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

Because many of Con's responses to my arguments are redundant, I will designate his primary arguments against gay marriage in italics, and refer back to my refutations of these arguments as necessary, both later in this statement and in subsequent statements. I will continue to refer to my own arguments in boldface.1) Second-class citizensState's interest: Con argues that I did not explain where the definition of marriage as an institution of love came from, why the state would use marriage to promote love, how love-based marriage would benefit society, or how it would benefit heterosexual marriages. I am under no obligation to do any of these things. The goods of legalizing gay marriage and the harms of not legalizing it presented in my opening statement are sufficient to establish my case. To humor Con, however, here are a few of the state's interests in marriage:* Facilitating public order by creating cohesive family units.* Enabling liberty and free decision-making by spouses.* Creating stable households.* Legitimatizing children.* Limiting the public liability to care for the vulnerable.* Facilitating property ownership.[1]Procreation: Con favorably quotes Bertrand Russell's position that "it is of children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."If Con is correct, and legal marriage is not desirable unless it is has those traits, then it is logical that in order for a couple to legally marry, each member should have the following characteristics:* They do not have a shared X or Y chromosome.* They are fertile.* They are cisgender -- that is, they psychologically fit comfortably in their chromosomal gender role.* They have no stated intention to never procreate or raise a child.* They are not known to have a poor or nonexistent parenting aptitude.* They are of sufficient health that they can be expected to survive the first 18 years of any present or future children. The status quo in the Federal government and in 42 states -- which Con, in giving me the burden of proof, has agreed to defend -- is that marriage licences may not be given to couples who fail to meet the first criterion, but may be given to couples who fail to meet any of the others.To defend his basic argument, therefore, Con must clearly explain why legal marriage should exclude the first criterion but not any of the others. If he does not do this, then the Procreation objection to gay marriage fails.Slippery Slope: Con believes that legalizing gay marriage would begin us on a path leading to the legalization of incest and polygamy. This is a classic case of a slippery slope argument; the same type of argument that was used to predict legal bestiality after Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and legal infanticide after Roe v. Wade in 1973. After more than a generation, neither of these things came to pass.The arguments for polygamy and incestuous marriages, should anyone on DDO wish to make them, must be considered on their own merits. We are here considering the merits of gay marriage.In addition, legal scholar Eugene Volokh, who is sympathetic to the slippery slope argument, has nonetheless pointed out that, just as legalization of gay marriage can lead us down a certain path, so can willful non-legalization, which is what it would presently take to reverse the pro-equality trend. It can encourage attitudes that lead to beating, taunting, and other forms of abuse of homosexuals; the epidemic of gay teenage suicides is but one signpost along this path. It can also encourage attitudes that could enable the government to criminalize marriages that do not meet other criteria above, such as fertility.[2]In other words, the slippery slope rolls both ways.2) LibertyCivil unions: Con argues that civil unions are just as good as marriages for gay people. In the first place, however, many if not most of the 1,138 rights and benefits of marriage conferred by Federal law are not conferred to civil unions, only to marriages. In the second place, a recent study found that couples perceive marriage as having an additional meaning that mere registered partnerships lack, and that "the cultural and political trappings of statuses that are not marriage send a very clear message of difference and inferiority to gay and lesbian couples."[3]Aside from the Civil unions argument, Con argues that civil marriages, unlike religious marriages, are shaped by public policy. However, it is precisely that policy which is at issue in this debate.3) EqualityCon makes the Slippery slope and Civil unions arguments here, refuted above.Case law:Con also cites an 1885 case that refers to marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In the first case, this reference does not constitute a definition. In the second place, this case law is superseded by all case law that came after 1885 -- such as Loving v. Virginia, in 1967, which establishes marriage as a fundamental right, as opposed to a state-conferred privilege. And in any case, it is what the law should be with respect to gay marriage that is at issue here; thus, arguing against the resolution itself using past or present case law is circular.4) ChildrenCon makes the Civil unions argument here, addressed above.Con also cites a study that the children of gay couples are healthy for the most part. That is not the argument here; the argument is that legalizing gay marriage would make them more healthy, in the ways I have described in my opening statement.5) EconomyCon argues that any estimate about what impact legalizing gay marriage would have on the economy is "entirely unknown and pure speculation." No doubt the editors of Forbes and the Williams Institute would take exception to having their work characterized as "entirely unknown and pure speculation," and Con makes no effort to show why these sources are invalid.On the other hand, Con cites Wikipedia, that pillar of steadfastness and reliability -- presumably their work is exempt from the whole "entirely unknown and pure speculation" thing. In any case, a little digging shows that Con is referring to a 2004 CBO report which assumes that 0.6% of adults would enter into gay marriages, given the opportunity; they admit that this assumption carries "significant uncertainty." If we assume that the marriage rate of homosexuals is more in line with the marriage rate of heterosexuals, the $1 billion/year estimate increases proportionally. In any case, this report concedes that legalizing gay marriage is a net economic benefit for the economy no matter how you look at it, and that it will lead to decreased government spending in Medicare, Medicaid and SSI.[4]Con also makes the Civil unions argument here, refuted above.6) LegacyCon makes the Case law argument, refuted above. To this I should add that "My opponent is wrong, just Google it!" has never been, and hopefully never will be, an acceptable standard of debate on DDO.Con does not contest the Gallup poll that public opinion is tending strongly in favor of gay marriage, but he does ignore the fact that gay marriage is legal in eight states.Con claims that a major equal rights movement in American history has failed, the Mormon movement for the right to polygamy. This cannot be characterized as a major movement, however, since Mormonism has never constituted much more than one percent of the American population; and even in the 19th century, not all members of the Mormon church advocated for or practiced plural marriage. The movement for polygamy can be considered a fringe movement, something like NAMBLA.7) Golden RuleCon did not address, and therefore has tacitly conceded, this argument. [1] Perry v. Schwartzenegger, 2010.[2] Volokh, "Same-sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes," Hofstra Law Review, 2008.[3] Badgett, M.V. Lee, When Gay People Get Married (NYU, 2009), pp. 58-59.[4] Congressional Budget Office, The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages (2004).