Gay Marriage

1. What marriage isThe majority of my opponents claim lies on the procreative argument, the secular case, in a sygogolism the Jim Spiegel argument. My opponent actually does contradict himself, by first claiming creating the children upholds society, but in attempt to avoid the sterile couples refutation proceeds to the in principle, procreative types. But this is a contradiction. He first writes to fulfill the states interest they must create natural procreation, then states the homosexuals cant to it in principle, essentially saying they do not need the effect of procreation. This is faulty, as it is a contradiction, type and effect are not anything alike, hence my opponent contradicts himself. So, as it is more logical to assume the government wants the effect, as this continues society, type does not, I will take apart this one. His type argument is illogical and does not relate to states interests. He claims homosexuals therefore cannot procreate, well this is false. Lesbian couples, for example, can artificially inseminate and therefore have the procreative effect, as the government unlikely cares about the type as long as they actually continue society. This here is a means of allowing SSM, as many gays can actually create the effect. Male couples, as well as lesbians, can adopt. Now, this is continuation of society as well, as these kids need a family. So male couples continue society in other ways, and allowing SSM means they will be more likely to adopt now the benefits of marriage are bestowed to them. So, other then homosexuals fitting the needs of marriage under my opponents argument, we must also look into does allowing homosexual marriage hurt anyone, well in the terms of child creation? It is a common testimony we hear from conservatives it would likely decrease overall fertility rates, but this is not the case. I would be actually surprised if this was the case. It makes no sense that someone else's union would have a negative effect on another, negatively at least. Now lets look at facts, after SSM laws where passed in favor, there was not a decline in fertility rates, rather a small increase. [1] Now, I doubt the SSM law lead to the increase, but the point is it had no effect on fertility rates, therefore my opponents argument is invalid, the states interest was not infringed. 2. Slippery slope The argument presented by my opponent is a fallacy. My opponents claim is if we change the definition, then people will tramp on it then other marital affairs will change, again and again. The argument is if X happens, Y and A and B will occur too, but is this the case? Are laws like a domino? First, many people (assuming it actually happens) would see the slip as a positive effect, and may support the happening, but the problem is that it WONT happen. Also, the argument assumes the law will see A and B alike, therefore meaning they get the same treatment. Now, is this actually the case? Is bestiality and polygamy the same as monogamous gay relationships? The answer is no, it is not. You cannot compare A and B, as A and B are absolutely nothing alike! Now, the simple question is why would the law treat different things the same to form a slippery slope? It would not. The slippery slope, not only a fallacy, but a falsehood. --Defense of arguments--1. 14th amendment, suspect class My opponents argument is based on the classic "what marriage is" argument. This argument fails in a historical perspective, when looking into marriage. Marriage was defined against interracial couples, and under the same argument my opponent used would not be discrimination to infringe upon this. But the courts ruled it was discriminatory, therefore the what marriage is argument fails on a historical basis. My opponent must also look in another perspective of what marriage is, as I hold marriage is a right, celebration of love and commitment, government recognition of the commitment, and a personal choice. As marriage is a personal choice, and the current bans infringe on their choices due to preference and allows heterosexuals to enter these unions that gays cannot, the act of banning homosexual marriage is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. My opponents argument fails on a societal and a historical perspective. 2. Economics and tax revenues My opponent attacks this by claiming the actual amount of an economy based on marriage is fairly small, and therefore would not help the economy. This ignores many things. First, lets assume the amount of gay weddings is small, maybe 0.1% of all marriages, looking at that though it would boost that amount of... Money to the industry, as well as the church it is at etc. Even if it accounts for 0.1%, it would have a positive, but likely would account for 1 or 2%, so it would actually give a legitament boost. Also, he ignores the benefits from the government aspect. These benefits ease the financial burdens on the gay community, and then mean they have more money to spend in the market, groceries etc, meaning they will pump more money into the economy! So not only through the wedding outlook, but also the spending outlook. Although there are many ways they will stimulate the economy I will brush over one more: Kids. As they will have extra money in the bank, they will be able to think more about adopting a child, or artificially inseminating, as they will be more likely to afford it. This would ease the governments spending on orphanages, as they will have one less mouth to feed, as well as help the economy, as buying stuff for the child forces more spending (per person), hence a larger economy to tax. No matter how you look at it, it will have beneficial impacts. Lets take in individual state example, Illinois. Sorry if that was noisy. But some reports claim allowing gay marriage would boost the struggling economy there, and well help the whole state. [2] Even just looking at weddings, it woudl make 30-70 billion dollars per year! (better economy and more to tax) Also, the new money that they would generate would be at least 8 billion in taxes per year. [2] SSM would help the economy. 3. Kids!!My opponent claims that we should give the same aid to people who are single and raise children. Well according to the procreation argument, one that you used, anyone that can procreate deserves marriage, and the better thing, single parents can make procreative "type" unions. Under your argument, the answer is: yes. Also, the argument works as stated the extra money they gain from marriage will likely mean they will raise more children then they already do, therefore help the children. The argument stands. CONCLUSION:I have refuted my opponents case, one being a fallacy, as well promoted my own with (in my opinion) good refutations that hinder my opponents objections false. With this information, I urge a PRO vote, to allow marriage equality. ________________________[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...