Same-sex marriage (SSM) Should Be Legal in the USA

org. First things first, I need to define marriage and give a justification for it. In this debate, I will attempt to argue that marriage is a social union or a legal contract between people that create kinship. The justification is that it is more inclusive and gives more rights. With that said, I wish to start by refuting my opponent's opening arguments. 1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). Just what are we talking about when you say, "heterosexual unions"? Furthermore, heterosexual union is not the indispensable means. The indispensable means is fertilization. This occurs when a male gamete (sperm) combines with a female gamete (egg). That is the indispensable means. [1]Again, just what are you talking about when you refer to heterosexual union? Heterosexual Union is heterosexual marriageThen I have refuted your argument because heterosexual marriage is NOT the indispensable mean. Heterosexual marriage is heterosexual sexThis is not the indispensable means because of the wonderful tool called "artificial insemination. " Gay people can have an artifical insemination without having a heterosexual union [2]. 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. Not indispensable as already explained. 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. Correct. Marriage is a special value to both gays and straights. Therefore, you have lost the debate. We don't want a special right or to take away the sanctity of marriage. All what we homosexuals want is EQUAL rights. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. Really, how so? Some laws allow get people to marry as well. So what? What does it mean to say that it rejects the special value of heterosexual unions? 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. If enough people deny it, surely that is a sign that it does not, in fact, have special social value? What could be a better arbiter of social value than the popular opinion of society? It would rather be like saying to me "no, your favourite flavour of ice-cream is not cookies and cream, it is vanilla, I know what you value more than you do". 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. Your conclusion is false. I have shown that your very first premises is false. Since this argument is rather self evident, I will wait for my Oponent to try and knock it down. Actually, for your conclusion to be correct, you need to defend every premises. As I have shown, your syllogism fails at every point! With this, I wish to parody my opponent's argument:1. Heterosexual Child-producing union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay non-child-producing marriage as comparable to heterosexual child-producing marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual child-producing unions.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, gay non-child-producing marriage - any marriage in which either party is, or both together are, unable or unwilling to reproduce biologically - is unjust. | Questions for my opponent |What does it mean to say that something “has special value” or “special social value”? Does that mean that most people value it? Does it mean something else? Why would it have some kind of special recognition? | Conclusion|My opponent has yet to back up and defend any of his premises and all his premises, as I have shown, fail. ==Rebuttals of his rebuttals==My opponent needs to show why we need to keep the current definition of marriage. I have shown why we should change it. Marriage is a universal rightThis is where my opponent and I agree upon. Marriage is, in fact, a universal right as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by the US Supreme Court. Your claim that marriage is a right and thus homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry eachother falls, because gays already have the right to marry. .. a member of the opposite sex. My opponent seems to think that the state can just force us to marry someone of the opposite sex or someone who we do not love. This is absurd. In addition, we gays want to marry who we love.1. Marriage is a universial right.1. These rights cannot be taken away.2. All people are elgible for these rights. 3. Therefore, polygamists should have these rights. This is an appeal to emotion. My opponent seems to think that I stated that polygamy was wrong. Where did I say that? In addition, this debate has NOTHING to do with polygamy. As for the Universial Declaration of Human Rights, such a document is not binding in the internal affairs of the United States. Furthermore, the reason that the document does not mention homosexual marriage is because marriage is, again, defined as between one man and one woman. When making a document about marriage they go by the common definition, and the historical precedent. Not your obscure definition (which you have yet to even define)Really? I would love to see your source that says that the UDoHR is not binding in the USA. What is the purpose of the UDoHR? Let's find out: "Over the years, the commitment has been translated into law, whether in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles, regional agreements and domestic law, through which human rights are expressed and guaranteed. Indeed, the UDHR has inspired more than 80 international human rights treaties and declarations, a great number of regional human rights conventions, domestic human rights bills, and constitutional provisions, which together constitute a comprehensive legally binding system for the promotion and protection of human rights. " [3] With this statement, we have found out that it is not only into treaties, customary international laws; but also with domestic laws that are guaranteed. | Conclusion |I have shown that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding in domestic laws that guarantee the freedom of every human. Fundamental Rights in the USAPlease read my opening statement, I have shown, in this round, why it should be changed. We use to not allow interracial marriage, yet the definition of marriage is constantly changed [4]Equal ProtectionI feel I have given a valid reason to change it. My opponent begs the question, "Why should we keep the current definition of marriage? "VOTE PRO! Sources:1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2.http://en.wikipedia.org...3.http://www.un.org...4. . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...;(Note: this is the supreme court case of Loving v. Virginia that legalized interracial marriage).