Gay marriage in the US

Thanks for the response :) R1: The constitution 14th amendment, equal protection: Actually all it does is offer a say on citizenship. [1] [2], but you are right it does have a part about this, and I will prove t invalid. I will refute the equal protection argument: "The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [3] Now, there is an infringement if only one group gets this right, but here's the dealio, marriage by law in most states is 1 man and one woman, that is the definition. So, if marriage is defined 1 man and one women under federal law. [4] As it is 1 man + 1 woman therefore marriage is only a right for these two groups. We agree marriage is a right, but we define it in different terms. If marriage had the legal definition of anyone, then you would be correct. But as it is generally in the US law man + woman then therefore the definition changes the game. So, if you say marriage is a right, and we are arguing the US, and the US definition holds 1 man + 1 woman, therefore I win. Sorry for repetition, but as marriage is defined as this under law then it only applies to 2 groups, men and women. As I have proven the definition is man and woman, therefore if the right is defined as marriage then according to the definition only the man and the woman have this right. One could also argue that marriage is not a right, [5] as based of of current law marriage is only a right between a couple of the opposite sexes. R2: DOMA Doma is a federal law, saying that the states are not forced to recognize SSM. [6] Due to the fact it says any state can opt out of recognizing SSM, then it is under federal law that it is permissible to just say NO. It also prohibits the federal goverment from recognizing SSM, therefore now the federal goverment may no longer accept these marriages, as it defined marriage man and woman then marriage only applies to heterosexual couples. My point stands. [6] "Four federal courts have already upheld the law's constitutionality." [7] The courts ruled it constitutional. Further more it doesn't discriminate based of of sexuality, rather nature: "The potential to produce children naturally is unique to opposite-sex relationships. It is not the law that "discriminates" based on "sexual orientation"—it is nature." [7] R3: the definition of marriage His argument is based of of a possibility of the definition changing. My question: Why should the state do this? You can name x, y, z, but if there is no reason the state should legalize it then there is no point. The state has interests, procreation in this sense, and if they have no benefit to allowing you to marry then what is the point? when I specified 1-4, you never answered 4, the most important one. If the goverment has no benefits to them, then why should they do it? "The whole benefits argument is a red-herring. He can cite all the alleged benefits he wants -- it means nothing unless they deserve, are entitled to, or have a right to these benefits. To show that, he has to defend a certain view about what marriage is by nature. *That's* the key issue, not benefits. " ~ Contradiction, a DDO member. ~defense of my arguments~ RC1: Child rearing. He argues that this is about love, and values. Well, the state controls marriage. [5] [8] Now, the state needs a reason to allow SSM. There are countless benefits given to marriages, and the state want's feedback, the extra children = larger workforce and 1 more soul to tax. I will quote: "The government makes laws when the state (or the community) has a vested interest in some activity or association." [9] Now, as the goverment makes laws, only if they have interest, then the SSM laws have a current meaning to the state. "To the end of procreation, the state and the community have a vested interest only when procreation is naturally (or inherently) a possibility: which is to say, only in a relationship between a man and a woman. " [9] This is why they are interested, the state has interests and keeping SSM down, you must prove a interest in the states issues. This is the most important argument: "if the state has no interest in doing so, why should they do it?". That is what is at stake, if there is no compelling reason for the state to legalize SSM, then why should they? This is a fundamental question that you have not answered. You cite adoption, adoption is just relocation of kids, it is not creating new ones. Adoption =/= a state benefit, as it does not add new populous. Procreation = state benefit as it does add to the states population. My opponent has not offered a reason why the state benefits in SSM. Also, as I have stated homosexuals have higher abuse rates. RC2: Slippery Slope The theory is one or few small steps lead to larger effects. Gay marriage as you have stated calls for a redefinition of marriage, as does polygamy. [10] If you can redefine law in 1, 2, 3 then chances are the polygamy movement, with similar arguments, will be able to use the success of SSM to it's advantage. Also your 11 source link is broken. "Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in favor of "a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law." [11] [10] Sounds like SSM, so if one can prevail it leads to a step up for the next law. "...the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions....Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. " [12] RC3: The economy Actually my sources are about current married couples, and logically the homosexuals would get the same benefits. Yes, but these areas of spending would increase: "Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses." [13] "Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans." [13] "Receiving public assistance benefits." [13] Now, it would increase this spending. In one study, legalizing SSM would lead to 182 million dollars increase in spending. [14] Note this is only one state, it would increase federally. The point is it would increase spending therefore raising debts and 1$ spent here -----> 1$ not spent on another thing. =out of room= Vote con sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.cpjustice.org... [5] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [6] http://www.usnews.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://catholicamericatoday.net... [9] http://www.frc.org... [10] "The Marriage Amendment; Editorial" First Things 136 (October 1, 2003): 1048. [11] James Dobson, "Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage (Part 1 of 5)," Focus on the Family, 2004-MAY-23 [12] http://www.nolo.com... [13] http://www.yourtango.com... [14]