Gay Marriage

Burden of proof Due to the fact most countries still ban gay marriage, and my opponent is pro, it is proper that he has the burden of proof. Therefore my only obligation is to refute his argument. What marriage is My opponents point on the surface looks convincing, but in reality is extremely unconvincing. In round one we agreed marriage was a legal institution, not a religious one. So in arguing this on a legal perspective, the religious argument fails to be convincing. Saying “this religion said so” would not be indicative of the law. In other words in a debate where we agreed marriage is a legal matter this point is irrelevant. So what really is marriage? Marriage is not a friendship as much as it is a comprehensive union linked to procreation. That is, it is a relationship which nature calls for the union to have procreative type acts to encourage procreation, in principle, to help further society. Marriages characteristics structure actually shows it is oriented towards procreative type acts. DOMA was passed under this exact argument, the congress notes, “at bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.”[1] As we can see, the states interest in marriage is what legally defines marriage. Not any religious aspects. Now this states interest serves many purpose, chiefly being responsible procreation creates good morals, family structures, and a growing and functioning society. A sexual relationship is part of, and inherently linked too, marital unions. The state gives out many very costly benefits to married couples, meaning there is some legal or societal interest they have in the institution. Unless my opponent can prove some other type of interest plays a role in what marriage is, he loses this point. To conclude, we see religious aspects have no effect on legal matters and based on the definition is a really weak argument. Why it should be allowed My opponent’s argument here is rebutting the argument he anticipated which I presented above, procreation. But refuting an argument is not a reason to allow something. For example, saying a gateway theory for marijuana is false does not mean marijuana should be legalized. So saying one argument is false is not a reason to legalize something. His main theme is people can reproduce without marriage. Though if you look at the actual procreation argument, I said I was for responsible procreation, not just procreation. Monogamy helps enforce/encourage this idea, as it is beneficial for society to do something this important right the first time. In ancient times, when procreation was not responsible, it would not be a states interest, as it does not fund a healthy society. Therefore this objection fails. The second objection is irrelevant, refuting a theory does not mean something should be allowed. Anyway, it is a fact that allowing homosexual marriage would hurt the traditional family structure (which by social science is the best type for the children, by the way) would be harmed. When SSM (same sex marriage) was legalized there was a decline in heterosexual marriage rates, and the rate of flash divorces rose tremendously [2]. Although this point was irrelevant, I thought a rebuttal was needed. My opponent brings up religion, which is irrelevant under the definition of marriage provided. Religion should have no effect on laws. In the constitution it says marriage should be left to the state, I am arguing the states ought to ban Same-Sex marriage. I would also like to note this is irrelevant unless you can prove SSM bans violate the constitution. Adoption? This is an SSM debate, not an adoption one. And if you think adoption should be banned off of nature, then SSM should too as marriage in nature is a heterosexual union. Conclusion: Most of my opponent’s case works on tearing down theories which fail to prove his point, or are irrelevant. He has not given one reason to legalize SSM. Vote CON. [1] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... [2] William C. Duncan, “The Tenth Anniversary Of Dutch Same-Sex Marriage: How is Marriage Doing in The Netherlands?” iMapp Research Breif (2011)