Marriage Equality

I am of the distinguished pleasure to be debating azanzajc on this contentious topic of debate through the past few decades. Without further adieu, I will present my arguments as to why homosexual marriage, and marriage equality, should not be supported. Initial Observations & Points: The BOP is shared. Pro must demonstrate why marriage must be made equal for all unions. I must show that the status quo, of marriage not being equal, ought to be maintained. My opponent may not change his position on this issue. He does not want marriage to not be regulated by the State, nor did he oppose any other type of union entering into marriage. He is for marriage being equal. As equality is not defined, I will present the definition: Equality: (Noun) the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities. [1] Marriage Equality, based on its etymology, entails equality among all unions. This includes homosexual, heterosexual, polygamous, incestuous, et cetera. If he concedes one of these unions should not be allowed into the unions, he will thus forfeit the debate as he concedes that marriage should not be equal. For my main case, I will not be relying on sources. I will be relying on my knowledge in this topic and logic. My opponent desires that I answer two questions: 1. How did I reach my conclusion of being against Same-Sex Marriage (hereafter SSM)? 2. If marriage is about protecting intrinsic procreation, what ought the State do with infertile, heterosexual couples? I shall answer these questions through my case. Main Case: I have numerous reasons that I am against SSM, both religious and secular. In this debate, however, I will rely on logical reasoning I create de ratione. Let us begin: P1. The State regulates (through tax breaks and other incentives) marriage. P2. In the State regulating marriage, it aims to promote a public end and has an obvious reason in regulating the unions. P3. If the State is promoting a public end and regulating marriage, then it must have an obligation to get marriage right. P4. Getting marriage right means the State must have a definition of marriage. P5. The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal family structure, which is only present in heterosexual unions. P6. Unions contrary to this definition must be forbidden from entering into the union. P7. Therefore, SSM must be forbidden. In Defense of the Positions: P1-P4 are logical and true. If opposed, please elaborate how. P5 is a bit of a leap. "...when dictated by logic" means that this definition is the only logical definition to give the State a valid interest in marriage. If marriage was about love for the State, then this would be nonsensical. Love, for one, is an essentially private matter and of no concern of the government. Secondly, love is not something unique to marriage. Companionships unequivocally have love, but the State is not regulating companionships nor do they have an interest in them. Property transfer is another reason one might marry. Again, the transfer of property is not something unique to marriage nor is it beneficial to civilization. Child rearing is another reason. Any group or union, whether it be three nuns or a man and his television, can properly raise a child. There must be an intrinsic link to children in order for the State to have an interest. P6 is also quite logical. Unions which distort the meaning of marriage contribute no benefit and only bring a deleterious and noxious effect to the institution of marriage should be disallowed from entering into marriage. P7 thus stands. Let us recap: Why is the State interested in marriage? The State cares about marriage due to it's need for a flourishing society. Without having marriage, the State has no means to ensure that family structure is preserved or that (responsible) intrinsic procreation of children is occurring, or that normative family structure is being preserved. While this may still occur without the State having an involvement in marriage, the State still must endeavor to have the assurance that this will occur in a way the State envisions. This envisionment of marriage is the only which carries with it a net benefit to society and why the State should care about marriage. Objections: Now I turn to objections: "Marriage is about ___(Insert something opposing to my view point)___, not about procreation! Why should we accept your definition?" I have already dealt with this question. In my defense of P5, I showed how, logically, this definition is the only one which promotes a public goal and the one where the State has an obvious reason for regulating the institution. "This is just blatant discrimination against homosexuals! Marriage Equality!!!" You cannot call a certain marriage policy unequal, unjust, or discriminatory unless you first know what the relevant criteria are for entering into a marriage. Almost every law makes distinctions, and simply because a particular law may exclude some does not mean that there is something inherently problematic about it. What matters is whether the basis on which they are excluded is a relevant one. One may ask relevant to what? In this case, relevant to what marriage is supposed to be. The fundamental issue at stake, therefore, isn't about equal rights, but about what marriage is and why it matters. "Not every heterosexual couple procreates or can procreate!" For one, just encouraging heterosexuals to enter into the union will make it so there is a greater chance for procreation to occur, so it can bring a benefit to society. Secondly, the heterosexual unions are still of a procreative type even if not all members of that kind can act on its characteristic effects. Their union is still ordered toward procreation as an end in the same way that a blind eye remains an eye in virtue of the kind of thing it is. The state still takes an interest in infertile/childless marriages because it wants to promote a view of marriage as it really is, not just as a means to an end. Answer to the questions: 1. How did I reach my conclusion of being against Same-Sex Marriage? Through logic. The state must have a reason, and seeing what it can and cannot do helps us reach an answer as to what marriage is and if homosexuals are being denied any rights. 2. If marriage is about protecting intrinsic procreation, what ought the State do with infertile, heterosexual couples? Already answered this. Refer to my 3rd objection. Problems with Equality: Along with the problem with recognition of contrary unions, there lies numerous problems with harm placed upon civilization. Polygamy: With polygamous marriages, there will be an increase of crime, increased costs placed upon employers and government and weaker families. [2] Incest: With incestuous marriages, more mutated and deformed children will be created. In Australia, quite a few children faced very serious harm: "A number of them appeared to have hearing and sight issues and cognitive impairment, or were severely developmentally delayed. Some were reported to be unable to use a toothbrush, wash their hair, use toilet paper or bathe themselves." [3] Homosexuality: With homosexual marriages, there will be higher rates of promiscuity, STD contraction, drug abuse, physical injuries, depression, suicide and shorter life spans. In fact, the CDC states, "Men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of the estimated new HIV infections in 2010." This is so even though homosexuals account for around 10% of the population. [4] [5] [6] To sum up, marriage equality will lead to more harm placed upon civilization. Conclusion: I have adequately answered my opponents R1 questions, raised issues with marriage equality, and presented a rational case against SSM. The resolution stands negated. Sources in comments.