The government should recognize same-Sex marriages

This is indeed a significant issue, and its important that healthy discussions be carried out on all matters of significance. In the context of direct response:1. Government's reason to incentivize marriageRegardless of the justifications behind incentivizing marriage, and regardless of marriage’s societal functions, the U. S. government is not a government that should be incentivizing marriage. For the U. S. government to incentivize marriage for the purpose of the welfare of its citizens is arguably noble, but also contradictory to its founding principles. I ask my opponent to procure a citation regarding the U. S. government’s role as a welfare state, which until citation is procured, I will argue that it is not. For the government to use taxes as a means for “family-building” is not only a selfish endeavor, but one that infringes upon the basic rights for people to function how they please within a unit that is a personal domain; the family. 2. Marriage Public or PrivateI acknowledge that marriage plays a major role in the structure of a healthy society, however, I am arguing that marriage should not be public at all in this country. I am arguing that the government should never have defined marriage, I am arguing that the state should not recognize any marriages, because marriage, regardless of societal function, is a personal undertaking. People don't normally marry in the name of King and Country. 3. Role of the GovernmentIn regards to disease: I redact my previous statement and stand corrected. However, denying same-sex couples their sexual validation will not stop the spread of venereal disease. In regards to a healthy society: my opponent argues that the main reason marriage is incentivized is because of the roles traditional marriage serves in society. I ask, why must it be the role of the government to ensure that a healthy society be maintained, why can’t the people be allowed to marry, procreate, and maintain a healthy society (in this marital aspect) themselves? 4. Civil Rights“comparing women's suffrage to Same-Sex marriage is a poor comparison. ”Acknowledged. “Sexual Preference does not meet the requirements for civil rights. ”Fallacious; (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discriminationWhile homosexuals may not have experienced the same intensity of discrimination as other groups of people have, it does not mean this discrimination does not exist, and it does not justify government endorsement of this discrimination, which is done through the denial of validation. (2) economic disadvantageI stand corrected. (3) immutable characteristics“sexuality is not immutable. There have been many people who have changed orientation”A disgusting fallacy. My opponent uses a self-promoting therapy organization as proof that “many” people have changed orientation. I ask my opponent to procure legitimate statistics that clearly state an enormous number of people who have willingly embraced and successfully achieved a change in sexual orientation, something that has been largely accepted as a biological and environmental predisposition, not an overall choice [1], [2]. Regardless of the debatable objectiveness of sexual preference’s immutability, that does not justify the denouncement of same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue.5. Marriage is more than loveThis ties into one of my previous points. Aesthetically, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the U. S. government to maintain the traditional bridges and support beams of society when it comes down to things as miniscule as marriage in relevance to the validation of sex partners. Is tax-incentive the only method to ensure people get together and make babies that will fund the government for generations to come? I'm positive it isn't, and my resolution is that the government drop the method altogether, for it results in one group receiving validation and denies it from another. It isn't fair, and it isn't justifiably unfair.6. Marriage Historically“No society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. ”-Ancient Greek city-states, notably Sparta [3]-Ancient Rome [4]-Native American societies “Two Spirits” [5]It's safe to assume that these norms halted in the face of Christianity, (The Roman Empire creating Catholicism, Religious endeavors and conversion efforts of Europeans in the Americas) a religion that explicitly forbids homosexuality; many societies untouched by bigoted doctrine did indeed accept same-sex marriage, relations, whatever, as a cultural norm. Again, I direct my opponent to the following point: tradition becomes obsolete. Slavery was a tradition, up until the nineteenth century nearly every civilization in the world had practiced some long-term form of slavery, something that would be hard to justify today. 7. The Slippery Slope“Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it will lead to more re-definitions of marriage. ”The only things “wrong” with redefinitions of marriage are purely subjective. It should be up to the individual to define marriage, and if collectives such as the church wish to define marriage, then they should be allowed, so long as their definition doesn’t affect anyone outside the collective. The state, as a collective, should not define marriage because their definition will affect those outside of their collective and agreement. Appeasing one group and infringing upon another is not “good government. ”[1] . http://news.stanford.edu...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...