Gay Marriage

= Rebuttals =Pro seems to have dropped my refutations of his argument and my initial case that the conjugal view is superior to the revisionist view of marriage, besides using a bare assertion to cast doubt on the purpose of marriage. Instead he makes new arguments, with the help of ProCon.org, to try to advance his case under a different light.As clarified above, this debate is about the secular and governmental view of marriage, not wedding ceremonies that are irrelevant to the state.What is the purpose of marriage?My opponent uses a straw man fallacy to contend that I am arguing for one societal purpose of the marital union, which is procreation. As clearly indicated in the first round by my fourth premise, the purpose of marriage "must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing, which is only present in heterosexual unions". Procreation is not the only thing that dictates what marriage is; ideal child-upbringing is another crucial part of it. A third purpose of the state taking interest in marital unions is to promote what marriage actually is, and to encourage people to enter into this union to raise up and support the upcoming generation.Although societal advantages come as a result of marriage, they don't define what marriage really is. In the next refutations, I will show why Pro's additional contentions have issues with them.Psychological statesPro's study from the American Public Health Association makes the claim that homosexuals who were denied marriage suffered higher stress. However, the study states that the reason for this was that homosexual couples were being denied benefits that come from unions. Pro seems unaware of the concept of civil unions that grants homosexuals the same rights as marriage but doesn't distort the legitimacy of marriage. Not only are homosexual unions recognized by the state, they are provided the same benefits as marital unions[1]. The study that Pro cited does not put domestic partnerships as a variable, so it doesn't measure human rights from the angle of other unions available. Thus, it is an unfair experiment.Further, this is not a very strong argument for entirely changing what marriage really is. If a study found that seventeen-year-olds that were denied the right to vote because of their age were more distressed than eighteen-year-olds, does that mean we should lower the voting age? No, of course not.The EconomyAgain, this argument is a weak one. As Pro pointed out, homosexual couples can already wed in states where gay marriage is not allowed, so money is being pumped into the economy regardless.StabilizationThis contention is also easy to knock down. The acknowledgement of domestic partnerships provides stable relationships just as marriages can. Pro cites no evidence to prove his point that homosexual couples are "integrated better into society" through marriages, nor that they are delegitimized. He also doesn't show the connection between instability and societal harm. Without evidence, it is logical to dismiss this point.Child AdoptionPro yet again makes another bare assertion that "children of married couples are shown to be overall better off than children of unmarried couples." Where is the evidence for this claim? If there is evidence, are same-sex marriages a factor in the study? In the first round I provided proof that children need both a mother and a father, and that children with both do well in various areas, such as social status, physical and mental well-being, and chances of being in poverty in the future. ConstitutionalityPro argues that because gay marriage bans have been ruled unconstitutional, then the judges must be right. However, Pro has provided no evidence as to why these judges are right, or how these bans are unconstitutional. Thus, there is no reason to take this argument seriously. There have been instances in which SSM bans have been upheld, so does that mean the judges are right there too? This logic really doesn't make much sense.In sum, my opponent has dodged my argument over what marriage really is and tries instead to argue that because there are supposed pros to same-sex marriage, then it should be legalized. However, I've overturned each of his arguments and have called him out when he has dropped them, and thus conceded them.= Source =[1] http://marriage.laws.com...