Same-Sex Marriage

Thank you for your response. The affirmative argument: I do not believe marriage is a right that should be enjoyed by all people if the current reason marriage exists is to benefit society. My opponent’s main argument here is that marriage changes a bunch of times over history, so that we should be able to justify same-sex marriage because marriage right now is about the emotional commitment between two consenting adults and nothing else. Now he begs the questions, “How do you know YOUR set of requirements is the correct conditions for whether or not to allow a marriage?” Thank you for asking. Marriage is best used to benefit the society. If marriage had no use in society, the state wouldn’t recognize it. Point is, marriage has a rather large role in the well being of society and its best if we define it in a way that benefits society the best. The best way to define marriage for the well being of society is by defining it between man and woman. Marriage between man and woman inherently benefits society in the sense that it has a special link to procreation and the proper raising of children. Obviously society needs children to continue, and it’s a big ol’ bonus if you can raise them correctly. In addition, the state recognizes the benefits traditional marriage brings so they “reward” them with marital rights. There is no need to recognize a marriage that gives no benefits to society. Marriage and Procreation My opponent predictably states that under my logic, couples who are sterile or choose not to procreate should not be able to get married along with homosexuals. In my opening argument, I clearly stressed how the proper raising of children is just as important as procreation itself. Marriage is about the possibility, not necessarily the results. The relationship heterosexuals pursue is inherently good and has a special link to procreation and the proper raising of children. Whether or not they choose to procreate or raise children is irrelevant as long as inherently they can do so. Anyways, it very illogical to think the government would actually go out of the way to find every heterosexual couple that cannot produce, or chooses not to and not recognizing their marriage; there is no point to it. My opponent claims that homosexuals can too adopt children to raise, but homosexuals cannot raise children properly for society. I will further show this in my rebuttals. Marriage between Man and Woman Now, this is mostly a cross-examination of my arguments so I will answer accordingly. My opponent provides no rebuttals, but instead three questions. A note before I answer the questions, my opponent only seemed to nitpick at one thing that men and women are complimentary on, which is how sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is connected to love and not lust (when used correctly of course; anyone can lust.) My opponent does not seem to deny that “sexual intercourse connects with children, and the children connect to being raised and loved by their mom and dad” which was the more important part of my statement. On to my opponent’s questions: “Why exactly can intercourse only be done without lust between a man and a woman?” I do not want to stress very much importance on this subject seeing that morality can arguably be seen as subjective and that lust is sometimes not necessarily seen as bad. What I meant was that only man and woman can connect sexual intercourse with what sex was lf, if not more important. Marriage is about the possibility, not the act. Whether or not the couple chooses to reproduce, or to adopt a child is irrelevant as long as there is the possibility that they will. Marriage is about the relationship heterosexuals pursue, and at the peak of that relationship, they naturally benefit society through procreation and the proper raising of children. Homosexuals cannot connect sexual intercourse with children which can be seen as lustful from a certain moral point. However, this is all very subjective so again, I do not want to stress very much importance over this. Point is, man and woman can connect sex with children, and homosexuals cannot. “Why can only men and woman have a loving natural relationship?” In a sense, any human can pursue a loving relationship with anything. Heterosexuals only though, can pursue an inherently good relationship to benefit society. Their relationship is natural in the sense that man and woman were made for each other, and that they again, can connect sexual intercourse with love and procreation which is all good good good for society. “Why is a relationship between a man and a woman beneficial to society, but not a relationship between two homosexuals?” The only reason that homosexual marriage could be bad for society is that it distorts the image of the good heterosexual marriage. Otherwise it doesn’t benefit, or help society, and because it doesn’t help society it doesn’t deserve marital rights. Heterosexual marriage is the type of marriage that benefits our society the best, to allow any other relationship into the marriage would not hold the society’s best interest. Government had a role in marriage, however that role should be limited My opponent gives only one rebuttal, and that basically has to do with his use of semantics. My opponent says I have not defined the meaning of marriage at all through-out my argument, and that providing one definition of marriage satisfies what the “meaning” of marriage is. Not my opponent obviously misinterpreted what I meant by “meaning”. I did not mean the definition of marriage itself, but the definition of a marriage that benefits society the best. The reason I did not provide the definition of marriage in the OP is because we are actually defining marriage in this debate. Now I explain my definition of marriage to you (after all, we are defining marriage in this debate.) and that is what I will be what you can look at whenever I say “meaning of marriage.” In the society I am looking at where marriage is strictly between man and woman, the meaning of marriage is about the good relationship only heterosexuals can pursue, that when fulfilled at its best benefits society through procreation and the proper raising of children. Parenting Among Homosexuals I do apologize for my inadequate source. Here is a link: http://www.scribd.com... In response to my opponent’s study, well this should clear it up: “A persistent claim by those supporting same-sex marriages is that there is “no difference” in the outcomes of children raised by a biological mother and father and those who have been raised by two women or two men. That claim was made to the courts below, and will no doubt be made to this Court by associations like the American Psychological Association (“APA”). But as recent scholarship indicates, the claim is difficult to support because nearly all of the studies upon which the “no difference” assertion is based are rather limited, involving non-random, non representative samples, often with relatively few participants. Specifically, the vast majority of the studies were based on samples of fewer than 100 parents (or children), and typically representative only of well-educated, white women (parents), often with elevated incomes. These are hardly representative samples of the lesbian and gay population raising children, and therefore not a sufficient basis to make broad claims about child outcomes of same-sex parenting structures.”(1) In addition, my opponent states that the main reason homosexuals are deemed as bad parents is because of social restrictions on their lively hood. I ask my opponent to please elaborate because I find it illogical to assume that violence among homosexuals partners, drug use, mental sickness, divorces, conduct disorder, suicidal attempt ect. ect. ect. is strictly related to societal restrictions Back to you Pro. (1) http://www.adfmedia.org...