Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the United States of America

Ara ara, how deliciously quaint and so very conservative. Unfortunately for my opponent, an argument that is made to uphold bigotry will fall flat on its face no matter how much it's been dressed up.http://www.youtube.com...Contention I - SecularismWe both know why you're defending your position, and it's not because you're interested in some alien notion of societal good. No; the reason you're arguing for the status quo is because of this: http://i.imgur.com.... Since you haven't made any religious arguments, however, I'll let it alone.Contention II - The 'interest of the state' is the best metric for deciding 'should'My opponent has somehow wrapped itself around this idea that what is 'in the interest of the state' is what should be done. Even a cursory examination of the idea allows us to know, and know confidently, that this is a terrible metric for establishing good. For one thing, what is 'in the interest of the state' varies heavily depending on what the goal of the state is. According to the current political paradigm, the state is an organization that exists not to protect its own interests, but the interests of its citizens. In liberal democracies such as the United States, the state has a direct legal obligation to its people, and especially to protecting those who would otherwise be unable to protect themselves - minorities. At various points in history (including our own) the state has acted to preserve an unjust status quo as it did during the nadir of American race relations, or to roll society back to a previous state, as it did after the end of Reconstruction in the south. Was it in the interest of the state to do so? Obviously people made that argument at the time, but I think we'd have quite an issue with their claims today. Was the interest of the state the same thing as what should have been done? Clearly not, according to almost all ethical frameworks and the sentiments of modern Americans.No matter what the interest of the state is, it is certainly separate from 'what is good', and 'what should be done'. To argue otherwise is to directly endorse fascism (frankly wouldn't surprise me with this opponent).Contention III - Definition of marriageMy opponent seems to believe that marriage is a legal institution that exists not to recognize a romantic relationship between two individuals, but to promote 'the interest of the state' by providing incentives for 'procreative type unions'. It doesn't take a whole lot of insight to detect the bias inherent in that definition of marriage, or the hypocrisy. This is, of course, expected (and necessary) with any position that defends bigotry. Let's take its idea of what marriage is apart:Marriage exists because it is in the interest of the state that it doesIf we simply refer back to Contention II, we note that 'the interest of the state' is both aqueous and irrelevant. What is good for the state is dynamic and subjective, and does not impact 'what should be done'.Marriage exists to foster 'procreative type unions'In the first place, we can see that my opponent heavily neglects the status quo with this assessment of marriage. Many couples have children out of marriage. Many couples are married and do not have children. Many couples are married and have no possibility of procreating. Many couples get married, have children, and are then divorced. Some couples get married where one party already has children and the other does not.All of these things happen in a world where marriage is (in the mind of my opponent, anyway) designed to create children for the prosperity of the state. In reality, marriage and procreation are two completely separate things. Procreation is subsidized (where it is subsidized at all) by child tax credits and similar government aids, not the institution of marriage.'Procreative type unions' are goodProcreation is also not an inherent good: we face a number of problems associated with overpopulation while many children are left in orphanages or in foster homes. When children are adopted, not only does society avoid the associated costs of raising an entirely new human being, but the state no longer has to foot the bill for this child, and their capacity to contribute to the rest of society will be much greater when placed in a stable family environment.While there are certain societal benefits to the institution of marriage, procreation is not one of them. Raising children in a stable, filial environment is the actual benefit that marriages provide to the rest of society, and to that end homosexual marriages are absolutely desirable.Contention IV - Homosexual marriage as a civil rightWhen my opponent's assertion that marriage is an institution that exists for the good of ze Reich - err, state, because it fosters 'procreative type unions' falls apart, then his argument that same-sex marriage isn't a right falls apart. When this becomes a civil rights issues, as I pointed out in my initial argument, then nothing else matters - we must protect and enforce this right.Contention IV - SourcesIt is the mark of an inexperienced debater to cite sources for the sake of citing sources. My opponent has cited three sources - none of which establish factual claims about the world or about the topic. Instead, it cites the opinions of different people about the topic, and partisan opinions at that. With an issue as public and as controversial as the topic, opinions, even those of 'experts' do not establish anything other than that these people believe 'X' about 'Y'. If there is an issue of fact raised, and this fact is not evident, then it is necessary to cite sources that contain evidence of the claims. Pointing out that person 'Z' believes that 'X' is 'Y' does not aid your position. Additionally, there is never reason to cite other debates from this website, as they will never be able to establish whether or not a factual claim is valid. It's clear that my opponent is simply trying to pad its suede jacket of bigotry with a bunch of sparkly 'expert' rhinestones.SummaryThe 'interest of the state' is dynamic and subjective, and its interests do not determine what is good or what should be done. Marriage is not an institution that exists to promote 'procreative type unions' in the interest of state - this is objective fact made evident by the overwhelming number of marriages that are not 'procreative type unions'. Additionally, 'procreative type unions' are comparatively disadvantageous to non-procreative type unions because of the effects of overpopulation and the continuing problem of orphaned children and wards of the state. Same-sex marriage is a civil right, and so regardless of any consequences, we must enforce and protect it. None of the sources my opponent cited have established factual claims that support his argument. In conclusion, we're just seeing more smoke and mirrors from the opposition; some feinting and sophistry intended to obfuscate its true position, its bigotry and ignorance.