Marriage should not be redefined or gay marriage should be illegal

1. GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL First, let me make something very clear to the audience before I start. These arguments against same sex marriage are ACCUMULATIVE. Not one argument should be evaluated on its own merits. They are pieces of related arguments that, when put together, become one big reason to not allow gay marriage. Second, this is not a family structure argument or about encouraging procreation and rearing of children. This is about family STABILITY. There is a difference. Family structure is about how the child is raised by the parents (stepparent, cohabit parents, etc). Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience and, thus, its about encouraging couples to procreate and rear children in a legally and socially recognized situation (i.e. stable environment called marriage). Now, when I say this , I am not saying the family structure is not important for the child or is not part of the state interest because it is part of it. I am just saying that its not the argument I am promoting or conveying in this debate. So make sure when you read my arguments that you program your mind to think in the context of family stability NOT family structure. CIVIL marriage: The state uses the institution of marriage as an insurance policy; just in case a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice WITHOUT legal and social support. The name and meaning of Marriage is there to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children just by obtaining a marriage license. In addition, there is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory in terms of the selection process: google "Hewitt trial marriage" Marriage: Since the name and meaning of it is the institution, a explanation as to why the state allows the infertile and others to get a marriage license more directly involves the institution of marriage itself. Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can procreate and fulfill this particular state's objective; unlike same sex couples who cannot by definition procreate. Thus, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage (man and woman) and the purpose of it (responsible procreation and rearing of children) are synonymous. "How exactly, in more precise terms, does same sex marriage interfere with the state's purpose in marriage" If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers. Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. As a result, heterosexuals, from FUTURE generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general. Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process. "Gay Marriages Will Destroy Marriage" Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as previously explained, but it could end up discouraging them as well. If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible. Remember, the studies very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and its comparisons to no-fault divorce, in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws". Children of gay parents 2. "P1 is something my opponent argues is true, so it is a given. P2 is shown by many sources (see round 1) and is undisputed by my opponent. P3 is a given[1], P4 is a given, and so the rest of it seems to logically flow." Furthermore, A different name, (like civil unions) would be reasonable in order to continue advancing the state's interest of publicly encouraging responsible procreation and rearing of children to each generation of heterosexuals while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. Financial Cost 3. "the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and prediction". So is all attempts to work out the amount of money in any system, or any per year cost analysis. That doesn't change it from happening. You know the public deficit? That includes educated speculation and reliable." CON again misunderstood what I said. What I was actually trying to say is that because We don't know how many same sex couples would get married, divorce, have weddings, buy this/buy that , etc. (or when) if the opportunity arises, Its entirely unknown. Therefore, the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and predictions. Besides, you don't need to redefine marriage to get the kind of economic impact CON speaks of. Civil unions will do just fine, so he has only been able to argue for civil unions NOT gay marriage: http://www.cbo.gov... Other Courts 4. " I do not accept the ECHR on three grounds: 1) Fairness. If I do not accept authorities that do not effect me, then you should not have to accept authorities that effect you." CON is flat out wrong when he says that the ECHR does not affect him. CON is part of the United Kingdom which is directly influenced by the ECHR. Just read page 14: http://www.consilium.europa.eu... 5. International Law CON continues to put the UN Declaration article 16 out of context: 1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a FAMILY. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 3.The FAMILY is the NATURAL and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. " NOT artificial family. Thus, Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex for responsible procreation and rearing of children. Equality