Gay Marriage

I would like to maintain the privilege to redefine and expand on the conjugal view of marriage in later rounds if necessary..Very often do we, as a civilization, assign definitions to intrinsically valuable conceptions in order to communicate our points. Two = 2 and 3 = Three. By operating within these sets of definitions (while we do not have any moral obligation to do so) we can work together for the better of mankind. Math would be non-existent if we did not operate within the definitions we provide to numbers and symbols. Society, for the greater good, requires us to operate within definitions, and not simply ignore the foundations of concepts to meet other non-foundational ends.The same applies to the SSM debate. Proponents largely ignore what marriage is, and instead argue from a position that assumes the government is fundamentally required to recognize marriages, regardless if the logic behind such recognition is sound. This is fallacious; society will not change 2 + 2 = 4 to 2 + 2 = 5 to satisfy any immediate ends. So before we can take the first step in deciding how the state should act in regards to SSM and marriage in general, we first should ask ourselves what a real marriage is, and why the state recognizes them in the first place.What marriage is While I'm sure this will be disputed, marriage is "the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together."[1] Operating under this definition, it can be seen that the government holds an interest in the continuation of society by means of natural procreation. For this reason the government would provide economic as well as social benefits to married couples, to exemplify the importance of such relationships and encourage their formation.Subsidize what you want more of, tax what you want less of.Homosexual relationships, by contrast, are incapable of procreation in principle. To equivocate the two would therefore be unjustified, as the explicit reason the state confers benefits to married couples would be lost if we called something which is, by definition, not a marriage a marriage.Slippery Slope Along side all the arguments from equality and financial prosperity, there are also the simplistic "Why not?" arguments for SSM. "Why do you care if gay people get married?" I hear them say. "It's not like it affects your marriage!" I would beg to differ, my little Johnny boy. Imagine if marriage was understood as everything and anything. If a farmer wanted legal benefits for marrying his sheep flock, let him. If a man and a woman who promised tennis monogamy wished to receive financial benefits for their decision, so be it. If such blatant disrespect for formal definitions were displayed, nearly everyone would be wondering why the government is subsidizing all these strange activities. Therefore, in order to make sense of marriage laws and marriages in general, my opponent has the burden of defining marriage in a way that would preferably exclude all relationships except that of sexual monogamy while still explaining the states interest in the union. (Although sexual polygamy is understandable, and the union doesn't necessarily have to be sexual)RefutationsR1: Equal Protection and Suspect Class My opponent quotes the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, and thereafter argues that we are denying a certain group equal protection and creating a suspect class of citizens. But as I have stated, these arguments largely depend on marriage being something that homosexual couples are included in by definition. This is not justified by my opponent. Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George further point out the flaw in this argument: [1]"[B]efore we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded."R2: Economics and Tax Revenue My opponents source 6 admits that "Other economists say those numbers—which estimate the spending and tax revenue that could be generated by gay weddings—represent an insignificant part of the local and state economies. They also warn the numbers may be slippery because it's hard to estimate how many gay couples would marry here if the ban were overturned." [2]Either way, homosexual couples are free to have ceremonies that demonstrate their desire to maintain monogamy forever thereafter. The government isn't sending in S.W.A.T. teams into gay "weddings" to break them apart. It simply does not follow that attributing a title (in this case, marriage) to certain entities (homosexual couples) would generate revenue. It is wholly ironic of my opponent to assert that homosexual couples are willing to participate in traditional ceremonies regarding marriage at all.This argument could also be applied to all other forms of association as well. If a man wants to have a ceremony to marry his horse, why not call that a marriage?R3: Children Even if I do accept that homosexuals are equally suited toweards parenthood as heterosexuals, (and out of laziness, I will) it is not implied that their relationship is suddenly a marriage. At best, this line of argumentation demonstrates the government should warrant similar financial aid to couples and/or single parents who raise children.Also, if we were to equivocate homosexual couples to heterosexual couples, the norm of children being raised by their biological parents would weaken, theoretically increasing the number of single parents and the divorce rate.Conclusion As members of complex civilization, we are all required to operate the validity of some things (i.e. math and language) and operate within the definitions provided. (i.e. numbers and symbols) If marriage is between a man and a woman by definition, we should operate as if that sentiment is true. This goes two fold for the government and laws. Therefore, the government should not allow homosexual couples to be known as what they are not; marriages._____1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 246, 2512. Tuna, Cari. "Gay-Marriage Ban Comes at What Cost?." The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 28 Jan 2010. Web.