Marriage should not be redefined or gay marriage should be illegal

1. "my opponent says it is not about "family structure". What falls under "family structure" if SSM does not? I would ask for an expansion and explanation of this point." I explained the difference between them already. These are the two means for which the state uses to ensure the well being of children: family stability and family structure Family structure argument is about encouraging procreation and rearing of children within the optimal partnership. The responsible procreation theory or family stability is about encouraging couples to procreate and rear children within a marriage. I am specifically promoting the family stability argument in this debate. 2. "my opponent claims, again, that it is not a marriage because they must be able to procreate. I refer my opponent to surrogate mothers[1] and adoption[2] are both ways for homosexuals to have children and rear them. Therefore, marriage can include SSM as it rears children and promotes stability of families. If my opponent still disagrees, then I would like a explanation why SSM does not promote family stability. I have explained this already. I agree that recognizing same sex relationships would maximize the state's intention to ensure the well-being of children in the form of CIVIL UNIONS with all the same benefits. However, CON has yet to explain how and why going a step further to redefine marriage or same sex marriage is necessary and beneficial. Again, CON needs to explain how on earth same sex marriage promotes family stability when he is arguing that marriage is not about family but promoting the love hypothesis view of marriage. On the other hand, I explained exactly how and why redefining marriage would not only be harmful but interfere with the state's objectives. I will AGAIN explain how SSM does not promote "family" let alone family stability: 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, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers. 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 for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually 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. As a result, heterosexuals, from FUTURE generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general. Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process. 3."I wholeheartedly agree. It reminds me of 1960s South Africa, where the conservative bloc in power argued that "if marriage is legalised for blacks, then what's to stop them legalising beastiality?" I contend that this is not a criticism except in its wording. I'd argue the acceptance of homosexual marriage leads to a more libertarian, tolerate society where we can promote progress, not limit it. " CON agrees with my argument that heterosexuals will eventually cohabitate and/or divorce much more down the road because the natural view of marriage will be viewed as a form of bigotry which will discourage people from holding and practicing that idea to the fullest. The Financial Issue 4. "I understand my opponent's problem: we do not know the opportunity cost exactly that results from the ban. But we can work out the "break even" point: where the cost of banning SSM is equal to the amount of benefit money saved. The equilibrium is "349 million divided by 160... a couple million? That's what, all of the American LGBT community getting married? The financial argument strengthens my case: in these rough economic times, when we need to scrimp and save, we need to save money." Again, CON misunderstood my argument, so I am going to allow WIKIpedia summarize it better: Economic impact on the federal government The 2004 Congressional Budget Office study, working from an ASSUMPTION "that about 0.6 percent of adults would enter into same-sex marriages if they had the opportunity" (an assumption in which they admitted "SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTY") estimated that legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States "would improve the budget's bottom line to a SMALL extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years". This result reflects an increase in net government revenues (increased income taxes due to marriage penalties more than offsetting decreased tax revenues arising from postponed estate taxes). Marriage recognition would increase the government expenses for Social Security and Federal Employee Health Benefits but that increase would be more than made up for by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income.[94] http://en.wikipedia.org... In addition, CON has yet to explain how and why going a step further to redefine marriage is necessary when Civil unions can potentially produce the same effect. He needs to explain why civil unions is not a viable alternative. International Law 5. "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Again, CON is supposed to argue and explain why CIVIL marriage is about promoting love first and foremost not family. If CON is going to continue arguing that marriage is about family first, then it would argue against the notion that gay and lesbians are being discriminated in the first place. This is because Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex for responsible procreation and rearing of children. Thus, they have equal rights to marriage unlike to blacks and Jews when they were actually being segregated based on their status, and prohibited from procreation and rearing of children within a marriage. The natural way of doing it, which is what the UN Declaration specifically is referring to in Article 16 on the third line: Article 16: 1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a FAMILY. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 3.The FAMILY is the NATURAL and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. " Therefore, CON is going to have to explain how gays are being discriminated in the first place when I just explained how they are not. In addition, sexual orientation is not considered a status in every country either.