The United states goevrment shoudl legalize SSM

~Refutations~R1: Infertile couplesMy opponent actually has misinterpreted the argument. This objection is a misunderstood rebuttal, they do not understand the debate at point. The argument is not fully based of of the ability to reproduce, but rather a type of relationship in which procreation is possible to start off. It is not an argument fully based of of the argument they can make kids, but also an argument based of of the ability to have the similar effect, a procreative type union. Further more as I stated the goverment has argued that they want to create an environment for procreation, and procreative TYPE unions. [1] [2]R2: Gays and procreation My opponent conceded essentially by defining procreation as production of offspring. Homosexual couples can never produce offspring. [3] [1] Further more yes, lesbian couples (and even male ones) can artificially inseminate. But this has no bearing on states interest as a fully lesbian relationship cannot create children. [4] "One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbians sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce." [4]R3: Artificial techniques ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^R3: The state has no reason to allow itThe BOP for the pro gay advocates is to find reasons why the goverment should allow it. The states interest is in procreation to create a environment to propagate procreation to further society, and make sure wee keep going. [1] [4]R4: The aid of heterosexualsMy opponent claims they propagate society through sperm donation techniques. The state doesn't care as I have stated as naturally they cannot create children, also for this argument to be valid you have to show the majority of them CAN create children, the majority of gay couples simply adopt, and that is not a state interest. R5: DeserveHomosexuals do not create children. You cannot prove the point the majority of gays do not procreate and or sperm bank their way to children, rather adopt, which is not a state interest. [4] Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. [...] To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding." [5]Therefore gays do not deserve marriage. R6: DeniesI cannot read that as you have no spacing and it is so sloppy lol. But my opponents argument seems to point towards the biological stat. First, that is 1976, second, many gays start straight then convert to gay (well come out, and vice versa). [6] [7] The point is they likely converted over too, that has to be taken into account. Still, the majority of gays still do not have children (5.5 million gay non married houses). [8] So the majority of the time they do not fulfill the interest even according to your stat, and almost all heterosexual couples have kids or at least ALMOST ALWAYS have the chance to make them. [4]~His argument~He is still pushing the same old procreation thing. Well instead of a full out refutation, his argument is false. “A family is not an association of independent people; it is a human commitment designed to make possible the rearing of moral and healthy children. Governments care — or ought to care — about families for this reason, and scarcely for any other.” [9]Gay couples cannot form procreative type unions, ever, never have this ability, and will never, ever, be able to fulfill the states interest in marriage. [10] "The anatomy of a homosexual relationship doesn't come close to this. They can neither produce children nor have a relationship of this type. As the heterosexual couples have the ability to further society the state ought to give them recognition over homosexual ones. Couples that do not revolve around a procreation type core, in the states eyes, is useless as they cannot advance society in the way the goverment wants them too. As the state only recognizes you if you have this type of relationship they will define marriage as in a man and a woman." [11]---> Conclusion.The law currently states marriage is between one man and one woman, therefore my opponent has the BOP as he is arguing a change in the law. I have proven the state has no interest whatsoever in legalizing gay marriage, and he has not proved it is in the states interest, therefore I urge a CON vote. [1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF)[2] Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864, 881 (Vt. 1999)[3] Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036, 1043[4] http://tech.mit.edu...[5] Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003[6] http://www.cnn.com...[7] http://www.wnd.com...[8] http://www.avert.org...[9] Jonathan Rauch, as found in Andrew Sullivan, Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con+[10] http://www.debate.org...[11] http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...