Gay Marriage

== Rebuttals == 1) Is it unfair? To claim whether or not something is unfair or just, it is imperative to justify *what* is supposedly unjust. If marriage is inherently heterosexual, then the rights do not apply to homosexuals. Further, my opponent has yet to prove that marriage is a right anyway. 2) Religious arguments I am an atheist. 3) Gross Yep agreed this argument is pretty dumb. == Case == The government regulates marriage for a reason. It provides benefits for a reason. Understanding what these reasons are would help us determine who should get these benefits and under what circumstances they should receive them. If the government bars homosexual’s marriage based upon the criteria of what marriage is, then no rights are being denied to them. It is not unjust to prevent a group of people from obtaining privileges which they do not qualify for. All of the needed criteria for ‘suspect class’, and what rights homosexuals will have, will rely upon what the definition of marriage is. The reason government regulates marriage is to promote the public good. Marriage is a common good and has an intrinsic nature. Marriage has many private purposes: love, money, etc. But these private interests are of no use to the state. The government, in that case, would have no reason to continue keeping the institution of marriage as a public institution. Private institutions often do support the public good, but do not help in a coordinated manner as a public one does. So… What is this reason? What is marriage? What is marriage? A seemingly simple question. But not really. There are two leading definitions as to what marriage is. The revisionist view. The revisionist view argues that marriage is simply a union between two loving individuals. However, love is not a good reason to allow gay marriage. The state has no reason to support love. It is not a public good. Love is important in order to promote a healthy union between two people, but the government needn’t support love. The biggest issue with this definition, however, is that most loving relationships are not regulated. I am in a relationship, but I do not need governmental recognition in order to continue with what we are doing. Love is a motivator for marriage, but is not the reason the state regulates it. Love is an important part of marriage, but marriage is not about love in the state’s eyes. What is the purpose to regulate relationships only about love? As noted above, marriage has many private reasons, but those reasons do not motivate the government to regulate marriage. The state has no business regulating relationships only about love. Friendships, for example, could be regulated if the revisionist view is accepted. The argument that same-sex couples should receive marital rights is absurd if marriage is only about love. If anything, marriage shouldn’t even exist if marriage is only about love. The other view is known as the conjugal view of marriage. Marriage is a *comprehensive* union with a special link to children. It has many private reasons, but serves the public good. The state has a reason to regulate marriage beyond the relationship of the spouses: they regulate it because of children. Marriage exists in order to bring a man and woman together so that they can raise any children that their union produces. It is based on the truth that men and women are complementary. Reproduction depends on a man and a woman. Without one, no reproduction will occur. Further, children also need a mother and a father. Marriage is the best and simplest way in which the government can promote procreation and child rearing. Homosexuals can still enter relationships. If they love each other, they can cohabit or even enter a civil union. Regulating marriage does not harm homosexuals in any way. Regulating marriage merely reaffirms the essential truths behind marriage. Marriage, put simply, connects sex with love, men with women, and the fact that women need mothers and fathers. As Ryan T. Anderson argues, “Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need a mother and a father” [1]. The state regulates marriage because of its interest in children. Marriage is the optimal environment for raising its future citizens. Marriage best promotes monogamy and permanence. You do not have to be married to have children, but children do best when raised in a stable marital relationship where both the mother and father raise the child. The government regulates marriage in order to *promote* marriage and better the lives of its citizens. The revisionist view, which is what gay marriage proponent’s support, would weaken the family unit. It essentially states that marriage is, in no way, related to children. The feelings of the adults are more important than that of the child. By allowing gay marriage, marriage becomes removed from child-rearing and procreation. Marriage would be weakened. A weakened marriage would lead to many social ills: children would be raised poorly, poverty rates would increase, and ‘high risk’ cohorts would increase (i. e. more out-of-wedlock births, and these groups are more prone to crime). These effects will occur over time. And will occur slowly. But the fact is, marriage is a public good, and allowing gay marriage would reduce the amount of good marriage would be able to give to society. Back to you, pro. 1. . http://www.heritage.org...;