Gay marriage should be legalized

Thanks again Sketchy. Judges before voting on this round, please read the comments section. My Opponent has gracefully agreed via PM that round three can be the last round in this debate, so please excuse my likely forfeit of round four. Now I will explain why a Con ballot is needed in this debate. =Defense of Spiegel’s argument= Premise one: My Opponent has argued that artificial insemination and surrogate mothers prove this premise false. However he fails to understand that these births are still the result of a heterosexual union, I.E. a union of sperm and egg. Heterosexual unions have a special value to society, and since opposite sex relationships are the only relationships in which this ability is intrinsic, this premise stands. Premise two: My Opponent again argues that it is not the indispensible way, however it is. Procreation cannot occur outside of a heterosexual union (sperm and egg). Procreation is the first pre-condition for the continuation of a society, and since opposite couples are the only relationship in which this ability is principally possible, they are of more value that other relationship kinds. The definition of special social value lies in the phrase itself, anything that has value to society and is special (IE unique). Heterosexual couples bring unique benefits, homosexual ones do not. Premise three: Pro actually makes a very valid objection here. Unfortunately, his driving analogy falls for a few reasons. 1. His ability to drive well is already rewarded, IE the benefit of a drivers license. TURN: If one type of relationship does not have the same intrinsic value as another type, it is wrong to recognize them as such. Likewise, a bad driver is intrinsically of less value on the road as an average driver, and should not be awarded a drivers license, just like gay couples should not be awarded marriage licenses. 2. His definition of special as better than the norm does not fit the context of the argument. A definition of special that would better fir the context would be unique. Heterosexual unions provide unique benefits to society, homosexual ones do not. Premise four: My Opponent attempts to link the civil rights movement with gay marriage. Sadly, he has provided no warrant for this claim. Blacks are equal to whites because race is irrelevant to a person’s functionality society, not to mention that blacks were denied many rights, where as homosexuals are only denied the “right” to marry (and I have already shown this debate to not be about equality). The benefits the government provides to married couples stem from the unique benefits they provide (like being the best way to raise a child), which are not provided by homosexual couples and thus the state is justified in denying equal benefits to relationships which are principally unequal. Again, a rejection is constituted because it is recognizing two types of relationships as being of equal value, when I have shown that they are not. Premise five: Pro misunderstands this premise. It is morally wrong to deny the value of that which has value. Why the recognition? Pro makes a weak objection to this argument, saying “It doesn’t matter how many unique benefits someone brings to society, they shouldn’t get special treatment from it.” Umm what? They very well should and do get special treatment based on their merit-that’s how society works. A more valuable employee gets paid more than a less valuable one. His president analogy can be turned to my side, because the president’s life is extremely important and thus justifies the special protection provided to him. Besides, this objection addresses individuals, not type. Heterosexual relationships are more valuable on balance than homosexual once, so justice demands that they are not recognized as equal. He also cites the relatively low number of homosexual men in society, but this has absolutely no bearing on the argument at hand. Who cares? He states “a small population like this won’t destroy society.” I agree, homosexuals will not destroy society. This is, however, non topical. The best way to raise a child is a married mother and father, a fact Pro has not disputed. Pro argues that divorce is more harmful on children than homosexual parenting. Ok? This supports my side. A divorced relationship is, on balance, of lesser value than a married relationship which explains why marriage benefits are not conferred to divorced relationships. As to whether a single parent is worse for a child than two homosexual ones, who cares? The fact of the matter is that neither of them are raise children as effectively as heterosexual marriages so they ought not be recognized as such. “The government doesn’t care about how many children you have, and allowing gays to marry won’t affect procreation at all.” Actually, since procreation is a precondition to society the government has a vested interest in children. Look to history for an example, when birth rates fall below the replacement rate (as has happened in the U.S. in recent years) government policy begins to encourage procreation. Nowhere have I argued that allowing gays to get married will lessen procreation, instead my argument was that they do not provide the procreative benefits and should not be given equal benefits. Equality? Pro tries, and fails, to link the rejection of same sex marriage to racial discrimination. Fortunately, the denial of same sex marriage is not based on an arbitrary thing like skin color, it’s based on what relationships are of maximum value and which are not. So his baseless claim falls. “So no matter what, the government can’t make incestuous marriage legal, due to the word’s definition” TURN: Marriage is defined as “The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife”. By the long term definition of the word, homosexuals can’t marry. Pros final attempt at rebuttal is that we do not need a bigger population. This however, fails to address the argument that procreation is still a needed precondition for society, so procreative type relationships are needed and must be granted the benefits they deserve. Pro argues that homosexuality not being a choice voids my solider analogy because bravery/cowardice is a choice. First of all, people tend to be either brave or cowardly, often it is not something that can be chosen. Regardless, if we change it to a strong soldier compared to a weak one, or a large solider to a small one, you can see how the analogy stands. In conclusion: I have shown heterosexual unions to have a special value that cannot be duplicated by homosexual unions. My opponent failed to refute this. My Opponents second contention does not pertain to the debate, and his arguments on equality have already been answered-it is not a matter of equality. I respectfully urge you to vote Con. END OF DEBATE