Gay Marriage

I think that he has argued his position well, however, there are still some problems with his case, which I will point out. 1-State's interest My opponent objected to both studies I have posted. I assume that he would have some objection to any I post, and I think one thing we can agree upon is that studies may be flawed on either side. But look at it this way. We have 100,000 children without parents, living in institutions and we have an opportunity to give them parents and families who will love them. Yes, you will encounter problems from time to time, but the same is true for heterosexuals. On the note of benefits of marriage, my opponent falsely claims that I said the marriage tax would pay for the benefits of homosexual marriage. This is far from the truth, however. From my round three argument-"By allowing homosexual marriage, more revenue will be generated through this tax". I simply stated that the State will not be only shelling out millions in benefits, but also bringing in revenue. Secondly on the note of benefits, Something I should have mentioned, and it escapes me why I forgot to, was that a lot of benefits do not actually cost money. The right to be with your spouse in the hospital and play the role of legal power of attorney of your spouse do not actually cost money, but do require a legal relationship. A marriage. So I conclude by saying that the State does in fact have an interest in homosexual marriage. It will help foster children get a loving family, and give homosexuals the rights and benefits of marriage that they legally deserve. 2-The Right to marriage- From my opponent's previous argument-"My opponent never rebuts my analysis, which is a foolish thing to do. " However, I did do this. What my opponent claims I have not rebutted can be found in his round two arguments. To sum up what he said, it is that in order to debate rights, we must show that the rights are applicable to the specific party. Basically, he argues that since marriage is currently defined as being between one man and one woman, we cannot argue that the benefits of marriage can be applicable to same sex couples. But this can be seen as the same thing as, say, women's rights. Way back during the days before women's suffrage, what was then the definition on the right to vote, was applicable only to men. Of course, this was protested and eventually changed, but it would appear my opponent would have them show good reason why women should be allowed to vote. Would he accept arguments simply stating that since the women were American citizens, they had the right? Or would that not suffice? Would they have to show why the State had such an interest as allowing women to meddle in politics? This is what my opponent is arguing here. He is stating that it isn't enough to show that same sex couples should receive the benefits and services applicable to married couples, but that the State must have an interest in it. That is completely wrong, as I have been showing that they do have an interest, and even if they don't, that doesn't mean they should simply deny the right and benefits of marriage to same sex couples. Furthermore, my opponent says-"Though heterosexual sex, not the effect it has, has intrinsic value in which the state supports. " So, the instrinsic value of marriage is what goes on in the bedroom? So are they interested in procreation or sex? Either can easily be refuted. I have already refuted procreation, as for sex, well that's just ridiculous. The State should not, base the definition of marriage based off of what kind of sex they are having. Plus, heteros can do anal too. Jus' sayin. XDMore from my opponent's last argument-“'And because the union in question is an organic bodily union, it cannot depend for its reality on psychological factors. It does not matter, then, if spouses do not intend to have children or believe that they cannot. ' What it is basically saying is the states want an arena to encourage procreation, and infertile couples or couples using contraception encourage procreation of other people or themselves in the long run and, therefore, fulfill a states interest. Too continue, 'To recognize only fertile marriages is to suggest that marriage is merely a means to procreation and childrearing – and not what it truly is, namely, a good in itself. It may also violate the principle of equality to which revisionists appeal, because infertile and fertile couples alike can form unions of the same basic kind: real marriages. In the absence of strong reasons for it, this kind of differential treatment would be unfair. ” So in other words, he is going out on a limb as far as he can to argue in favor of traditional marriage, to the point where he's basically arguing that, infertile couples and couples using contraception are encouraging procreation. This is ridiculious. On the level of procreation, there is no difference between homosexuals and infertile couples or those on contraceptives. He starts off by arguing against gay marriage because they cannot procreate. He now is arguing that there is no difference on the procreative level between those having sex for procreation, and those who are infertile or do not plan on having children. Simply put, it isn't procreation he is defending, it is heterosexual sex. And by defending traditional marriage simply because only they can have heterosexual sex, is very discriminatory. Summing up this long section, I have shown why homosexuals are in fact entitled to the right and benefits of marriage, and that my opponent's defense for traditional marriage is not only wrong, but rather silly, actually. 3-Homosexual parenting- I'll just leave you with what I said earlier. Studies will more likely than not, be biased on either side. However, which would serve both the child's and State's interest better: Having the child in a loving, caring family, helping the child to grow into a good upstanding citizen, and saving the state some money in the long run. Or, in an institution, without any kind of family, not benefiting the child at all, othe than it keeps him/her off of the street, and costing the State a large amount of money to raise them. I'm sure the voters can decide which of these two better serves society. Conclusion- I have shown why my opponent's arguments are flawed, why homosexuals are entitled to the right and benefits of marriage, how it is in the State's interest, and that it will even benefit society. I think the voters know which of these two arguments is better.