Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

LONG TERM EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE "More partnerships, fewer marriages Since 2001, the number of registered partnerships has increased almost fivefold, while the number of marriages is significantly lower than around the turn of the century. In 2010, more than 73 thousand couples got married, as many as in 2009 versus approximately 82 thousand couples in 2001. " http://www.cbs.nl... This reveals that the number of couples choosing cohabitation (or register partnerships) increased almost five times more after the legalization of gay marriage. This is clear indication that gay marriage may have had something to do with it. This part of the study ,also, affirms the argument I made early about marriage being a matter of choice between consenting adults and the increase of cohabitation among young vulnerable generations : "Two third of the young people living together want to marry eventually but keep postponing marriage. The same was true in 2003. The share of unmarried parents is increasing. Among the people in their thirties it went from 8 to 22 percent in a decade. Over half of all first children are born outside marriage. " http://www.cbs.nl... If this was any other country or the increase was minimal or happened before gay marriage was legalized, then maybe it would not be as significant or other factors would be relevant to the discussion. However, Netherlands was not only the first country that legalized gay marriage and had a good head start compared to the others, but it was legalized in 2001. 1. "A. Deciding who you can marry based on what sex you are is discrimination" PRO merely asserts discrimination without providing an argument or explaination as to why and does not make any effort to address my refutation of this assertation either. All he does is make another assertion without an explanation. The fact is discrimination by definition is treating two similar indivduals differently. PRO does not explain how this is the case here and I explained already that its not the case here. Thus, I am assuming he is dropping this argument. 2."B. In order to make a case that same-sex marriage should be illegal, there must be a compelling reason for that discrimination." PRO has to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy here. YES, it has been determined that you have a fundamental right to marry by the supreme court that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister or marry polygamously. This is because marriage has a legal conventional definition to it. The right to marry someone of the same sex would have to be established by the Supreme Court first. For example, a bisexual who has this simultaneous feeling for both genders may argue that he has a fundamental right to marry. The answer would be YES, however , at this point in time, he does not have a right to marry two people in a threesome. The point I am trying to make is that the U.S. Supreme Court has always defined marriage to be between a man and a woman for the continuation of society and never did they say that the fundamental right to marry included same sex marriage or even plural marriage. In fact, in both cases, the Supreme Court rejected the existence of such definitions or rights in the past. Since marriage is a fundamental right, would I have the right to marry 80 people ,according to PRO's argument, .....YES and that's why his claim is fallacious. Now, let me provide the evidence that there is no fundamental right to gay marriage 5 years after the Loving decision, The U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson regarding the issue of Same sex marriage reinforces and clarifies this point in 1972 when they endorsed a Minnesota supreme court decision: http://www.cas.umt.edu...... "The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION." As you can see, Marriage wouldn't be "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity if it was completely delinked from procreation or had nothing to do with reproductive potential. There are plenty of state and federal courts that mention Baker as a U.S. SCOTUS ruling. This page lays it all out: http://en.wikipedia.org...... 3. "C1. Optimal child production is not a compelling reason for that discrimination because It's not actually a requirement for marriage" PRO is attacking a strawman argument here. I specifically said its about possibility or potentially NOT actuality of procreation and rearing of children of couples where the state requires procreation and rearing of children. This means setting up state intrusive fertility tests would be an example of requiring procreation and rearing of children. Also, PRO continues to assert marriage is not about children and procreation without providing an argument or explaination as to why and again does not make any effort to address my refutation of this assertation either. 4."C2. Con's potentiality argument defeats his case. Bonus feature: Gay people are good parents." PRO continues to ignore my argument I made in round 2. Again, The traditional view of marriage is based on the "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders. Since this is the case, this would exclude polygamists, gay men, and lesbians or single straight women who choose to procreate alone. The state does not have marriage licenses for singles where you can marry yourself. 5."C3. Con's separate-but-equal argumentation defeats his case" Well first off, I addressed the separate but equal option because PRO asked me to include this into my argument as a requirement for this debate and it was the only direct argument for gay marriage. Also,This is not a concession. Unlike infertile heterosexual couples, I explained already how same sex couples would change the purpose of marriage on a social and legal grounds or in principle and in practice. They would also change the means to achieve that purpose. Another refutation that PRO did not address. 6."D. Con's sources support Pro" well first off, my study was about affirming the validity of the responsible procreation theory with evidence. This study not only condemns pre-marital cohabitation but explains who is the most likely to do it which is people who do not have traditional views of marriage. PRO is advocating that we encourage a non-traditional view of marriage by including same sex marriage into the definition and essentially programmed vulnerable generations to eventually choose cohabitation as the first option for their relationships. So I don't get how this is off-point at all. When it comes to the other studies, PRO continues to base his argument on a logical fallacy through Proof by assertion and does not explain why studies invalidate my arguments. Lastly, I said that on page 959-964 my harvard law website talks about the potential effects of same sex marriage that would actually harm both gay and straight couples.