Legalization of Gay Marriage

In R3, con has continued to perpetuate his argument that procreation is the purpose of marriage. Yet, he has still not provided any strong evidence to support this claim. Throughout his argument he makes unevidenced claims about history of marriage and its historical purpose. He also blindly labels ideas as clear cut, but provides no real logic to back up his position. The first claim he makes is that “the legal aspect of marriage was established for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing.” It should be noted that no source is presented to back up this assertion. Additionally, in today’s society we have discarded aspects of marriage that existed when it was first recognized. Marriage was originally recognized as a transfer of property, that property being women. This treatment dates back to Biblical times and likely existed before that. Not only were women treated as property, but polygamy was not uncommon. The way society recognizes marriage today is vastly different from the way marriage was recognized in ancient times. Thus, the purposes associated with marriage then do not have to correlate with the purposes then. This is exemplified by the fact that marriages were often focused on what was strategically best for a family’s monetary or political interests. Today, we no longer see marriage as a transfer of property or a strategic tool for self gain. So that fact that marriage may have been established with procreation in mind has no necessary bearing on our view of marriage today. Con’s argument could be simplified within the Toulmin model of argumentation:Claim: The purpose of marriage is procreation.Reason: Marriage was founded with procreation in mind.Warrant: An institution’s initial purpose should be the same as that institution’s modern purpose.While the claim and reason is specifically presented in Con’s argument, the warrant is not, however this seems to be the logical statement that would tie the previous two together. But because he has not tied his claim and reason together with such a warrant the claim can be disregarded within the context of this reason.The argument is refuted.Next, Con attacks my use of the term “familial unit” because he claims that it implies children, not merely two adults. Once again, no evidence is presented to support his argument. And more than that, his point is irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that two married adults are considered by the law to be immediate family members regardless of whether they have children. Additionally, I suppose that my opponent’s definition of a familial unit is not limited to biological children, i.e. step and adopted children count as part of a familial unit. Therefore, gay couples with adopted children or children that are biologically related to one parent would mean that homosexual couples could have “familial units” by his own definition.Con continues by asking what interest the government has in marriage if not procreation and acts as if this could be the only compelling interest the government could have. This is not the case. I will return to the previously cited hospital example: Let’s say that a spouse is in the hospital. The hospital is legally required to allow the family members of this person certain privileges. If there was no officially recognized way for spouses to be seen as family members, then they would be denied certain rights. Visitation rights, along with almost all of the benefits awarded to married couples have nothing to do with procreation.Con has not really presented any justification for his claim that the purpose of marriage is procreation other than an unwarranted claim and a false dichotomy. On my part, however, I have presented a strong reason which is that same-sex couples should be allowed the same privileges as straight couples, particularly as these privileges associated with marriage have almost nothing to do with procreation. Con has presented no sound argument supporting his purpose of marriage. I have shown that recognizing people as family members is an important interest for the government because of the benefits associated therein. Finally, I will point out that Con has not presented one negative consequence to legalizing gay marriage. I have shown that there are positive benefits to legalizing the practice. Therefore, I have fulfilled my BOP while my opponent has not.