Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the United States of America

Let's continue. The Interest of the State"My opponent has somehow wrapped itself around this idea that what is 'in the interest of the state' is what should be done. Even a cursory examination of the idea allows us to know, and know confidently, that this is a terrible metric for establishing good. For one thing, what is 'in the interest of the state' varies heavily depending on what the goal of the state is. According to the current political paradigm, the state is an organization that exists not to protect its own interests, but the interests of its citizens. In liberal democracies such as the United States, the state has a direct legal obligation to its people, and especially to protecting those who would otherwise be unable to protect themselves - minorities. At various points in history (including our own) the state has acted to preserve an unjust status quo as it did during the nadir of American race relations, or to roll society back to a previous state, as it did after the end of Reconstruction in the south. Was it in the interest of the state to do so? Obviously people made that argument at the time, but I think we'd have quite an issue with their claims today. Was the interest of the state the same thing as what should have been done? Clearly not, according to almost all ethical frameworks and the sentiments of modern Americans. "This rests on an elementary misunderstanding of how the state is structured. The purpose of the state – indeed, the very reason why it exists – is to further the common good, i. e. the good of its citizens. Thus, the interests of the state are the same as the interests of the people. My opponent's mistake is to think that the state interests are different from the people's interest, when in fact the exact opposite is true. So it is she, and not I, who misunderstands the American political order. The argument that traditional marriage is in the state's interest is just another way of stating that traditional marriage contributes toward the common good. So really this paragraph is just one big exercise in obfuscation. "To argue otherwise is to directly endorse fascism. "This couldn't be any more confused. It is my opponent's view that lays the groundwork for fascism, since she views the state's interest and the people's interest as distinct. Procreative Type Unions"In the first place, we can see that my opponent heavily neglects the status quo with this assessment of marriage. Many couples have children out of marriage. Many couples are married and do not have children. Many couples are married and have no possibility of procreating. Many couples get married, have children, and are then divorced. Some couples get married where one party already has children and the other does not. " This is easily dealt with. First, my opponent brings up a strawman. Nobody is claiming that marriage and procreation are the same thing. They are distinct, but inherently linked. Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children. Not every married couple will have children, but every married couple has an inherent link to the generation of children, even if they choose not to act on that link or ifthey cannot exercise it due to some defect. To put it more succinctly, all marriages are procreative-in-type, even if not in effect. The state is not merely interested in just making babies, but in making babies the right way (in a way that is linked to their mother and father). So the state's primarily interest is in procreative-type relationships the right way (in a way that is linked to their mother and father). So the state's primary interest is in procrative-type relationships. "Procreation is also not an inherent good: we face a number of problems associated with overpopulationwhile many children are left in orphanages or in foster homes. When children are adopted, not onlydoes society avoid the associated costs of raising an entirely new human being, but the state no longerhas to foot the bill for this child, and their capacity to contribute to the rest of society will be muchgreater when placed in a stable family environment. "This is confused on multiple levels. Suppose that overpopulation is a problem (It's not – debate me for more on this). First, this would only mean that too much procreation is not a good, not procreation itself. Second, this does not mean that procreation isn't an intrinsic good. An intrinsic goodis something that is good in itself. Simply because it may extrinsically lead to undesirable effectsdoesn't mean that procreation itself isn't a basic good. If it's not good, then what is it? Bad? Does thatmean nobody should never procreate? Obviously not. All this shows is that procreation should be done responsibly. Sources"It is the mark of an inexperienced debater to cite sources for the sake of citing sources. My opponenthas cited three sources -none of whichestablish factual claims about the world or about the topic. Instead, it cites the opinions of different people about the topic, andpartisan opinionsat that. "This doesn't even really deserve a response. Did my opponent even read my sources? Did she not notice the mountains of social scientific, legal, jurisprudential, and philosophical evidence that the authors appealed to? The papers of course reflect the opinions of their authors, but so what? Opinions can be right, especially if accompanied by facts and rational argumentation. This is just sophistry. ConclusionI have refuted all the points of my opponent's argument. State interest exists to further the common good and ban gay marriage and procreative type unions are good.