Legalization of Gay Marriage

Although we see that marriage does not always result in procreation, this does not change the fact that the government created marriage to create as practical of a system as possible to promote procreation and child-rearing. Because the government strives to make the end result of marriage procreation and child-rearing, it is against the government's interest to uphold marriages that are not procreative in type. ---The opponent brings up a common question: "Why are [infertile] couples allowed to marry?" Infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, because they are heterosexual in type. It would be completely impractical for the government to investigate into the procreative potential of all heterosexual parties in all marriages; it would be a huge fiscal burden, and it would also lead to a huge problem of obstruction of rights. That is why heterosexual couples are allowed to get married, rather than being obligated to have fertility tests or asked mandatory, intrusive personal questions (e.g., "When do you intend on having children?"). No investigation needs to be done for homosexual couples, since they are not gender-compatible by type and cannot procreate due to biological incompatibility. Therefore, on face value alone, it would be practical for the government to not allow homosexual marriage, since disallowing it is a pragmatic means to not fiscally investing in non-procreative unions. ---The opponent claims that the ideal situation for procreation and child-rearing is polygamous marriage. This is, of course, not even remotely close to the truth. Biologically speaking, the procreation is negatively impacted, because the male's genes are spread to multiple children, and preventing the genes of other males (who otherwise would have procreated with the women) to be distributed. This would lead to less genetic diversity and be a serious issue for the species, since species survive through diversity of traits; lowering this diversity is against the species' interest, the society's interest, and ultimately, the government's interest. And in regards to child-rearing, the child's father figure would have to divide his time among all of his children, so children would nearly be raised by single parents (i.e., their mothers.) This, of course, is far from the "ideal" of child-rearing. ---My point, since the start of the debate, is that the intended function of marriage is procreation AND child-rearing. Furthermore, I argue that these motives are practical and just. My opponent states that homosexual couples can rear children, and I do not contest this. Moreover, I will not delve into whether homosexual couples raise children less than or just as well as heterosexual couples. The issue we face is that homosexual couples cannot effectively procreate within their unions, and without procreation, there are no children to raise (and in the government's eyes, no future citizens to raise.)---My opponent states that procreation and child-rearing are not central to the issue of marriage, yet he has not offered any other valid reason that marriage should be legally recognized. He acts as though he is an expert about what does not constitute marriage, yet he never recognizes what marriage is actually founded on. The only reason that the government invests in marriage is for two necessary functions that benefit the society: procreation and child-rearing. What other aspects of marriage would the government have a vested interest in? It only makes sense that these vital purposes are what marriage stands for and why marriage bears the legal significance that it does.---The next idea my opponent proposes is that marriage is founded on the formation of a "unit." This does not answer the question of why the government chooses to fiscally and socially invest in marriage. Why does this unit justify the bestowal of various rights and financial benefits? The benefits go far beyond "sharing financial situations much easier," as my opponent proposes. But his answer surely does not justify the legal significance of marriage or the bearing it has on our society. ---His next proposition is that "it is not 'the government' who [sic] receives gain from from procreation and child rearing, but rather society as a whole." Of course, this is absurd. If, through recognition of (and fiscal investment in) marriage. the government were seeking to make individuals in a society happy, they would legalize all types of marriage. I would be able to marry my lawnmower, and the government would fiscally support my union with it. However, the types of individuals that are allowed to be engaged in marriage are restricted, because the government has a vested interest in specific types of unions over others.---Again, my opponent upholds his "unit" argument, but he does not explain why the government would provide legal significance to it, as opposed to, say, a friendship. It boils down to procreative and child-rearing capacity.---The opponent's hypothetical lacks a sense of practicality. Of course, in theory, an infertile heterosexual couple that gets a child through invitro fertilization is equally productive to a homosexual couple that gets a child through the same means. Practically, though, the government can forbid the homosexual couple to not get married due to their gender incompatibility, while determining that the heterosexual couple is infertile would require serious inquiry and fiscal cost for the government. Sacrificing money and mandating tests for every citizen being engaged in marriage are against the government's interest. This is why the government forbids couples who cannot reproduce due to incompatibility in gender type to get married. ---I have maintained that the government's interest in maintaining marriage as a legal institution is founded solely on procreation and child-rearing. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to refute this or provide a valid alternative to this reasoning. My opponent's refutations have been inconsistent and illogical. ---Homosexual partnership contradicts the reason that marriage is legally recognized by the government in the first place. Furthermore, the government is justified in upholding the institution solely due to procreation and child-rearing, since these functions are vital to a developing, thriving society. Homosexual couples do not meet the criteria for marriage that are justifiably upheld by the government. ---Clearly, same-sex marriage should not be legalized. Without doubt, the resolution has been negated.---Many thanks to my opponent; although I respectfully disagree with him, I appreciate his participation in the debate. Thank you to the readers, too.