Gay marriage should be legalized

Thank you for your compelling thoughts sketchy. Also, if you could do me a favor, and wait as long as possible to post your next round (I will be at school tomorrow) I would apprciate that very much to avoid the possibility of a forfeit. I will be defending my position in this debate.My official position: If the issue of gay marriage truly was one of equality, my position would be vastly different. I do not view it as such, however. There are questions that must be answered before we consider any position on this very complex issue. I will answer them to the best of my ability. I will also defend Jim Spiegels secular argument against gay marriage[1].Why should marriage be recognized?For such a seemingly simple concept, straight-foward concept, marriage certainly attracts an absurd amount of controversy. Why should the state recognize marriage at all? Truly, that the government gives legal benefits to certain couples is a strange concept to wrap ones mind around. Heterosexual couples deserve legal recognition because they bring unique benefits that are only intrinsic to heterosexual relationships. Research constistently shows[2][3] that the best way to raise a child is by a traditional mother and father. Societies that do not raise healthy children do not succeed. For this reason alone, same sex relationships ought not be recognized as equal because they are not of equal value. While I would much prefer a child to be raised with a gay couple than an orphanage, it is even more preferable for the child to be raised by a married mother and father. Since the research shows that a married mother and father are, on average, better for the child it is unjust to recognize same and opposite sex relationships as equal when they are not of equal value to society.Procreation is also a unique benefit. While it is true that some heterosexual couples cannot or will not procreate, the fact is that procreation (which is needed for any society to survive) is principally possible in heterosexual relationships. This ability is enourmously beneficial to society, and since as a rule heterosexual couples can procreate, the state is jsutified in legistlating in favor of said rule. Essentially, the reason that opposite sex relationships deserve unique protection and recognition is because the provide unique benefits. My Opponent must show the value of homosexual relationships to be equal of heterosexual ones in order to justify equal recognition. What about equality?Same sex marriage proponents (including my Opponent) often argue that since marriage is a right, we cannot exclude any individuals from it. Unfortunately, this argument falls because it misses the fundamental point that before any denial of rights can be claimed, it must be established what the right is to begin with. Traditionally, marriage is solely between a man and a woman. The burden of proof is solidly on my Opponent, because he is advocating a change in the status quo and historical precedent. What grounds then, does the government exclude homosexual relationships from marriage? Indeed a mere three, perhaps four decades ago, the idea of a same sex marriage would be considered absolutely absurd! Marriage is between a man and a woman, and always has been-why change a good thing? We must consider, like my first point mentions, why such relationships ought to be recognized at all. The state has every right to deny equal recognition to a relationship that is not equal. You certainly do not see incestuous marriage being a common issue-it's simply out of the question. It is widely known that said relationships are not of equal value to currently recognized marriages. Jim Spiegel's argument 1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. The only premise I see that is not self explanatory would be premise four. A rejection is constituted in the fact that homosexual relationships are on balance of lesser value to heterosexual ones. Imagine if the military awarded every soldier in the army a citation for bravery. Wouldn't that constitute a rejection of the bravery of those who actually earned it? Likewise, homosexual relationships do not, and cannot, have the same value as opposite sex ones. Just like a brave soldier is on balance of more value than a cowardly one, it is unjust to not recognize him as such.My Opponents argument about equality has already been refuted. His second contention does not address the issue. Who cares if it's not a choice?Sources:1. http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...2. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu...3. http://www.citizenlink.com...