Same sex marriage

Give my opponent conduct and S/G, I think ruining a good debate over minor things is a waste of time ;)1. What marriage isMy opponents first objection is the world is overpopulated and therefore procreation might be a bad idea. Now, lets first take the scenario my opponent is correct. This proposition fails as it is still the institutions purpose. Whether or not the world is populated is irrelevant, as it still does not change the heterosexual nature of the institution. By institutionalizing marriage we put an emphasis on the procreation aspect of nurturing the next generation, whether or not we are overpopulated (as we would still need to have children, whether or not we are overpopulated). So putting an emphasis on RESPONSIBLE procreation would still lead some benefits to society. Marriage has been this way, even in times of regional overpopulation, a institution that upholds procreation [1]. So even my opponents argument fails if we assume his position is correct, as responsible procreation would still be needed for fertility of 1-1.9. (slow decrease in population). Now I would also like to note overpopulation in modern times is a myth. World fertility is on decline, meaning if we are overpopulated (90% of the world is empty, and food is not a problem) population will decrease anyway. See: http://www.google.com... My opponent then again attempts to take a jab at the adoption argument, yet again fails to see the argument. In other words he is playing a straw man/is misinterpreting the argument, likely by accident. And this argument is a irrelevant counter argument, believe it or not. My argument is that the main reason for marriage in the legal world is procreation, not parenting. In other words, this is irrelevant to the secular case against SSM. And adopting from another country (or here even) is not the same effect as responsible procreation. It is merely moving the child from point a-b. And as stated the government wants procreative type unions, not procreative effect so to speak. The states interest is in procreation, this point is a moot. My opponent then claims polygamous marriages can still obtain "responsible" procreation. This is false. Having a decent amount of children is not responsible, as having multiple wives still means he will likely have more children then planned. Having 3 wives, for example, and 2 kids each means you have 6 children. Now polygamous marriages will likely be more promiscuous. Having multiple wives already says things about ones character. So what may end up looking responsible to them is not responsible to the eyes of the state, and doing it right the first time is more beneficial to the family unit. With this in mind this is more or less a red herring. Then my opponent posts multiple snid bits. I had no lack of response. All of your points have been defeated and destroyed. My opponent then notes that courts do not rule as they should. My opponent is comparing civil and criminal court to constitutional courts. In other words he is comparing red to blue. Further more, this is a fallacy in itself. Because something is probable or possible, then arguing it is absolute is appeal to probability. Also, this is not even a major part of my case. The main reason I said this was a states interest was because responsible procreation is a public interest, as procreation is actually needed to advance society, then merely said this external source agrees. Also, you still ahve yet to show homosexuals are a benefit to society. My opponents case:C1: Constitution My straw man arguments? How am I arguing contrary to MY position? I have been arguing marriage is a procreative type union, therefore my case above applies to everything I have stated. And the arguments I have stated here are not irrelevant, as 'same sex marriage' is not a right. Parenting (single parenting) is irrelevant to the resolution as the non married person is NOT worthy of the benefits as they are not procreating responsibly. And if they are they ought to apply for marriage with their partner. Being single is not a benefit to society, and raising a child is not intrinsically valuable. This is irrelevant in a legal debate. Also unmarried couples need to apply for a service to get it, just like you need to apply for a electricity to get the service, paying them is otherwise a donation. Having a worn out argument means it has been refuted multiple times by legal scholars and is easy to meet. You take things so personally :p. Also my former arguments are not worn out as they are effective, and actually legally impenetrable. My opponent then never refutes my premise on defining marriage, and how same sex couples can get married in one place but not the other. Arguing for equal protection still means (to make it valid legally) they are being deprived a right; a liberty. As stated, one must define marriage before arguing a right is being stolen. Marriage entails a man and a woman, and therefore does not apply to homosexuals. I will bring forth the quote again:"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]C2: taxesI am not getting conduct anyway; so I dont care. Have you ever heard of an analogy? An analogy is not a straw man. Benefiting people is all good, it is indeed, but to have benefits we must ask is there a reason to grant them. It would indeed benefit you if I conceded this debate because you are dancing around the point, but it would be deemed illogical as I have no reason to do so. So benefiting people is a failed argument on a logical and a legal basis. It would benefit people if the government ended taxes (former ANALOGY, not straw man, large difference) but it woudl not do so as it would hurt the state and they have no reason. This point is a moot, along with the other one which he may as well have dropped. CONCLUSION:Its kinda obvious...[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)