Gay Marriage I

When looking through my opponent's case, it isn't so much a case as much as it is an iteration as to what the burdens of my case are. I need to explain why marriage should be recognized in the first place with reasoning that allows for gay couples to be able to enter, and when going through his case, there are several things wrong with the reasoning therein.Reproduction: One of the things that puzzled me about my opponent's logic is where he transitions between humans having the lack of ability to reproduce at an individual level and him proposing that government should condone a unit that would compensate for this. My opponent states himself that two individuals can come in at any time and commence in the act that leads toward reproduction, but he states that this is not a solution with absolutely no reason why. This entire blank area makes the entire thesis of his case shaky at best because his premise is that marriage should compensate for this lack of ability to reproduce, but there's no warrant explaining why this needs to be compensated.Characteristics of Marriage/Gay Marriage/ Infertile Couples/People Who Don't have Sex: I put this all into one big category because it's the reasoning jumbled together in all of these main points from my opponent's case that really highlights the contradictions in my opponent's case. To reiterate, my opponent's main thesis is that marriage should compensate for the individual's lack of ability to reproduce independently, and when he outlines the characteristics of his idealized marriage and what a gay marriage is, it's come to my understanding that my opponent is trying to prove that there is no warrant for accepting gay marriage. My opponent talks about the objections that there are with infertile couples and states that his argument does not require children in a marriage, but this would mean that his entire thesis would be useless because it's dedicated toward upholding the biological function that reproduces children. If this is true, then my opponent's entire premise for being against gay marriage and upholding only heterosexual marriage is irrelevant. Not only this, but he stated himself that one of the objectives for marriage in his scenario is to raise children, and if infertile couples cannot reach this objective in his conception of marriage, they also should not be recognized under this scenario. My opponent then moves away from the argument he makes when he starts talking about people who don't have sex. He explains what a real marriage is, and beforehand states that this is what the government should accept, but then turns around and says that marriage policy is aimed at trying to recognize AS CLOSE TO real marriages as possible, meaning he's contradicted his own logic. In my opponent's logic of what constitutes a real marriage, gay marriage is not a real marriage and should not be accepted for this reason, but he states that people who have marriage not intended toward raising children (again, I emphasize, one of his key points about what constitutes a real marriage) does not constitute a real marriage, but they can still be recognized in the eyes of the government. This is a complete double-standard because it allows a leniancy toward such marriages but denies them to gay couples. In fact, my opponent even said himself that there are exceptions, but he in no way designates what these exceptions are and why they do not apply to gay couples.African Americans: For now, this argument doesn't go against his logic in any way, and it doesn't go against anything I have in my case, so for now, I'll leave it be. I'll move on to my case now.R1: When going back to my opponent's case, he himself clearly allows leniancy toward marriages that are only warranted by desire considering the contradictions in reasoning between his thesis and his justification for infertile couples and people who don't have sex, but he tries to knock down my arguments because I'm somehow trying to make an argument with the idea of a marriage based on desire. Furthermore, he states that homosexual couples are intrinsically worth less than heterosexual ones and possibly it is because they do not use their organs in the fashion that my opponent specified, but this would also mean that the infertile couples and couples practicing celibacy or safe sex would also be intrinsically worth less, but he allows leniancy for them despite the fact that their marriages also contradict his standards of what a real marriage is and what kind of marriage should be legalized. It's becoming more and more apparent that my opponent's entire case is just discriminating against homosexuals with a double-standard. My opponent talks about how the reasoning in my first contention would justify other second-class citizens. It actually MIGHT (except in the case of pedophiles, who actually harm children and intake in the immoral action of taking advantage of a child, meaning they are out of social contract). My opponent pretty much begs the question in this argument by not stating why this would be a bad thing.R2: I must've accidentally missed to put up my sources. My fault. I'll place those in the comment section before the end of this debate. My opponent also states that the Emory University study is biased but provides no reasoning as to why. If we look at history, we realize that governments beforehand have had to enforce certain moral views in order to maintain its legitimacy. From the American government's perspective, for example, the abolishment of slavery, which also had contrasting moral views. However, this is looking at a case from a practical level rather than a moral level. Social integretiy and welfare is among the responsibilities of government, and this includes the betterment of public health. At the point where my case proves that public health is benefitted, what government would be doing by allowing gay marriages is trying reach the objective of maintaining the social unit. From a moral level, both our cases inherently enforce a moral idea voluntarily or involuntarily. Denying gay marriage would also be forcing moral views about homosexual acts and legitimacy of gay relationships because this action would support the people against such relationships. At the point where both our cases could validate a moral viewpoint based on my opponent's logic and my opponent is trying to hit my case at a moral level, he would have to prove that the moral viewpoint he would be supporting with his own case is better than the moral viewpoint that I would be supporting.R3: Their money MIGHT be spent in other establishments or resources, but there's a big gray area as to how much of that money would be spent. The official measure of an economy is the GDP (or GDI, which is equal to the GDP) and it only measures the amount of goods bought in one year. Over a period of time, a gay couple might spend X amount of money, but the economy's GDP is only specific to one year. The fallacy that my opponent accuses me of only depends on the assumption that these couples have the incentive to spend within this given year. A legalization would provide that incentive to increase the spending within that given year.