Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the United States

What is Marriage? My opponent argues what the role of marriage is. He states that marriage has changed over the course of time and that modern marriage is seemingly different than marriage in the past. This does nothing to rebut my point about what marriage essentially is. As stated in my opening argument, you cannot redefine marriage rather you can only distort marriage. This means that it is irrelevant how marriage has been redefined in the past, because the only thing that is relevant is what marriage essentially is and what the government’s role is in promoting marriage for the well being of society. My opponent argues that marriage is about the privileges given in marriage, but as stated earlier benefits are dispensed to promote couples into marriage and to further stabilize already married couples. Civil unions allow other relationships to participate in these benefits because the government recognizes that marital benefits are generally advantageous, so the government allows other types of relationships to pursue these benefits even if they are not given for their original reasons (which would again, be to promote heterosexual couples to get married and stabilize married couples). A central problem with my opponent’s argument is that he assumes marriage is a right to be given to all. This is blatantly false. Since by definition marriage requires a heterosexual couple it is not discriminatory to not allow other relationships into marriage. If the government recognizes X because of Y, then it is not discriminatory for the government to not recognize Z because it cannot fulfill Y. In this case, X represents heterosexual couples, Y represents the intrinsic link to the family unit, and Z represents all other relationships that do not have an intrinsic link to the family unit. In this way, not allowing other relationship types to be married is not discriminatory because other relationships take away from the very core reason the government recognizes marriage n the first place. It is important to note that another major role of the government other than protecting the rights of citizens is to also promote the well being of the citizens, whether it be through social programs or institutions such as marriage. Marriage has a direct link to the well being of society through its inherent link to the family unit. Distorting marriage from its comprehensive relationship and turning marriage into something purely about the love between two individuals takes away from the common good that marriage brings, and takes away from the very reason the government regulates marriage. My opponent argues that the definition of marriage as a comprehensive union with a special link to children is too limiting. I showed that generalizing that definition any further changes marriage to be defined as a lifelong union of two persons that love each other. However, I already showed that that definition is far too general because it gives the government no reason to regulate marriage at all. Whereas, I did show that marriage defined as a comprehensive union with a special link to children directly promotes a common good therefore giving the government reason to regulate marriage, promote marriage, and dispense benefits to married couples. Individual Rebuttal “No, the government protects marriage, not promotes. It protects people’s inherent disposition to love. The government only extends benefits to married couples because the people deemed it a necessary expense (remember, the government’s power is derived from the people).” The problem is that there is no basis for recognizing a relationship based solely around love since love is essentially a private matter. In the same, the government does not recognize companionships. This would be because a private matter holds no public good. The government is interested in the public good marriage brings and therefore regulates it. Civil Unions exist because people recognize that benefits are advantageous, but that takes away from the original reason benefits exist, which is to promote heterosexual couples to get married and to also give stability to already married couples. “If infertile couples are still “protected” because they can “pursue” children, why can’t homosexual couples be encouraged to marry to improve adoption? Children lacking a family unit would benefit from an influx in married couples willing to adopt. Since adoption is the only way gay couples can acquire children, they would end up simply as a ‘safety net’ (not to be disrespectful) for children not wanted by their parents. Two fathers/mothers are certainly better for a kid than a foster home or even a single parent for developmental and economic reasons.” Infertile couples cannot pursue children; rather they have a bodily union ordered towards procreation, therefore making their relationship comprehensive. Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children. This means having children isn’t necessary, but a comprehensive relationship is. The government wants to promote what marriage is, and not just the end of the means to the relationship. The reason the adoption/artificial insemination/ ect. argument does not work is because it does not have an inherent link to children. In other words, the relationship does not naturally turn into a family unit, making the relationship still essentially about love which has been shown to not be grounds for recognizing gay marriage. There are solutions for kids who have no families, but recognizing gay marriage on the basis that gay couples might adopt children is not the proper solution to the problem, for in somewhat solving the problem is distorts marriage from its common good, therefore creating another problem. Last Remarks I just wanted to remind my opponent that no new arguments are to be presented in the last round. In addition, a quick note on source points. Source points are not rewarded to those who have more sources; rather they are rewarded to those who have more reliable sources. Since my sources cannot be questioned in reliability (seeing that they are not statistically based but are rather just quotes from people/books) sources should not be rewarded to either debater. Thank you for this debate, it has been fun. Over to you.