Same-sex marriage should be recognized in the U.S.

The Golden Rule I don't accept PRO's premise.There are no laws that only say "Same sex unions can't get married" in the first place. If, instead of "disallowing gay marriage", PRO meant " legally recognizing marriage only between a man and a woman" , then he's commiting the fallacy of equivocation ("traditional marriage" does not equal "disallowing gay marriage") in the same way that "disallowing satanism" does not equal "christianity"). A) Purpose of Marriage and B) Procreation Let me clarify my argument that PRO straw-maned. Procreation and rearing of children is an already biologically driven act that happens in nature. Its what happens after procreation is where the state plays a role. The institution of marriage is used ,like an insurance policy, to regulate procreation/ rearing of children just in case a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice WITHOUT legal and social support. There are two approaches that are intertwined with each other in which the state attempts to maximize this state interests in children involving the structure and stability of families: The Responsible Procreation and Optimal partnership theory One way is through the responsible procreation theory which involves establishing family stablity within heterosexual relationships. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience during the child development process. The state uses the idea of Marriage to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children. There is empirical evidence that supports the this theory. Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. This means whether the cause of the good child outcomes from couples is based on the idea of traditional marriage that people believe in or the physical experience of marriage, it does not matter. Just go to this website for the studies p.2: http://eprints.qut.edu.au... Or http://www.smartmarriages.com....... In the optimal partnership theory involving family structure, The state uses marriage to promote the ideal partnership between two biological married parents. Family structure is about how and who the child is being raised with during the child development process. THE ACCUMULATIVE CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers. Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. As a result, heterosexuals, from vulnerable FUTURE generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general. Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process. However, it could end up discouraging them as well. If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by PRO, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible. The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parent consent laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of this on straight relationships in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws". Read p. 959-964 : http://www.law.harvard.edu... Thus, since same sex couples are not similarly situated, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to continue advancing the state's interest in encouraging responsible procreation and rearing of children to each generation while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. JUSTICE is applied EQUALLY in each case. C) Marriage is a Fundamental Right There are plenty of state and federal courts that mention Baker as a U.S. SCOTUS ruling as well. This page lays it all out: http://en.wikipedia.org... PRO also claims that the Baker does not contradict the relevant portion of Loving he argues. On the contrary, it directly addresses and refutes it: "The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis......This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION." D) Civil unions I beg to differ. We have separate but equal situations for men and women that permeate our country ranging from restrooms, the military, prisons, sport teams, and even separate but equal public schools. We have this even though women are a minority that historically have been discriminated against. Obviously, this is all because there is a fundamental difference between race and sex. This is why we no longer have bans on interracial marriage or have Jim Crow laws but still have and always accepted apartheid for the sexes and define marriage between a man and a woman. Therefore, there is no reason to think that gay unions will also be viewed or treated inferior in practice or in principle. Also, arguing that gays FEEL inferior has no merit unless PRO can show its compromising their health in which he did not do. Besides, my gay parent study shows the opposite. CONCLUSION 1. Economy Now, I said that it COULD (not would) increase the economy just like it could decrease it which PRO himself acknowledges. He needs to show a decrease is not probable as he claimed and an increase is probable. 2. Children Read all of Gary Gates as he confirms what I said earlier: http://www.urban.org... 3. Equality Well first off, DOMA is still on the appeals process so nothing's in effect yet. Second, this could have applied to civil unions. If not, we can always make sure they do in the future, which renders this argument moot. 4. Second-class citizens Since I refuted PRO's ONLY argument for gay marriage in "Civil unions" above, PRO's arguments 1-3 become meaningless anyways (even if you thought they were valid) 5. Liberty As shown above, Baker is indeed U.S. precedent that supersedes Loving.Thus, since Baker was UNANIMOUSLY decided by essentially the same court in Loving and ,in the process, refuted and rejected the same verbatim arguments PRO used in this debate, this argument and his Procreation objection become automatically invalidated without further dispute. 6. Legacy Gallup poll: I actually did contest this in Round 2. Unless there is confirmation from ballot boxes of these polls, its a moot point. PRO mentions how eight states have gay marriage, but they weren't legalized by popular vote. Also, PRO made no argument as to why the numerical value matters even if this was verified to be true (which he didn't do) and why the qualitative value doesn't matter.