Same Sex Marriage

My opponent seemed miss the point of my rebutle. When I stated that children are better in a stable househould I was not saying that same sex couples cannot be stable. The study he showed included divorced and single parents in the SSM category. It included when one person had one homosexual encounter as being a gay parent. It is a falsehood to assume that simply because you are gay that you cannot be in a long term relationship and you cannot support a child. There are many same sex couples who have had a monogamous relationship for decades but are not married because the place they live does not allow it. If my opponent believes that children should always be kept out of unstable families, then he should probably argue that every child of a single parent should be taken away for their own benefit. Even in the case of death because it will be a bumpy road. Benefit to society My opponent wanted me to clarify why it is a GOOD idea for same sex couples to be able to marry. Returning to the parenting question, I ask is it more stable to be in a household that has two single parents (heterosexual) or to have two married parents (heterosexual). I believe my opponent will agree that marriage helps stabilize a couple. The same can be said for same sex couples. If they are allowed to be married, it supplies stability for them and any children they raise. When we look at states that have allowed same sex marriages, such as Massachusetts, we see a lower divorce rate among heterosexual couples. Does this mean that same sex marriage strengthens the relationships of others? Probably not but it does show unequivocally that it is not harmful. If we want to talk more about benefits, one could be that the states receive a higher revenue by allowing same sex couples to be married. This added revenue would come from added marriage licenses, higher income taxes and lower costs for some state benefit programs. Interestingly, the Comptroller of New York City calculated that its city would bring 142 million dollars in added income and 184 million for the state over 3 years[2]. Constitution My opponent, in an attempt to refute my argument on the constitutionally of SSM quoted the Harvard journal saying that denying marriage between two people of different races was just denying something that was real. The definition of a word or institution is only given validity by the people. In the eyes of many Americans, scholars and lawyers, at the time a black man marrying a white woman was not considered legal or true marriage. Procreation argument My opponent continues to make the argument that marriage is all about procreation so once again ask what happens when tow people are married but are unable for any reason to have children, are their marriages not valid? If your primary argument is the procreative one, then you must also be against women who lost their ability to have children being married? George Washington had no children, so was his marriage not valid? Harmful My opponent doesn't believe that denying two people from being able to marry, or having their relationship accepted by others has 0 negative effect. The suicide rate for homosexuals is on average 3 times greater then it is among heterosexuals. Some might argue that its because gays are ashamed at themselves, or depraved. The real reason is because society does not accept them for who they are and the proof is that their relationships are not legally sanctioned since they are not allowed to be married in most states [3]. Allowing SSM would give validity to the homosexual community and suicide rates would most likely drop closer to those of heterosexuals. [4] Not harmful to marriage I would very much like my opponent to state what heterosexual rules must be changed and say in the debate what would be different. Does my opponent believe that marriage has not changed in millennia? Conclusion The idea that allowing same sex couples to be married would destroy the stability of other marriages is pure nonsense. When you give a legal right to one group of people you do not take the right away from others. My opponent still hasn't stated if he thinks those who cannot physically bare children should be denied marriage since his principle argument is the procreative one. I have shown that denying SSM causes harm to the gay community because it deprives them of something heterosexuals take for granted, being able to fall in love, get married and have children. Finally I want all readers to ask themselves, is it your right to tell someone else that they are not allowed to get married because of who they are or how they were born? Vote Pro [1] http://www.usnews.com... [2] William C. Thompson, Jr., "Love Counts: The Economic Benefits of Marriage Equality for New York," www.comptroller.nyc.gov, June 2007 [3]http://www.fiercegoodbye.com... [4]James G. Pawelski, MS, et al., "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children," Pediatrics, July 2006