Legalization of Gay Marriage

In R4 my opponent offered his fullest argument yet, and in this last round I must respond to it, making for a rather lengthy conclusion. In this final round I intend to offer rebuttals and integrated with summaries of the debate at this final stage. The main contention of this debate is what is the nature of marriage. I have contended that in today’s society, there is no definite link between procreation or child rearing and the legal benefits recognized by the governments associated with marriage. Con has argued, though without a logical basis, that marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples. In the beginning of his R3, Con argues that marriage is already highly regulated, and therefore it is not a big deal to not recognize gay marriage. There are several problems with his argument. The first is that while marriage is already highly regulated, it is not as regulated as it would need to be if one’s main concern was optimizing procreation. If the focus of marriage is procreation, then infertile couples should not be allowed to wed. Why are these couples allowed to marry? Because our society has decided that these couples are entitled to the same benefits as a couple that can procreate. This should also apply to homosexual couples. Second, Con’s statement “The union of two opposite-sex individuals creates the most pragmatically ideal situation for procreation and child-rearing,” is false. The most ideal situation for procreation is polygamous marriage composed of one male and multiple females. This situation would allow for one man to impregnate multiple women at once, thus leading to more offspring for society. Why don’t we do this? Two reasons. The first reason is that we have decided that marriage is not just about procreation, it is about an equal relationship between two people and a polygamous relationship creates a situation in which people would likely be valued unequally. The second reason is that it is probable that a polygamous marriage would not be the best situation in which a child could be raised. This transitions nicely into the next point: Child raising. While I do not deny that marriage is often associated with the raising of children, that, like procreation, is certainly not the main function of legally recognized marriage. Even if I had conceded that it was, this point would mean nothing. As I previously stated, a homosexual couple raising a child that is not biologically related to both parents is no different from a heterosexual couple with an adopted or step child, marriages that are recognized by law. Therefore, homosexual marriages ought to be as well. Two final points on this topic: Con has not provided any solid justification for his two standards through which marriage should be viewed. He has argued that procreation is a compelling interest for government, however fails to address why this interest is significant to the issue of marriage, specifically. Second, it should be noted that legalizing same sex marriage does not hinder heterosexual couples from procreating in any way, so this interest of society would not be hurt. Con concedes that the history of marriage should not be an issue in this debate, even though in R3 he made it a point to say that marriage “was established for the purpose of procreation and child rearing. ” Certainly then, this justification for his “purpose” must be discounted. Next, Con appeals to ignorance by stating that the only possible reason for marriage to exist could be procreation and child rearing. Untrue. The contemporary reason for marriage’s existence is to recognize two people who have agreed to live together for a long period of time as one “unit. ” When two people live as one “unit,” they gain legal recognition so that they can do things like share financial situations much easier than two people who are not viewed in this manner. As I have previously mentioned, the benefits associated with marriage have nothing to do with Con’s purposes of marriage. Con’s response to this is that the government must have an interest in order for this institution to exist. An interest that relates directly with the way in which the institution of marriage works today is that the government has an interest in making life better for its people. Marriage does this by allowing two people who have committed to each other to live together and share their lives receive certain benefits in order to make having a joint life easier. Additionally, it is not “the government” who receives gain from from procreation and child rearing, but rather society as a whole. I must disagree with almost everything said by my opponent in his next section. As I have already explained familial unit was merely the term I used to express a joint commitment of two people to live as family members though marriage. Con now claims that child rearing has no bearing if procreation is discounted, however earlier in his argument he made a big deal out of the fact that I had “misrepresented” his case by not including child rearing in my representation of his case. But now we find that it really doesn’t matter. But it does. An example of this is an orphan who is adopted by a gay couple and receives loving parents and this child grows up to be successful, vs. this child being in the system until he or she is 18 and this child is more likely to not be as successful. Child rearing most certainly does matter independent of procreation, but not from Con’s standpoint. Next, Con says that while it is not as simple for homosexual couples to have visitation rights, it is still possible. While that is true, there is no good reason why a homosexual couple ought to have to do extra work to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, especially on an issue that is completely independent of procreation or child bearing. It is unequal treatment. Con justifies this by saying that the government has no investment in the union of homosexuals, however, I would present him with an comparison using his own standards: Let’s say there is a homosexual couple that has adopted or had a child through in vitro fertilization and this couple has raised the child to be a solid, productive, member of society. Compare this with a heterosexual couple that is infertile and does not do one of the above things or a couple that decides not to have children. The government has no vested interest in the second marriage, however that couple is able to take advantage of this privilege. The government has a strong vested interest in the first couple because they are creating or raising a citizen for the future, however that couple is denied equality. Does this make sense? No. I have shown that procreation and child rearing are not the main function of marriage in legally recognized marriage, and therefore denying homosexual couples the same benefits is unconstitutional, as my opponent has conceded through his drop of my constitutional argument. Con has not sufficiently demonstrated that legally recognized marriage is based on procreation and child raising. He has also not presented a single negative consequence of the legalization of gay marriage. The resolution at hand is whether the reasons to make same-sex marriage legal in the United States outweigh the reasons not to do so with a shared BOP between the parties. I have fulfilled my BOP by showing the inconsistencies in the idea that marriage is based on procreation and child rearing, as well as demonstrating that marriage is an agreement by society that merits certain benefits. The Constitution mandates these benefits for all. Same-sex marriage should be legalized. I would like to thank my opponent for this lively debate, as well as the astute readers and voters of DDO. I rest my case.