Legalization of Same Sex Marriage

I mixed up the sides of the Debate I am Con and my opponent is Pro. In my introduction I specified exactly what we will be arguing, I mixed up the Pro and Con part. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Case against the Legalization of same sex marriages First and foremost we have to take into consideration what is marriage really is and if it is a right or not. We have to realize that if marriage is not a right in this circumstance then no one is being oppressed, deprived of their rights or discriminated. Marriage involves the state or government and includes benefits. In this debate we will also be arguing over what marriage should fundamentally be (what the law should be) so any established law isn't infallible. What I am Arguing/Not Arguing: 1. I am arguing that the concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals because it doesn't conform with society's interest in marriage. 2. I am arguing that homosexual marriage doesn't provide a special societal benefit. 3. For these arguments which I will justify, homosexual marriages shouldn't be legalized. 4. I am NOT arguing whether civil unions are just or not. 5. I am NOT arguing whether SSM should be illegal. 6. I am NOT arguing whether homosexuality is wrong in and of itself. What is marriage and why is the state involved/interested? Marriage in today's 21st century is commonly defined as a union between two loving people. This is not the case and where we draw the line though. There are economic and legal benefits to marriage and it is asocial institution which means that it is recognized by the state (or society). We have to ask ourselves the question, Why is the state involved in this relationship? The answer to this fundamental question pertaining to marriage is because it provides huge benefits to the society. The state is involved in marriage for two main reasons for which one of them my opponent should have no objections to (raising children). Yes, the reason why the institution of marriage even began in the first place is because of procreation and the difficult task of raising children. These two core aspects of marriage are crucial to the advancement of society. Marriage makes obligations legally binding to see to the fulfilment of them and bringing children up in a good environment. Procreation in particular is the foundation and basis for the existence and strength of society itself, we cannot forget this. It is thus in the society's interest to protect and solidify this union between these relationships which provides a major benefit to society. This is what marriage is. For these reasons, homosexual marriages should be not be legalized for they ignore and don't comply with the reasons why marriage is institutionalized and don't provide special benefits to society like heterosexual marriages do. It seems impossible to prove that marriage is of equal standing to that of heterosexual marriages. If this was simply an emotional union than the state wouldn't have interest in it. By this same thread of logic any relationship between anybody or anything and any number of people or things could occur. As Adam Kolansinski states in his article “The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?” [2] Marriage is not simply about love (love is an important component) but the core of the reason for the institutionalization of marriage is for child rearing and procreation. Conclusion Marriage isn't a right for homosexual couples because of a lack of compelling reasons to institutionalize it whereas there are strong reasons to institutionalize heterosexual marriages due to their procreative type. To place homosexual marriages on equal standing with that of heterosexual marriages in ignoring that key benefit. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My opponent must address two important questions if he disagrees with my arguments 1.What is Marriage? 2. Why should the state put homosexual marriages on equal standing with that of heterosexual marriages? The infertility objection Since infertile couples are unable to procreate, does this phaze the procreation argument? No, because this fails to understand the argument which argues the general case of heterosexual marriages. The entire institution of marriage isn't based on individual couples being unable to procreate, but in principality. In principle, a heterosexual marriage will result in procreation. There is a very strong possibility that a heterosexual marriage will result in children whereas in a homosexual marriage it is impossible. Sources The case against “same sex marriage” Margaret A Somerville [1] http://tech.mit.edu... [2]