Gay Marriage

Alright, enough is enough. At no point did my opponent even attempt to refute my arguments, my opponent has responded with “Nope, doesn’t count unless you provide evidence” for nearly every one of my arguments. All my arguments are arguments from logic, and what the government’s role in society should extend to. I have already clarified my position multiple times for my opponent and he still has yet to give a refutation to many of my arguments. I would also like to note that I have already responded to many arguments my opponent has made. He keeps on insisting that children are not a requirement in marriage, therefore gays should be allowed to marry each other. I have already responded to this multiple times. The government is not interested in the reproduction of children itself, rather they are interested in any relationship that has a direct link to the family unit (I have explained what it means to have a direct link to the family unit in earlier rounds). Since the government is only interested in a relationship that has a direct link to the family unit, even if gay couples could raise children properly, they still lack the direct link itself to the family unit. To reiterate, the government is only interested in relationships that have a direct link it the family unit, because they naturally have children out of sexual intercourse, which is the ultimate way of physically expressing your love for an individual. These relationships have a natural tendency to create a loving family with no outside means. Now, my opponent claims that the reason the government regulates marriage is because it allows two people to enjoy marital benefits with each other. Now this can’t be true because benefits are actually the “reward” for benefiting the society through the means of the relationship heterosexual couples pursue. This also undermines marriage, which is a comprehensive union with a special link to children(1). The government only wants to recognize this kind of relationship specifically, because it is the most important in terms of benefiting our society. Friendships are important relationships, but friends don’t get married to enjoy benefits with each other. No, marriage calls for a specific type of relationship, and that relationship is one that can only be pursued and fulfilled by heterosexual couples. Marriage is not to be treated as a “breeding bond” as my opponent represents my arguments for traditional marriage as. Rather, marriage is a special union dedicated to love, which when defined in a certain way has a natural link to the family unit to be raised by a mother and father who had children out of the most loving form of physical intimacy. Marriage, when defined in this way can greatly benefit society through incentivizing heterosexual couples to get married. After all, marriage is a dedication to true love (Whether they fulfill this dedication or not is irrelevant), and children produced through this dedication to love are going to be raised in a good, healthy environment. It is the government’s job to take action by means of making the society more efficient. Traditional marriage greatly benefits the efficiency of the society. Therefore it is the government’s job to promote traditional marriage. In the same, this doesn’t tread on the freedoms of anyone, because marriage in itself, is for the love between two people with a special link to children. That is marriage. If gay couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples, then they should pursue a civil union and be granted the same rights. All in all, only heterosexual relationships are geared towards the kind of relationship marriage calls for. I await your response. (1) John Corvino, "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage" in Gallagher and Corvino (eds), Debating Same-Sex Marriage (OUP: 2012)