Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

It is true that we observe Homosexual behavior in animals, but this does not defeat that marriage is about reproduction. If my opponent wanted to refute such an argument they would have to show that marriage was created for a different reason, or not always defined as one man and one woman. Now my reasons for supporting traditional marriage. First, the Burden of proof is on my opponent because most states in the U. S. don't recognize Homosexual marriages [1].1. Marriage is more than love "Mutual affection and companionship between partners is a common, although not universal, feature of marriage" [2]. "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world. " [2] This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it. "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers. ' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives. " [2] The procreative argument was held up in many courts [3][8] such as Baker v. Nelson [4], Jones v. Hallahan [5], Singer v. Hara [6], Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning [7]. Showing that defining marriage is constitutional. Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. Marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman because marriage is more than just love.2. Marriage Historically"Although certain aspects of the institution of marriage have varied from society to society, it has universal functions. These universal functions are: 1. Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle; 2. Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible: 3. Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible; 4. Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and 5. Providing men with a stake in family and society. " [2]The Netherlands was the first country to recognize Homosexual marriages in 2001 [9]. No society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships" [2]. Now dealing with interracial Marriage. Many supporters of homosexual marriage make the comparison to interracial marriage but this isn't a valid comparison. The First Anti-miscegenation (Anti-Mixed Marriage) Laws was passed in Virginia in 1691 [10]. It is important to note the colonial Virginia started in 1607 [11]. So, there was a period of 84 years before these laws ever existed. Also, . Nine states never had any Anti-miscegenation laws [12]. Further, "no nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was ever enacted" [13], and no state recognized Homosexual marriages until 2004 [14]. It is also important to note that "The laws in U. S. states were established to maintain 'racial purity' and white supremacy" [13], and laws defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman were not meant to ensure heterosexual supremacy, or anything like why interracial marriage was. Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it isn't what marriage was intended for.3. The Slippery SlopeIf love is all that matters in marriage then other restrictions on marriage like Polygamy bans, Incest prohibitions, Age restrictions should be allowed too since all of them are able to love each other. Support for Polygamy is on the rise; according to a Gallup poll people who think Polygamy is morally acceptable has double in the last decade. [15] Also, recently a Federal Judge in Utah struck down polygamy ban as unconstitutional, and he relied on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage. [16] "If the natural sexual complementary of male and female and the theoretical procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union are to be discarded as principles central to the definition of marriage, then what is left? According to the arguments of the homosexual “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship are truly necessary elements of marriage. But if that is the case, then why should other relationships that provide love, companionship, and a lifelong commitment not also be recognized as “marriages”—including relationships between adults and children, or between blood relatives, or between three or more adults? And if it violates the equal protection of the laws to deny homosexuals their first choice of marital partner, why would it not do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice? " [17]. There is further proof corroborating these claims. Going back to the Netherlands the country that first legalize Homosexual marriage that "the Netherlands polygamy has been legalized in all but name" [18] In 2005 a civil union of three people were "married" [18]. Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it will lead to more re-definitions of marriage.4. Marriage is a privilege Many supporters of Homosexual marriage claim that it is a civil right, but this isn't true. It is important to note a few differences between the 1960 civil rights movement and the homosexual marriage movement. "The two driving forces behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 arose primarily out of discrimination against African-Americans and women" [19] This brings up the question of what is a civil right. "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics" [19]. It might be possible that you could prove widespread discrimination, but it is nothing compared to the 1960s. We have never made Homosexuals sit at the back of the bus, or have separate schools/public areas. Next, we have economic disadvantage. A 2012 study shows that Homosexuals actually tend to have more money [20]. Ran out of characters. I will continue this argument in the next round. [1] . http://gaymarriage.procon.org...[2] . http://www.scribd.com...[3] . http://seattletimes.com...[4] . http://gaymarriage.procon.org...[5] . http://www.leagle.com...[6] . http://www.leagle.com...[7] . http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov...[8] . http://www.frcblog.com...[9] . http://www.bbc.com...[10] . http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu...[11] . http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org...[12] . http://www.tn.gov...[13] . https://www.princeton.edu...[14] . http://www.glad.org...[15] . http://www.gallup.com...[16] . http://www.nomblog.com...[17] . http://downloads.frc.org...[18] . http://www.brusselsjournal.com...[19] . http://www.lc.org...[20] . http://money.cnn.com...