Gay Marriage Should be Legal

Thank you for your arguments and rebuttals. You are a formidable opponent and I am pleased to be debating with you. For purpose of this debate, I am going to concede and accept my opponent's definition of marriage as . Marriage - A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts. (Shift4101).==REFUTATION OF CON'S ARGUMENTS==State's Interest in Marriage?My opponent has brought up an excellent point, namely, "What is the State's interest in Marriage?" To answer this question, my opponent has supplied two possible reasons: (1) The state sees a special value within marriage; and (2) The State honors the tradition of religion. I will concede that these are possible reasons; however, I would like to bring up my own reasons. Linette Scott, the Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the CA Department of Public Health, has indicated that the state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriages. For example, marriage helps to: (1) facilitate public order by organizing individuals into cohesive family units; (2) Develop a realm of liberty and free decision making by spouces; and (3) Create stable households. [1] All of these purposes apply in heterosexual couples as well as same-sex couples. This will become important later in the debate. The APA says: "research shows that same-sex coupels are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children. Thus, there is no scientific justification for denying marriage equality, when research indicates that marriage provides them many important benefits." [2] [emphasis mine]. To summarize: same-sex and opposite-sex couples are similarly situated. So to conclude, the state has many interests in marriage, not just religious or special values like my opponent would like for you to believe.Now, I would like to refute my opponent's two possible causes for state's interest in marriage and refute them to show how they have no baring in the result of this debate.1) Same-sex marriage violates the first amendment.Okay, so what is the first amendment? The first amendment sates: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [3] Hence, that has NOTHING to do with marriage, nor does it say that SSM would violate this amendment.2) Special value.Before you make this claim, you need to define what a special value is. Marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. Moreover, based upon my opponent's logic, marriage should be denied to couples who are sterile or have no desire for children. | CONCLUSION |I have shown that there are more than just 2 reasons for federal marriage, hence refuting my opponent's claims. Furthermore, I have re-affirmed that SSM should be legal, just upon the interest in marriage. Anyway, I shall now deal with defending my own arguments.==DEFENSE OF MY ARGUMENTS==Contention 1: Harm My opponent completely drops this argument. When I mean "harm", I refer to physical, mental, or moral injury. My opponent says "Due to the nature of sodomy, both consenting partners are physically harmed during sexual interactions in a homosexual relationship." Please prove this as I have not had any physical injury during any homosexual experience. "Does it emotionally harm anyone? By legalizing gay marriage the whole Christian community in America, among other religious communities, would be distraught." I'm sorry, but my opponent still has provided no evidence for his claim. Moreover, this is a secular not a religious society. Why should we let religion dictate the rights of the peple to people who don't even believe in religion X? A person's history and ability are incredibly less obvious than his/her sexual orientation when applying for a marriage license. To examine each couple, heterosexual or homosexual, for defects such as infertility or a history of violence would be both dehumanizing and expensive. In the current system the benefits of recognized, generally-good marriages exceedingly outweigh the disadvantages of a handful of poor marriages. In other words, the state can only practically recognize marriage by the type of acts that come with marriage, such as child rearing and raising; rather than the actual, varying effects that come with any-given marriage. Even if we allow same sex marriage, pimps, pedophiles, arsonists, etc will still be able to get married.--Shift4101 this is completely irrelevant to the debate. Contention 2: The 14th AmendmentAgain, completely irrelevant to what my opponent is saying. I am well aware that "no man can marry another man", which is why I am arguing that it should be legal! Equal protection is relevant. There are 1,000+ rights denied, which is completely dropped. "They can marry anyone they like, so as long as they are a member of the opposite sex so as long as they are a member of the opposite sex so procreative in type action may take place." This is irrelevant as procreation is not important in determining who can marry whom. In Turner v. Stafley, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) "[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right and marriage is an expression of emotional support and commitment." [4] Hence, we see that procreation is not involved with determining marital rights. Contention 3: Benefits C1.1: Economics “Even if recognizing gay marriage called for $30 billion in revenue, it would still absolutely pervert the reason why the state honors marriage.” Firstly, who decides what “perversion” is? Secondly, I have already refuted the claim by providing alternate reasons for state recognized marriage. “What’s stopping the government from legalizing contract killing, sale of any and all kinds of drugs, or prostitution?” Respectfully, please stay on topic. I am for prostitution and drug sale of all kinds, but that is not what we are debating. As for the contract killing, please see contention 1. C1.2: Children Legalization of same-sex marriage can provide for better stability with the legal and financial benefits that come with legalization of marriage. Hence, this is called the “utility factor.” I have already shown how couples of the same-sex are just as capable of raising children as their heterosexual counterparts. However, if they were able to be legally married, they would be better able to provide a more stable family. What you want to do is compare 1 to 100, when a few homosexual families are not good; you want to abolish all homosexuals from having children. Instead of providing a loving home for children, my opponent would rather have children suffer in an orphanage simply because the potential family is gay. Over ½ million children are in foster care and 100,000 are awaiting adoption [5], should children be deprived of the right to a loving family simple because the parents are gay? I want to thank you for your opening round and for your excellent arguments. I look forward to your response. Thanks. References 1. Walker, Vaughn R. "Case3:09-cv-02292-VRW Document70." AFER, 4 Aug. 2010. http://www.afer.org... p. 67.2. The American Psychological Association. "APA Praises Prop 8 Decision as Victory for Science, Human Dignity." http://www.apa.org...3. US Constitution: 1st Amendment. http://www.usconstitution.net... 4. ThinkProgress2. "Ted Olson Interview With Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace." YouTube. (Link in comments). 5. http://www.inthelifetv.org...