Same sex marriage

1) Marriage Is ___?___a) I agree that we are to define a) What is marriage and b) Why should the state recognize marriage. I immediately urge a Pro vote for conduct for the reason that Con accuses me of "not understand[ing] the first" of these questions. He then goes on to say that if I use the right (or correct) argumentation it will become clear. I would like to encourage Con not to use this kind of argumentation, as he it encourages the idea that he will win this debate no matter what argumentation I pose, because I do not understand what he claims to be marriage. This is just an attack on my intellect (apparently), and does not provide this debate with any reason to move forward.b) Next I'll urge a S/G vote for Pro as Con's introduction to his next argument makes no sense grammatically. "Now will break into what a traditionalist argues, and how it applies" is what Con says, clearly meaning "we will" or "we'll" as opposed to "will." I do not like posing these arguments but, because most S/G votes go to tie because such mistakes are not noticed by the voters, I will.c) Con then argues what a traditionalist views marriage as and what a traditionalist would claim the state's interest in it. I would like to ask Con why the state's only (or greatest) interest is procreation. If this was the case Mormonism would be the religion that is most often influenced in this nation, or we would adapt new laws that follow Mormonism. The fact is, if the interest in marriage was only for procreation for the sake of "a new generation of taxpayers," the state would not be focusing on this type of marriage. Mormonism, as I mentioned above, would be more effective, and would be highly influenced among the people if this were the case, as Mormonism allows marriage of one man to many women. This way, there would be more people, correct?d) Con continues on this same argument, so you can cross-apply my Mormonism argument here. However, he then compares marriage to a $1,000 investment in a stock, claiming that a homo-sexual couple would not be a growing stack. However, I beg to differ. The law used to state that only married couples could adopt children. This obviously wouldn't have made sense if only hetero-sexual couples were thought of. Because homo-sexual couples cannot procreate, they "are not really a foundation for society," or so Con wants us to believe. Homosexual couples CAN adopt. If these couples can adopt and raise a child, Con's point about child-rearing still stands. They can raise the children (or tax-payers as Con wants to call them). Because homosexual couples can do this, they SHOULD receive the benefits of marriage.e) Con cites a few court-cases that support his claim in this point, and it is clear that in SOME states, the interest is in procreation AND child rearing. Because I've already proven that homosexual couples are able to take part in child rearing (or parenting), this argument makes no sense. I've also stated my position on adoption, in that homosexual couples can adopt children to get them out of bad situations. This promotes a healthier life-style for these children, thus making them more crucial to the society. Even adopting from different countries helps the state, as it brings in more tax-payers as Con seems to like to argue. This is the same as procreation. It brings more children into the United States.Now I will move onto my own case, and try to keep it brief with only a couple contentions, as the real debate is in the Con case.1) Traditionalists v. Constitutionalistsa) Con likes to argue as a traditionalist, so I will counter by arguing what constitutionalists would. Constitutionalists would, naturally, turn to the constitution in arguments like these and note that the constitution claims equal protection for all who are members of this country. Now, onto the real point of this argument (the logic). Protection can come in the form of benefits, as we can all agree. Health benefits such as deciding what (health-wise) should be done for your partner in the position that they cannot make a decision is one of the main benefits/protections of marriage. An unmarried couple cannot make these decisions. b) Clearly, if Con wants to make legal arguments, he will agree that this argument stands and that the constitution claims equal protection for all individuals. This is why, clearly, same-sex marriage would prove this to be correct, and any other argument would go against the constitution. This is the largest flaw with many of today's conservatives who claim to be constitutionalists. Anyone who claims to be one of the constitutionalists should not be able to claim themselves to be anti-SSM, as this is completely controversial to what the constitution promises.2) Married couple gets tax deductions.This is the same argument as I posed above. Married couples often get tax breaks. [http://turbotax.intuit.com...] If homosexual couples cannot get married, they do not receive these benefits. I've already proved in my rebuttals that these couples deserve such benefits, and to not provide them with these forms of benefits is to be unjust and immoral. Is it the state's interest to be unjust and immoral? I would hope not.