Gay marriage should be legalized

==Rebuttals== 1) It is not natural I agree with my opponent: this argument is extremely weak and should not be used by opponents of gay marriage. Although I would argue environmental factors have more influence on homosexuality than genetic or hormonal factors [1], I agree with my opponent and this argument shall not be used in the debate. 2) God’s will Again, I see this debate as fully secular. So again I agree with my opponent. In fact, John Adams signed the Treat with Tripoli in 1797, and the treaty assured that the United States was not founded upon Christianity. Therefore, this point is moot. ___________ I will note, however, that my opponent has not provided any arguments to the affirmative: that gay marriage should be legalized. Therefore, my opponent needs to bring up arguments as to why gay marriage should be legalized for her to win this debate. As PRO, she has the burden of proof. ==Case== Law cannot become separated from the truth; it cannot be separated from nature. If this occurs, law is meaningless. It is merely created at the ruler’s whim. Although historically this was the case, as a free society we must strive to be better. We must strive to have our laws mean something: they have to represent the truth, the meaning of marriage. There are two views as to what marriage means: the conjugal view and the revisionist view [2][3]. Conjugal view: The conjugal view of marriage is that marriage is between one man and one woman. This view has long informed the law which we have today, literature, and other historical writings. It sees marriage as a spiritual and bodily union. Its strength is its comprehensiveness: the love from marriage is to be oriented towards family life and lifelong fidelity. The marital union, in this definition, is meant to be a comprehensive union between one man and one women, for the purpose to promote procreation and responsible child rearing. Revisionist view: This view has taken our society by storm. It is the reason no-fault divorce laws are in place, and other institutions which are weakening what we now know as ‘marriage’. This view has informed most reforms to marriage which have occurred over the last few decades. It views marriage as simply a loving bond between two people. Marriage is a union with the sole purpose of fulfilling emotional feelings. Nothing more. What is marriage? Having provided two definitions, my goal is to demonstrate why the conjugal view is superior to that of the revisionist view. Overall, it is very clear that the conjugal view can withstand basic scrutiny. The revisionist view, however, cannot. (1) Under a revisionist viewpoint, the government should recognize most unions as marriage Revisionists only requirement is love. Some type of affection, or even mere emotional fulfillment, is what constitutes marriage. However, this view is simply illogical under the current legal system. Should the state recognize the unions of friends? Should I be recognized because I have a girlfriend? Revisionism does not stand up to basic scrutiny. Say Oscar and Alfred are in a relationship. They want visitation rights, share domestic duties, etc. At this point, we assume they’re sexually intimate. Does this really matter? They could be two friends, who merely want to live together for non-sexual purposes. Under revisionist framework, they would be considered married. However, I assume my opponent will see this as absurd! They’re not married! They merely live together. However, they are fulfilling something emotional (they like each other), and fulfill the same domestic duties as the average married couple. My opponent must support almost all unions as marriage. Basic relationships, sexual flings, polygamy, bestiality—all of these have some form of ‘love’, although it would be absurd to call them marriages. Unless my opponent is willing to agree to those, the entire argument for gay marriage is simply flawed. (2) Why does the government care about marriage? Why is marriage even regulated? This is a question which needs to be answered as best as possible. The government, as it stands in most states, supports marriage for what it is: a comprehensive union between one man and one woman which encourages procreation and responsible child rearing. So… what does that exactly mean? What distinguishes marriage from other forms of relationships is that marriage is comprehensive. “Marriage unites people in all their basic dimensions” [4], as Girgis et al. notes. Marriage involves union of the mind and is also a union of the body. For marriage to truly be marriage, it must include bodily union. Say two people pledge to talk their hearts out. They talk about their life, philosophy, and what occurs around them. Are they married? No. Even if we replaced their pledge with actions—other than sexual intimacy—they would not be married. Why is sex this special act? It should be seen as an action which allows our bodies to touch and interact with another like never before. The sexual organs are oriented towards bringing new life. Sex makes two people one. In coitus, and only in coitus, can humans reproduce. A man and woman are needed: it is the one thing a man or a woman cannot do alone. I am not saying homosexual sexual actions are immoral because they cannot reproduce. All I am saying is that they are not procreative type unions. Marriage, under the conjugal definition, is oriented towards the creation of new life. Love is indeed important in a marital relationship, but the fact is, the government does not care about love. It wants to promote procreation. There is an intrinsic link between marriage and procreation: and the government should recognize this and do its best to promote it, for its own self-interest. Maggie Gallagher argues that “every known human society” recognizes a few similar aspects of marriage, which differentiate that from other forms of love. Societies see marriage as a “sexual union” which forces the man and women to care for “any children the union may produce” [5]. The government supports marriage because of its intrinsic link to procreation and child rearing. If gay marriage is legalized, this link will degenerate into nothingness—the average person would be unable to discern the law from what marriage actually is. This would harm the institution of marriage, and, therefore, children. (3) How would it harm children? As stated, marriage exists because of child rearing and procreation. If this link is severed, fewer children will be raised in homes with mothers and fathers in a married union. What is the harm of this? According to the American College of Pediatricians, children need both a mother and father. Children fare best when raised in a home with a mother and father who are married. Children perform better academically, go through developmental stages better, are more sure of their sexual identity, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when raised in these situations. However, if a child is raised without either a mother or father, they fare worse in all of these categories [6]. Laws educate people: directly and indirectly. They define what society sees as an acceptable action. If marriage is seen merely as a piece of paper symbolizing love, marriage will no longer be seen as an institution meant for children. Out of wedlock birth rates would increase, and the governmental incentives which promote child rearing will disappear. Basic human psyche explains why marriage would be weakened if gay marriage was legalized (and procreation and child rearing, therefore, divorced from marriage) [7]. Conclusion: Gay marriage is contradictory to what marriage is. The government has no reason to legalize gay marriage, and legalizing gay marriage would harm children. 1. . http://www.mygenes.co.nz... 2. Girgis, Sherif, Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson. “What is Marriage? ” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 34, no. 1 (2010): 246. 3. Girgis, Sherif, Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson. “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” (New York: Encounter books, 2012), 1-2. 4. Ibid. , 24. 5. Gallagher, Maggie. “What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law”, Louisiana Law Review 62 (2002): 781. 6. . http://www.acpeds.org... 7. . http://www.marriagedebate.com...