The US federal goverment should legalize Same Sex Marriage

Rc1: Why? My opponents argument is still a misinterpretation of the whole argument. As I have stated the government wants procreative TYPE marriages. As I have stated they want a climate for these couples to be encouraged to procreate, and have responsible procreation. [1] My opponent could have defined other states interests, but decided to just attempt to refute this one. Her only response has been infertile couples. My opponent then cites evidence of 10% of women are infertile. This is a minority, a second refutation other then the state wants the climate for procreation is the majority of heterosexual couples can procreate still and homosexuals never can. [2] My opponents logic here rests on the fallacy of infertile couples. These infertile couples still create the climate for procreation. The courts recognize these infertile couples exist but still say they fit state interests. [1] My opponent still has not provided other alternatives. The state is in the marriage business and it is logical to assume they have a reason to be involved in this. Love is not a state interest, as it was they would regulate any relationship with love and they do not [3], and my opponent has not introduced a counter interest. As my opponent has no other alternative, and if he provides a reason last round that's a conduct violation, it is safe to assume the state interests is procreative type unions making a climate for procreation. [1] As Homosexuals can not enter procreative type unions there is no reason to give them these benefits. My opponent then ends with a infertile/discrimination ending. As the infertile is a misinterpretation of the argument it should be discarded, they can make a climate for this procreation [1], and I will touch on his next arguments on discrimination now. Rc2: Discrimination My opponents refutation is based off of we cannot define is as a man and a woman for the purpose of the debate, which is false. In this debate the resolution is we SHOULD legalize SSM. This implies it is not already legal, and actually helps my procreative argument as there is no reason to allow it therefore we no longer have that should aura. But the argument that was brought forth is we cannot define it as a man and a woman. Well the resolution implies that heterosexuals get married homosexuals do not. This means by law, marriage is defined as a man and a woman. The concept of gay marriage does not exist. Even if marriage is a right there is no discrimination as the definition of marriage no longer applies to homosexuals. Before one can assume that banning SSM is discrimination one must first see what marriage is. [4] (basically my point) Now before we assume it is discrimination I will have to show you what marriage is. By law inmost states marriage is between a man and a woman under law. [5] Marriage is between a man and a woman for procreative TYPE purposes under law. Marriage under federal law only applies to men and women therefore no discrimination occurs. For it to break the equal protection clause they must be denied UNJUSTLY the right to marriage, as the courts say if there is no just reason to ban it it breaks the equal protection, as long as there is a legitament state interest in banning it then it does not break the equal protection clause. [6] Courts have ruled (federally) that there is a legitament interest not allowing SSM and no right is unjustly being taken away. And the gay "marriage" doesn't exist. [6] Gay "marriage" doesn't exist so no rights are being taken away, and the state has just reasons for banning SSM, therefore no equal protection clause is broken and no discrimination is occurring. Rc3: Fertility My opponents arguments lie on the reason they might be other reasons, and this is a credible argument. My opponent does forget the reasons, why are less people being married? After SSM was allowed marriage rates decline in heterosexual couples. [7] It is logical to believe more education and better economies lead to higher marriage rates, scratching out factors as these. [7] Other factors the pro SSM crowd will pull is false as all of their reasons led o stable or higher marriage rates, so these other factors should be crossed out. [7] Your reasons where just debunked. Allowing homosexual marriage actually changes social norms and may have an effect, which has been documented. [7] Before gay marriage was allowed fertility and marriage rates where rising, the SAME YEAR it was legalized it began a slow decline and has been constantly downwards ever since. [7] Also the months after legalization the unmarried births began to increase. [7] This data suggests SSM may not be all of the cause, but the immediate effects of this means it DOES have an effect on this. [7] Not fully possibly, but partially. [7] ~Conclusion~ My opponent has actually misinterpreted the procreative argument. Firstly to fit the job description he goverment wanted procreative type unions not procreative effect unions. [1] My opponent misinterprets here, therefore I extend the procreative argument. He has not provided any alternatives to procreation, therefore procreation is more likely then her arguments as he has not provided other reasons. As this maker procreation the states interest there is actually no reason for the state to legalize SSM, therefore they should not legalize SSM. If there is no reason too ten well we should not. Therefore I proved my point in the resolution. His arguments revolve around discrimination and it won't stop people from procreating. T adverse social effects of SSM mean is may have an impact on fertility and marriage rates, [7] although not 100% it accounts for some of the changes. [7] I have thoroughly and systematically refuted and debunked pro's arguments. As the state s no reason to legalize SSM, then they should not as if there is no reason to change the status quo then why do it? With this in closing, I urge a con vote. My lovely sources: [1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) [2] http://tech.mit.edu... [3] Michael Brown, "A Queer Thing Happened to America" [4] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] Maggie Gallagher, "Rites, Rights, and social institutions: Why And How Should The Law Support Marriage" [7] William C. Duncan, "HOW IS MARRIAGE DOING IN THE NETHERLANDS?"