Gay Marriage Ought to be Legalized

Thank you for your response. Marriage can benefit society but only when it is defined in a certain way. Only societies that produce children and raise them properly survive. Defining marriage between man and woman fits this criterion. To allow any kind of relationship that does not fit this criterion is not in the best interest of the society because confuses the government’s role in marriage to be strictly about the relationship of two people. My opponent gives me a rare case of how the current marital system can be abused. This does not represent why the government recognizes marriage though. It only points out a flaw in the system. The government is looking for the relationship heterosexual pursue, because those relationships naturally have a special link to children. Yes my opponent is correct that different societies have defined marriage in different ways. However, this is irrelevant to the debate because my job is to defend that marriage between man and woman best benefits the society. My opponent talks about how allowing same-sex marriage has no affect on our of wed-lock births because gay couples cannot produce children. Allowing same-sex marriage weakens the institution of marriage because it turns marriage purely about the emotional commitment between two adults, and turns marriage into something more about the adult’s desire, and less about the children’s needs and the needs of the society. The government has no interest in legalizing gay marriage because it simply harms the society. As you can see, marriage in both Norway and Scandinavia began to mean so little that out-of-wed-lock Birth rates soared and few couples were getting married. It is simply not in the best interest of the society to take a risk like this. The society has an interest in promoting family units that naturally bear children to be raised and loved by their mother and father. No other type of relationship can have this result. History has no relevance to this debate because the government’s role in marriage has drastically changed and so has the institution of marriage since then. You’re logic is “Oh the ancient Greeks and Romans did it so we should too.” If what those two empires did does not best benefit the society in modern times then we have no interest in doing what they did. Legality "Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, non-marital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition.So before 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." This was a direct response to what Ted Olson said and the logic in it is clear and easy to understand. If marriage in a society is specifically defined in a certain way (In this case for the relationship heterosexuals pursue) then when the Supreme Court speaks of marriage is is pre-defined as what the government has already defined in. In addition, marriage is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right then full scale legalization of marriage to anyone and everyone would be going on and it would be unconstitutional to not allow it. However, because the government has already defined marriage as between a man and a woman it is only logical to see that that is the marriage they are talking about. Interracial marriage was already constitutional because they fit the criteria of pursuing a heterosexual relationship. Interracial marriage cannot be compared to gay marriage because gay marriage directly affects the criteria of needing to have a special link to children in the relationship a couple pursues. Infertile Couples They are procreative in type because they have a heterosexual relationship. “The state still takes an interest in infertile/childless marriages because it wants to promote a view of marriage as it really is, not just as a means to an end.” The government has an interest in promoting a heterosexual relationship because of its special link to children, not by means of the end. Infertile couples promote this stance because it shows that the government is purely interested in the relationship heterosexuals pursue, and not necessarily the children themselves. So even though infertile couples cannot procreate, they still promote the government’s interests in marriage. In a way, infertile couples play a different role in marriage than heterosexual couples that can produce. However, the role they play benefits the government’s stance so they take interest in this type of relationship. By no means am I indirectly supporting gay marriage because a homosexual relationship does not promote the government’s stance towards marriage nor does the relationship they pursue have a special link to children. Studies My opponent completely dropped my entire argument on the government’s interest in the relationship heterosexuals pursue. You see, this argument is far more important than any study showing that homosexuals cannot raise children properly. This is because even if homosexuals can raise children properly that still doesn’t justify allowing them to marry because the government only has an interest in a relationship that has a direct link to children naturally through the relationship they pursue. Homosexuals do not have this special link to children because they cannot procreate with each other. Now we can go back and forth arguing of studies and whether or not they are wrong or biased all day, but my above argument completely refutes any reason to even have to argue this. Considering there is so much controversy of the matter and it would take thousands of characters to argue this I will drop it all together because there is simply no need to argue over it. Conclusion The government recognizes marriage for a reason. He must first look at the reason before we can go saying that this and that should be legalized. Gay marriage should not be legalized because it is simply not in the society’s best interest. This resolution is negated. “Hitchslapped!” Do you do this in all of your debates? o.o’ I await my opponent’s response.