Gay Marriage

Infertility Objection and Adoption With all due respect to my opponent, he misses the point of the contention. He states that I repeat my points. He again brings up his whimsical objection that a few heterosexual couples can not procreate, but again this does not change what procreation is by principle. We make laws based on principles and definitions. If you are going to constantly bring up a few objections that doesn't change what the law is BY PRINCIPLE. To act as if this is unnecessary is simply just accommodating his arbitrary whim. Heterosexual couples are procreative in type, homosexual couples are not. The infertility objection has been debunked time after time and readers, this is not a valid argument. Pro then ignores my argument against adoption. Adoption is irrelevant to procreation. I do not think my opponent knows what procreation really is. He fails to respond to my counter-evidence and we can not prove this valid. As far as civil unions go, they can have the same laws but that isn't what I am here to debate about. I am here debating about gay marriage, not civil unions. The conduct point should be awarded to me thus far for him straying off topic. Traditional Marriage =/= AntimiscegenationPro yet again completely ignores the point here. In countries where homosexuals don't even want same-sex marriage because of the ridicule that occurs when they become married in certain countries. There is no need for it to be legal when it will only hurt the couples. Pro does not justify how keeping marriage the same and antimiscegenation are the same thing. There are IMMENSE differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples but minuscule differences between those of different races. Yes, because they are procreative in type, all races get marriage. Pro never establishes how this is a fundamental right. It isn't a matter of equality, it is a matter of procreation. They can have the same rights as a normal couple but they do not have the right to destroy and redefine the purpose of marriage. HealthPro completely dismisses all the other countries other than the U. S. In areas where practicing homosexuality is almost impossible, the numbers are sure to go up. This would only hurt the homosexual community again. He brings up the same evidence that they were happier and healthier with SSM. Again, this confuses causation and correlation. The homosexual couples THEMSELVES reported that they were happier that way they can keep their marriage. Of course when you give a child what they want for Christmas they are going to be happier and try to behave better to keep what they have. The same is with homosexual couples. None of this has occurred in other countries that have SSM legal. Again he disregards the health risks that will come in other countries when SSM becomes legal. Alternative Again I do not need to endorse civil unions. Just because currently we don't give them all the benefits doesn't mean we can not. Using the excuse that "civil unions are bad" does not justify SSM. Dropped Arguments 1. The State's interest in marriage. This seems to go unanswered throughout the debate. What interest does the state have in recognizing SSM since it revolves around love? On the other hand in heterosexual marriage it is recognized for procreation to uphold our civilization and to produce more children. There is indeed a responsibility that comes with marriage to produce a child because that is what led to the rise of the institution in the first place. 2. Marriage is a social institution. Pro fails to justify how it is a fundamental right (no warrant or solidification). Conclusion Pro really has two main arguments: marriage is a right and the alternative is worse. In order to prove that marriage is a right there must be some warrant from the Constitution or another legal association and that must include homosexual couples as well AND he must prove the state's interest in marriage. If it is only love, then the state has no interest. The state's current interest is procreation, which Pro uses the infertility objection to "disprove". The argument is so old and has been debunked countless times. By principle, definition, in type and more heterosexual couples can procreate. We do not make laws and reason based off of minuscule objections. Pro's other argument "the alternative is worse" is irrelevant and does not justify why homosexuals would receive marriage. Suppose I want to apply to Harvard and they do not accept me. I try to argue by saying "SF State is worse and you guys will benefit me much more". Is this logic really valid to prove the validity of SSM? I beg to differ. Patrick Lee, Gerard Bradley, and Robert George sum up Pro's arguments nicely and disprove it's validity:"So, the state’s granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination. The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X. It is no more unjust discrimination to deny marriage licenses to couples of the same sex than to twelve-year olds, to those already married, or to polyamorous groups of three or more sexual partners: in each case, the license is denied simply because the individuals in question are unable to form with each other the kind of union that marriage is. " [1]In other words, marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive. " [2]Again, to win this debate he must prove:1. The definition and purpose of marriage2. How the state would be interested in marriageIf it is love like he discusses then there is no interest. Girgis, George, and Anderson explain it well: "Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them? " [3]I would like to thank my opponent for the great debate and urge the readers not to vote on their personal opinion, but who has presented the better arguments. I am not a bigot or a close-minded conservative, but I strongly believe in keeping the marriage traditional and upholding the social institution of procreation. Thanks and I urge a CON vote. Enjoy this funny picture (no pun intended). Sources:1. Patrick Lee, Gerard Bradley, and Robert P. George, "Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Connection" The Public Discourse,. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com......2. Maggie Gallagher, "What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law," Louisiana Law Review (2002)3. Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage" 270-271