Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage

My opponents case goes into three argunments, one irrelevant. 1. Discrimination2. Religeon (irrleevant.)3. Antisegmination4. AdditudesLets talk about relegion first. Her civil union argunment is even more irrelevant, as the resolution reads MARRIAGE not civil union.1. RelegionThis is irrelevant, you refute the president but not me. None of my case pertains to relegion, and the law does not either, (it might indirectly though) therefore this is refuting an argunment that would not have otherwised surfaced. I am againse SSM and I am not [currently] christian. Irrelevant.2. DiscriminationThis first argunment is poor for many reasons.a) It first assumes all discrimination is unjust discrimination. For something to be inherintly bad (my opponent argues banning SSM is bad) the discrimination my opponent cites must be "bad". Homosexuals are NOT barred from marriage, their intimate sexual relationships are. My opponent advocates discrimiantion on a sexual basis of sexual preferences. If this is correct, we must ask if the discrimination is unjust/just, in my opinion the discrimination is, in fact, just. I am lazy so I will quote my way out of this."One way the justification can be articulated, is in terms of the doctrine of “double effect”: The primary intent in restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is to maintain marriage as the institution that fulfils society’s need to protect the inherently procreative relationship and its functions for society, and is not to exclude homosexual relationships because they are homosexual. The discrimination involved in the exclusion is a secondary effect which is not desired but unavoidable, and it is justified or excused by the primary purpose which otherwise cannot be realized."[1]b) I would like to poitn out in the definition we are arguing LAW. So even if the discrimination is unjust, my opponent has failed to point out why the law shoudl favor SSM based on this alone. And she also failed to point out if the discrimination broke any law. (constitution maybe?) As she left this out, this point fails on a legal basis. But one could assume, though, that discrimination against the constitution was implied. As it was implied I still feel obliged to refute it. Here I go:And again the SSM debate is fundamentally over what marriage is. One cannot simply claim to have a right to X without knowing what X actually is, and vice versa. As noted in the harvard paper:"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [2]In arguing the equal protection he is assuming the right does in fact exist. And only if this right exists will there be discrimination. By doing this he begs an important question, though. Doing this he argues the conception of marriage covers homosexual couples. As the right of marriage does not apply to homosexuals, no illegal practice of discrimination is occurring. ______________As she failed to point this out it is irrelevant to law, but as it is implied (and now refuted) it is also debunked.3. Antisegmination Now this too is highly flawed, she is comparing race to sexuality. An interacial marriage is capable of procreation (see my case for how this applies). Interacial marriage has no effect on the procreative type relationship of marriage. "Because an interracial marriage between a man and a woman does symbolize the procreative relationship, its prohibition is based on racial discrimination which is wrong. In contrast, not extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, is not based on the sexual orientation of the partners, but the absence of a feature of their relationship which is an essential feature of marriage."[1]4. AdditudesThis is irrelevant. Just because homosexuals are happier does not mean they deserve marriage. My dog is happier then me, but my dog cannot get a marriage liscense. This point is irrelevant and holds no weight on a legal basis, which is what we are arguing.--> Case <--Intro:Marriage as a fundamental right and discrimination was dealt with in the rebuttals. So my case will be based on what marriage is,, and how it holds up on a legal basis.What is marriage?Marriage is actually a fairly simple institution and it is clear why it should not be dealt with. Marriage is a higher social status to a mere relationship, and involves procreation and child rearing. [1, 2] Again, I am lazy and will quote my way out of this:"Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation."[1]"the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together."[2]Now the real question is how this holds up on a legal basis (contrary to ALL of my opponents argunments). Procreation is a function that is fully needed to fufill societies interests and is vital for continuation of society. No babies no society. The government ought to, now, subsidize this act through marriage to encorage healthy procreation for the good of society. It is a states interest, something homosexuals cannot fufill.Now there is a real case to this, not just 16k on a rant about SSM... again... The courts have actually ruled in favor of this. Here are a few.“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” – Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” – Maynard v. Hill (1888)“Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' fundamental to our very existence and survival.” – Loving v. Virginia (1967)“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species... Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution's inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.” – Conaway v. Deane (2007)"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.” – Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006)Source: Facebook (the DDO user does not like it when I cite him by name)Conclusion:Al of my opponents argunments are poor and are refuted, and fail on a legal basis. If readers read R1 we are arguing marriage as a legal institution. A failure to argue well on this legal basis means my opponent loses this debate. All of my argunments apply legally and therefore are not red herrings to the resolution like my opponents. Vote CON.Sources: [1] Margaret A. Somerville “THE CASE AGAINST "SAME-SEX MARRIAGE"” McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, April 29, 2003[2] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)