Gay Marriage

I accept. Since Pro has put his opening arguments in the first round, it is clear that the first round is not for acceptance. Thus, I will commence in presenting my case and responding to my opponent's objections. Since the resolution is normative in nature, I'll assume that the burden of proof is equally shared.It appears that my opponent has chosen to present three arguments of his own and five "refutations" of supposed arguments against gay marriage. However, one of his arguments is simply: "there's no reason is to not allow it" and some of his arguments/refutations are stances that I don't necessarily oppose. I will proceed to rebut my opponent to the best of my ability while staying within the character limit and and also presenting my case.Since Pro's case cut off (it was continued in the comments section but was cut off there too), I will respond to what is there. I would remind Pro that a character limit disables very long arguments to fit in one round, so it is necessary that arguments are more brief in each round. I will now advance my case against gay marriage, assuming that my opponent is referring to legally allowing homosexual couples to receive marriage licenses under the states, and not under religious circumstances.= Case =What is marriage?There are two views of what marriage is[1]. The common view, which has been increasingly being adopted into society, holds that unifying good of the marital union is the personal fulfillment of the spouses. From this perspective, marriage is solely about love, mutual affection, and romance. The only difference between this union and others is that it holds legal status and is recognized by the state. While that may seem good from the surface, we immediately run into a problem: many relationships exist through love, yet the state does not recognize them. In order for marriage to be regulated, it must have a unique purpose and goal that makes it distinct from all other unions. Although love is essential to marital unions, it is not enough for it to be legally recognized and regulated by the state. Love can exist between friends, yet the state does not recognize friendships. Now we see that the revisionist view of marriage does not hold a legitimate base. It does not provide a purpose for the state to regulate it nor does it promote the common good. If this is not the secular definition of marriage, then what is it really?Allow me to provide a new definition of marriage. “Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children.”[2] This is the conjugal view, which holds that a marital union is to promote a common goal. This goal is for two spouses to share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. The ends of the mean is procreation, and the children produced are reflective to union at hand. Naturally, only a man and a woman can complete this comprehensive union, which creates a biological unity that fulfills intrinsic procreation. Marriage points couples in that direction, and brings them together in unity that is unlike any other relationship.This intrinsic link to children is what the government is interested in, for there is no other reason for the government to regulate this union. The state recognizes the good that this union brings, and provides benefits that promote this union. It demonstrates a proper view of what marriage is and what its purpose in society is. Procreation in itself most often largely benefits society through having more workers, scientists, military personnel, entrepreneurs, government laborers, medical staff and overall more people to support the economy and the nation. There is a huge amount of evidence that supports the fact that children need both fathers and mothers. A child learns different things from both parents and can be most properly raised by heterosexual couples. The American College of Pediatricians states, "Social scientists in the last 20 years have come to recognize another important resource: the significant effect the marital status of the child’s parents has on children. The positive impact of a married mother and father on a child’s development has been scientifically verified across all measures of well-being. It is now acknowledged that the married mother-father parent unit significantly and positively impacts how a child will do in every important measure of well-being and maturity."[3] Children raised by heterosexual couples have more healthful measures of educational attainment, physical and mental health, protection from poverty, protection from physical abuse, and even more benefits in varying areas[3]. Marriage not only contains an intrinsic link to procreation but the *best* manner in which a child can be raised. Thus, marriage is about child-bearing and child-raising, of which heterosexual couples are the most efficient sources of doing this. Allowing homosexual couples into this status will be harmful to not only the ideal family structure and to children but to marriage's role in society. I will now provide six premises that further illustrates my case against gay marriage (credit to jzonda415). PremisesP1: The state regulates marriage.P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing, which is only present in heterosexual unions.P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.Defense of PremisesP1-P3 are just and sound. If my opponent has any objections to these, he may make them in the next round.P4 is elaborated in my opening paragraphs, the good of society must be promoted through this common goal, of which can only ideally be met through heterosexual couples. Although other groups and unions can properly raise a child, they do not have an intrinsic link to procreation, so there is no reason for the state to recognize them as marital unions. Social science agrees that children need both a mother and a father, and this is what a marital union provides.P5 is quite logical, since unions that do not fit the definition of marriage will only distort the meaning and purpose of marital unions and will not benefit society in any way.P6 thus holds.= Rebuttals =Now I will turn to objections made by my opponent."It is constitutionally illegitimate to pass legislation based on religious morality"Agreed. This issue should not be focused on religion, neither should it have any bearing whatsoever in the issue. Homosexual, polygamous, and other unions can perform religious wedding ceremonies that are unrecognized by the government. However, we are not talking about those."Recognizing gay marriage won't actually do anything bad"In my case above I clearly showed how gay marriage will harm children and erode the proper family structure."The nonrecognition of gay marriage is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional."Discrimination can only be seen as legitimate if a couple who fits into the proper criteria of marriage is not being allowed into it. Since homosexual couples do not fit the criteria for marriage, they are not being discriminated against. You have to be eighteen years old to vote, so does that mean seventeen-year-olds are being discriminated against for not being allowed to cast a ballot? Of course not. "The law of the land reflects the will of the majority."This debate is about whether gay marriage should be legal. If 60% of the nation wants it to be legal and the vote goes through, then obviously there is no stopping democracy. However, just because the popular opinion is in favor of it does not mean it is right, nor does it mean it is correct. If we are arguing on moral grounds over whether it should be legal or not, it should not have to reflect what other people think. There are still many countries where gay marriage is illegal and the people there are not in favor of it. Thus, in these situations my opponent must concede that gay marriage shouldn't be legal there. Subscribing to the Ad Populum Fallacy does not support either side."unmarried gay couples can, according to US law, adopt children."Of course. Child adoption is and should be available to other unions. Marriage, however, provides a view of how children ought to be raised and the ideal way of raising them. Other unions lack a connection to intrinsic procreation and are less efficient in the areas of raising children the best they can be raised. "There are plenty of straight couples who are neglectful, abusive, and straight-up bad parents." Indeed there are, but these couples do not reflect the efficiency of the majority. Heterosexual couples are, on balance, better parents than homosexual couples. Regardless of how good or bad parents may be, heterosexual couples still fulfill the link to intrinsic procreation that makes marriage unique. Case-by-case basises ought to be dealt with on an individual level but it does not define marriage as a whole. This argument is similar to the infertile couples one, which I will now address."We let both old people and infertile people get married."The government is interested in the comprehensive relationship heterosexuals pursue, and not the means to the end of that relationship. Infertile couples are still of the procreative type even if the members cannot act upon that characteristic. The state takes an interest because it wants to promote marriage as it really is, not just the means to an end. = Sources = [1] http://discussingmarriage.org...[2] http://www.harvard-jlpp.com... [3] http://www.acpeds.org...