There are not valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage

For the audience, let me clear some confusion that I think CON created personally. First off, I accepted CON's definition of marriage according to "society's" point of view and for the purpose of this debate based on the rules set out by CON in the first round. However, the claim that gay marriage was a civil right was never stipulated or accepted in the first round. This is why I challenged CON's argument that this was a civil rights issue, which was in the second round. I clarified to CON that this was a debate on the public policy issues in the first round. However, For the sake argument, I will assume as well that gay marriage is a civil right. Its irrelevant to the resolution anyways because I am being asked to give at least one valid reason to not so much deny this right to same sex couples but reject CON's revised definition of marriage and why this definition of marriage is bad public policy. Secondly, in round 2, I was not merely explaining what traditional marriage "is" but why its a more valid definition to accept (compared to CON's) under historical, scientific, moral and philosophical grounds. In addition, I did this in order to provide context and understanding as to why we "ought" not to allow same marriage concerning public policy which is what I am about to do now. ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS IMPORTANT PURPOSE My argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in law, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. There would be no reason to have public recognition of marriage. Let me explain precisely how and why: If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood. Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent, would decay and its effect would basically be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it would end up discouraging them as well. If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates and essentially CON, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible. Remember, the studies I mentioned last round very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. CON's view of marriage is considered and would be non-traditional as I explained above. LONG TERM EFFECTS OF ACCEPTING CON'S VIEW OF MARRIAGE The Social ramifications: Based on the arguments and studies I mentioned above involving the promotion of non-traditional views of marriage and the discouragement of traditional views of marriage combined; it logically follows that vulnerable future generations, will be programmed to formulate choices (like divorce, fatherlessness, etc) that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general as a result. Legal ramifications: The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parental laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and parental consent laws in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws". [1] 960-964 THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE This new law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this and reject their own beliefs that reflect objective (as shown above) reality in the process or else live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly impose their convoluted notion of equality and Civil rights. Here are some examples of this: Schools: In 2006, the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children. Media: "The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it." Businesses: The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals' preferences when it comes to dating services in California. The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to accommodate homosexual married couples to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather than go against their deep held beliefs. In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception. Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to advance this interest and prevent the inevitable consequences. The state can use the traditional definition to encourage procreation and rearing of children to take place inside a marriage to each generation while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. I feel like I answered all of PRO's questions he asked me without dealing with them directly, but if he feels I did not I will do so in the next round. [1] http://www.law.harvard.edu...