital status. I appreciate my opponent's story about the lesbians, but it has little to do with the matter at hand. Policies regarding death benefits and whatnot can be adjusted without involving changes in the definition of marriage. Unless my opponent can prove otherwise, I don't see how this is directly relevant to the matter at hand.Redrawing the Line for MarriageMy opponent brings up the all-too-common infertility argument, which is still as ineffective as it has always been in the same-sex marriage debate. Infertile couples are fertile in type; they are not automatically exempt due to basic biological incompatibility, like homosexual couples are. By mandating fertility tests for infertile couples, the state would counterbalancing any actual incentive that marriage carries by expecting couples to undergo long, expensive, and thorough examinations. There are many reasons that infertility occurs, and couples usually find out about it after baby-making doesn't go as smoothly as they had thought--and this takes weeks or even months after the point at which they start looking to conceive. State-prescribed fertility testing would simply be impractical (especially fiscally)--and arguably invasive on individual rights. Homosexual couples are, by their very nature, unable to be internally self-sufficient when it comes to bearing and rearing their own children. They are always externally dependent for this process and therefore lack the foundational stability necessary to create a fundamentally cohesive unit--i.e., a family. Homosexual couples raise children that cannot be entirely their own and they depend on systemic inefficiency... surrogate mothers who could have had their own partners, for example. Homosexual couples lack the foundational essence of internal stability that forms the nature of a heterosexual union. The Slippery Slope My opponent has established his own standard, but he has decided to justify it in any reasonable way, instead choosing to appeal to "international law" (but at least he gets an extra source out of it!). So, bsh1 ought to do us a huge favor and explain why your standard is reasonable. For someone who is such a champion of "equality," he sure likes to exclude those who want to marry their horses and tables. But polygamy and homosexual marriage is fine. Why is this standard the right one to make? ---Now, on to my opponent's original arguments:PollingThis argument fails right off the bat. Take this analogy: Most countries in the world oppose the USA's expansive doctrine of freedom of speech. Does that necessarily mean it ought to be changed to fit the whim of the other countries? Individual rights/autonomy matter over majority rule; the right to marry is, in my mind, one of the consenting man or woman--and not one to be dominated by the tyranny of the majority.Libertarian ParadigmMarriage comes with benefits that are paid for by tax payers. If marriage is to have no significance, then its net worth would be harmful, since it takes money away from tax payers. Marriage, as I have said, must have a positive utilitarian value in order to be deemed positive... or even neutral, in our society. EqualityI think this has been covered extensively above.HistoryMy stance in the debate is not that we ought to ban "same-sex partnerships" or families. And I have not argued that they cannot contribute to stability... Relative to certain circumstances (such as having no families, for example), same-sex households are very beneficial and pro-stability. The statements being made here by the opponent have not been contested, and if they are reiterated, they are to be deemed strawman arguments. ---This argument was typed up very quickly, so I apologize for any typos or misspellings. I have... social stuff to do, and I didn't have time to carefully edit.The resolution has been deemed null.Thanks!