Drasai's premise for the illegalization of same-sex marriage

I thank LadyLover for her respectful and eloquent rebuttal. In this final round I will return to the debate topic LadyLover set, which was her opposition to my premise for the illegalisation of same-sex marriage. The debate itself, therefore, is over whether my premise has fallen to her attacks, or weathered them away. I will begin with her assertion, that "["] the purpose of marriage has changed over time. Marriage was at one time far more about sharing and uniting land and power and forming and perpetuating alliances, and far less about procreation and its optimization, according to [LiveScience.com]". The error my opponent (and her source) make is confusing a thing"s purpose with its utilisation. A particular thing can have one purpose and a different utilisation. For example, a hand shovel is fabricated for the purpose of digging and lifting soil, coal, gravel, etc. and serves this purpose well. A shovel also makes an effective bludgeoning weapon due to its sturdy construction and long, easy to grip, haft. Although its use as a weapon is (normally) not intended by its manufacturers, the same qualities that make it suited to its intended purpose of shovelling soil and coal are what make it effective as a bludgeoning weapon. Similarly, with marriage, while its utilisation may have changed through the ages, its purpose as a natural institution has remained unchanged. Yes, marriage was utilised in past (and not so past) ages to cement alliances, as well as consolidate land and power. Similarly, as my opponent identified in her Round 2 argument, it us usable today to grant respectability to a couple. However, as I previously mention, its usability derives from its purpose. Just as a couple only gains respectability from marriage because of marriage"s prior association with procreation, so, in ages past, marriage was a useful tool in the consolidation of power because of its association with procreation. When a couple got married, it was assumed this marriage would last for the duration of their lives, and that their children would have some share of the inheritance. Thus, if our children were to marry, our ties would be drawn closer because we have a common interest in our shared grandchildren. If, on the other hand, a marriage failed to bare children, the alliance it represented was prone to failure. For example, when Mary I of England died without offspring, the alliance between the Kingdom of England and the Spanish Crown faltered and, ultimately, unravelled. The only reason the alliance worked in the first place was because of the possibility of a child being procreated and raised from the marriage union between Queen Mary and Phillip II of Spain. To sum up this refutation, while the way marriage has been utilised has changed over time, its purpose, that of the procreation of children, has not, and indeed, its various utilisations depended entirely on the stability of its purpose. My opponent"s other arguments are that the good of marriage as an institution for maintaining the union of children with biological parents "["] is both highly subjective and debatable, and potentially impossible ["]"; and that "The freedom to express love, when it causes little or no harm, is generally a happy and healthy thing" and "So the act of bearing and/or raising children is not the only benefit of marriage as it relates to the state of societies and the governments that rule them." These argument appear to strike at the heart of my premise. For, indeed, if, generally, children are not better off being raised by their biological parents and, if an institution that formalises a couple"s mutual love makes them happy and healthy; then there is no need for an institution that keeps children with their biological parents, and an institution that recognises and celebrates mutual love is in the public interest. But does my opponent"s objection hold up? LadyLover commits a classic cherry picking fallacy in basing her argument around exceptions. For example, in the United States in 2001, about 2.5% of children were adopted.[1] While 1.5 million is a large number, this statistic implicitly tells us that up to 58.5 million children were not adopted. Even if we eliminate from this the roughly 35% of children raised by single parent families,[2] we are still left with up to 37.5 million children being raised by biological parents. Now, while we can"t prove that all 37.5 million of those children were happy and well off, my opponent would be hard pressed to prove that most, or even a significant minority, of those would not be better off where they currently are. While I"m happy to concede that "["] the fact of life on Earth includes a large number of parentless, adoptable children ["]", I will not concede that the solution to this problem requires changing the fundamental definition of an institution that currently benefits as many children as it currently does without studying the impact such a change will have on future generations. Further, common opinion also tells us that children born outside wedlock don"t perform as well in school, and are more likely to suffer mental illness or have substance abuse problems.[3] These considerations alone tell us that there is great social need for an institution that keeps children with their biological parents. Therefore, my opponent has failed to disprove the need for this institution in society. Now, before I draw any conclusion, I would like to make absolutely clear the effects the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will have on society. Essentially, as my opponent admits in her previous argument, it is about the co-occupancy of an institution, currently called "marriage", which exists for the purpose of keeping children united with their biological parents, and overlaying it with an additional either/or purpose of the "freedom to express love". Now, while my opponent might make a case for the need for an institution that fulfils this second purpose, she has not made a case for why it should co-occupy an existing institution that serves the first purpose, or that doing so will not undermine this purpose. I, therefore, conclude that my opponent has failed in her stated challenge, which was to undermine my premise that there should exist an institution that encourages children and their biological parents to remain together, and that this institution is what we currently recognise as marriage. While my opponent has cherry picked on the adoption issue, she has failed to demonstrate why this should change the way we view an institution that currently benefits the vast majority of biologically raised children, while ignoring the plight of the greater bulk of the category of children who are not raised by both biological parents (i.e. those raised in single parent families). My opponent has given me no cause to change my position (i.e. that the stated institution needs to exist), nor has she given a sufficient explanation as to why it should serve the dual purpose of also being an institution that provides the "freedom to express love". I thank my opponent for her considered attempt to undermine my premise, and hope the voters will come to their own appraisement on her success in this endeavour. Sources: [1] http://www.pbs.org... [2] http://datacenter.kidscount.org... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...