Gay Marriage

I will be first defending my case then refuting his. Rebuttal Infertility ObjectionEven though the argument is beginning to get old for it has been proven to be an abject failure I will still go over it as if it is new and overwhelming. Pro simply just misunderstands what the contention means. The world 'in principle' means relating to the definition. Bringing up a few minuscule examples does not change what procreation is by principle and by definition. Human beings reason and make laws based on concepts and definitions. To act as if this is unnecessary and to disregard a concept and definition for a minuscule objection means you are not operating under the moral responsibility that we have as individuals and you are only acting upon your own arbitrary whim. In a heterosexual relationship procreation is always possible. In a homosexual relationship procreation is by definition impossible and can never be achieved. Thus the infertility objection is indeed an abject failure. Homosexual Parenting This argument is completely irrelevant to procreation. Procreation and adoption are two different things. Marriage recognizes procreation, not simply adopting children. I don't think my opponent understands what procreation is. Also Pro's studies only consist of a small survey and are questionable. Some studies show differently, see [1]. I can provide more if need be. Are keeping Homosexual Marriage illegal and antimiscegenation the same thing? In Pro's response to my second contention he merely states that discriminating against 1% of the population is the same as discriminating against ethnic minorities. Race and gender are two completely different things. Race is irrelevant to marriage due to the fact that marriage is for procreation. Two different races can procreate, but two homosexuals can not. This is simple and is prima facie incorrect. There are so many differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples in terms of sexual relations rather than ethnic differences. Pro then goes on to say how homosexual marriage is a basic right? Pro has to justify this later how this is a matter of equality. He does not understand that at the point at which there are numerous countries that have such a small homosexual population and it is completely frowned upon that these people do not even want homosexual marriage for it will only lead to further discrimination and more problems. So essentially in numerous countries allowing SSM will be worse for the homosexual couples. Health BenefitsPro agrees that the evidence is indisputable. This wasn't really the core of my case but I will defend it. Now I know that it seems like a very bigot-like thing to do, but at the point at which homosexual couples have proven to not be able to keep a relationship, granting SSM would only potentially hurt the children my opponent is advocating that they can adopt. He brings up a source that is completely biased for it was conducted by the couples. Of course when you grant them marriage they are going to say that they are perfectly fine. I don't see how encouraging homosexual practice in countries such as Iran will decrease the amount of homosexual activity. R1: Basic human right Not only does Pro fail to justify how marriage is a basic human right but he provides no warrant that marriage when the term was coined and the amendment was made that homosexual couples were considered. Marriage is a social institution, not a fundamental right. Pro does not justify what marriage is and we can not even come to this lavish conclusion. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson sum it up well: "Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital 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. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded. " [2]Pro's argument is rather question-begging for it does not justify two things: what marriage is and why it is recognized legally. My opponent seems to go off of love but at the point at which it is love why would the state recognize it at all? This argument again begs the question. R2: AlternativePro assumes I must endorse the alternative of a civil union. Now I do support this however this is completely irrelevant for it is only a responsiblity of the civil union institution, not marriage. This does not by any means justify marriage by stating "the alternative is worse". Also he states that marriage makes them happier and will decrease the promiscuity? I would like a warrant for this. As far as I am concerned, when adults are happy it usually leads to more "happy time". ConclusionPro's objections to my case are rather old and have been proven false time after time. I have successfully defended my first contention about procreation as well as my second that proves that there is no reason for EVERY country to recognize marriage, which he has to prove. At the point at which the population is small and there is no want or need for SSM then it should not be legalized everywhere. Thus Pro has not fulfilled his BoP by any means thus far. My opponent's arguments are blatantly false for two reasons: He does not explain what marriage is and why it is recognized. So when we look thus far my opponent has not explained what marriage is, why it is recognized, and why every country should recognize SSM. At this point there is no apparent reason to vote for Pro and I urge a CON ballot. Sources1. . http://www.ruthblog.org... 2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage? ” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251