gay marriage

My opponent's burden: Basically, practicality is what my opponent is emphasizing on in his arguments and that this is the very nature of marriages grounded in the value of procreation. What I would need to prove then is that banning gay marriage is not practical in order to knock down my opponent's case. This is, of course, unless my opponent has some other burden that he would argue I have to achieve. Spiegel argument: Basically what my opponent has done here is slap on a sylloligism in order to provide an argument, and what I need to do here is point out the flaws in this reasoning in order to knock it down. Such flaws would be in the premisis 4. What my opponent does is try to argue based on this reasoning is that homosexual unions destroy the inherent value of marriage, and thus, it is unjust. My opponent in no way explains why it destroys the inherent value of marriage or heterosexual unions in general. After all, what the first premise is saying is that heterosexual union, the actual occurrence of a man and woman coming together in order to procreate, is indispensible, but then it jumps forward to making the argument that heterosexual marriage, the actual condition of man and woman being married, has the social value. Is my opponent trying to make the argument that all heterosexual unions are heterosexual marriages? If procreation is indispensible, what part of gay marriage is threatening that? Also, if it's the actual event of procreation that's important, why is the "special value" practical at all? If you ask me, it's ensuring that procreation still remains so that the human race can live on (which gay marriage does not affect) in contrast to what my opponent is saying, where's he's just trying to protect the perception of "special value" of it. That's not practical at all, nor has it been beneficial for world conditions either. Too much procreation leads to overpopulation, which is environmentally dangerous considering that we can overuse our resources. We have heard about the world population reaching 7 billion, and some of us have heard about the problems that countries like India, Bangladesh, and China are facing with overpopulation. Procreation has it's value in maintaing the existence of the human race, but when it comes down the conditions of our planet because the overexercise of it, it's evident that procreation at some level has to be suppressed in order to maintain the quality of life of humanity in context of the environment, so this argument that my opponent makes about denying "special values" of procreation being totally unjust is flawed in the truest sense. Infertility: Allow me to break this argument down. What my opponent is saying is that even though infertile couples have as much potential for children as homosexuals do, the infertile couples are justified simply because of the idea that it is a man and a woman coming together in order to try to reproduce. This is the epitome of a double-standard: even though my opponent tries to make the argument that marriages that don't produce children destroys the value of procreation in heterosexual unions, unions that still don't make children, but are heterosexual are justified just because it's heterosexual. That's prejudice in the purest sense. Contention 1 Response: Not only is it evident that my opponent in no way looks toward my evidence explaining how governmental recognition of homosexuals increases the tolerance of their community in addition to reducing the rates at which they have STD rates (where governmental recognition influences the idea of justice and courteousness into the society, similar to what occurred with the ending of segregation in 1964, and the status between African Americans and whites improved significantly over time), but my opponent is just trying to prove that homosexuals deserve it based mostly on his own prejudice against homosexuals. He doesn't provide any information proving that "many others" find homosexuality immoral and disgusting, nor does he give any reasoning as to why it is immoral other than just his personal feelings against it. It's evident that my opponent is lacking in his reasoning and evidence. Since my opponent has clearly stated himself that he's not going to object to the economics argument, the judges can extend my economics arguments for the time being. Equality Response: First and foremost, please pay attention to the emphasis that my opponent places on procreation because it is vital to my counterargument about infertility. Moving on, it is evident that my opponent clearly does not understand my sub-point 2a. What I was trying to do was explain the similarity in banning interracial and same-sex marriages based on the circular reasonings behind them that emphasized on the idea that people from Group A should not be together with Group B in marriage just because people from Group A should not be together with people of Group B. Really, what did these bans come down to? "Blacks and whites shouldn't be together in marriages because they shouldn't be together. " "Men and other men shouldn't be together in marriages because they shouldn't be together. " All of it is just discrimination, and at that point, where we are not recognizing same-sex marriages simply on a prejudiced premise and a way to simply devalue homosexual relationships and the group it is practiced in, this is completely against the concept of equality. Civil unions: The civil union arguments were meant to further show the equality argument. At the point where civil unions are meant to be under marriages, it only further emphasizes on the idea that homosexual relationships are less than heterosexual ones. It's a good first step, but if equality is what we want in our society, this is not the solution. Slippery Slope: My opponent tries to argue that polyamorous, incestual, bestial, or asexual relationships could be justified in this sense (except pedophilia considering for the reason that an adult is taking advantage of a person who is less developed and able to make choices as well as causing harm to children, which is immoral). They could. What my opponent needs to prove is that these relationships are all immoral and harmful to society, which he does not do. Furthermore, these arguments about equality in relationships can be applied to heterosexual unions as well, including interracial ones considering that they could be considered "lesser" or something. My opponent also needs to prove that these arguments cannot apply to heterosexual relationships and should not apply to homosexual ones.