Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States

Having debated him in the past, I know him as a very talented debater. I look forward to a challenging and insightful debate over this issue. In my opinion, before debating the topic of same-sex marriage, one must first discuss the word "marriage. " What is marriage, and, just as importantly, what significance does it bear? In the eyes of the United States government (let us keep in mind that the resolution strictly pertains to US policy), marriage is a contractual and consensual relationship between parties that is recognized by the law. [1] With this contract comes a wide spectrum of rights and benefits to the parties that are handed down from the government. [2] Why does the government give rights and benefits to people engaged in a marital relationship and not do the same for those within different kinds of relationships (such as friendships)? In other words, what makes a marital relationship unique enough to justify the parties' obtainment of rights and benefits than those who are not married? The government, therefore, has a vested interest in marital relationships as opposed to non-marital ones. Why does the government invest in marital relationships as opposed to others? What is the difference between a strong friendship between two parties and a strong marital connection between two people? The sole difference between a very strong friendship and a marriage (as accepted by current federal standards) is this: procreative compatibility. The institution of marriage creates an organized system that enables parties to procreate and, at a holistic level, produce future citizens to maintain a society. [3] Hence, the state has a vested interest in legally and economically investing in those who are compatible to procreate, a man and a woman. Is the government justified in advocating procreation through supporting marriage? Absolutely. The United States people, notably deemed "by the people, for the people" by Abraham Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg Address [4], depends on its citizens to maintain progress. Through procreation, future citizens are produced, thereby maintaining the stability and progress of governmental affairs. A common counterargument is that marriage is more than a legal institution; it is also about "love" and "commitment. " Well, if we were to justify marriage through arbitrary terms such as these, we would not only be justifying gay marriage but many other hypothetical types of marriage, as well. And this leads us to the "Pandora's box" concept. If the term "marriage" were completely redefined to incorporate gay marriage, would it be all right to incorporate other types of marriage, such as polygamy. .. and marriages involving animals. .. and marriages to inanimate objects. .. ? As we stretch out the concept of "marriage" to incorporate other relationships, the term has the potential of becoming semantically insignificant. When every relationship has the potential of becoming marriage, what does "marriage" become, anyway? Its legal significance in the eye of the government, which has been justified, will vanish as each new type of marriage comes into the spotlight. ---[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.marriagelawfoundation.org...[4] . http://showcase.netins.net...