Gay Marriage

I hope for a good debate. Jim Spiegel argument goes as follows: 1. Heterosexual union (marriage) s 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 marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. Defense of Spiegel and procreation: Heterosexual unions' actions generally involve procreation, in which lead to the existence of man kind itself. The procreation given to us by heterosexual unions lay the foundation of what we know today as society. Without heterosexuals, there is none. Hence heterosexuals are special in their contribution to society. A heterosexuals union hold the natural ability to procreate, something homosexuals cannot naturally do. Society can exist without homosexuals, even though they may be productive human beings they cannot procreate, but society would fail without heterosexuals procreating. Marriage is an institution, in my opinion, that creates an environment to promote procreation and therefore is a natural institution. Now I will dig a little in to secular stuff here. With this, we can see heterosexuals are indispensable, hence it is a government interest to treat them with some higher respect, and now have interests in regulating this practice. They have no interest in allowing homosexual unions, however, as society can exist without these unions. Hence this is the legal reason and function of marriage, quite simple, regardless if you get married for other reasons. Now the BOP unbeknown to homosexual advocates is they have the burden of proof, they must prove homosexual unions should be treated the same as heterosexual ones. It is logically impossible to prove that homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same, hence it is illogical to claim they should have the same "rights". [1] Now, this leads to a problem of pro gay, if I may call it that, supporters. As if they seriously claim this, they then have to prove that naturally homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, as this is impossible under the legal purpose of marriage. So homosexuals are saying we fit in with society and we deserve equal rights. That is their weak argument. This isn't a sound argument, it is a appeal to the majority or to try to gain major empathic waves of people to support them. This argument fails, as it fails to prove in society or in any legal situation that they are in fact equal, which is impossible to prove. Now, they are struggling to prove they can fulfill the reasons for marital status, as well as try to fill the shoes of heterosexual people. The simple thing is: Gays and heterosexuals differ, one is essential the other is not, hence gays arguments fail to prove anything nor fulfill the reason for marriage; procreation. My arguments show a few things. The argument presented shows the natural meaning of marriage, which gays cannot fulfill. The value of marriage in a social value, described in procreation as well. Motivations of the government, will explain in more detail soon, etc. Now I move onto the reasons why government should recognize SSM, or not, and then show the secular case against SSM. So now we must ask what marriage is, again, and what sexual practices have to do with natural marriage. The biological unity of a man and a woman usually mean they much of the time once married, meat to have procreative sex and view the idea of having children a cherry on top. So the point is marriage and procreation are intrinsically linked. [2] With that out of the way, we must ask why does the state regulate marriage and for what purpose should people get married? Liberals attempt to red herring on the idea of liberty, yet fail to define liberty in its terms, hence the BOP is here even, and there is no liberty being deprived as they fail to define their terms. So promoting liberty is not taken out of the equation, and if you look at all the options the most logical answer to the question is blatantly obvious: Procreation, and furthering society. Most states (~50%) prohibit first cousins from marriage, using liberal/pro-gay logic it should be legal for them to do so. But the reason they are not allowed to marry in those half of the states is because the kids they may bring are deformed, and or more likely to be deformed. As we know there are many upon many benefits to marriage, generally the reason gays want marriage. But the overlooked fact is also needing to be addressed: Why do gays deserve marriage? As stated, heterosexuals are blatantly essential to society as we know it, without them society is non existent. Gays however are in fact dispensable to society, hence heterosexuals are as we can say more important. For this we should think governments ought to cherish heterosexuals over homosexuals. So with this, I will provide a quote that sums up the majority of my argument[s]: "In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. " [3] Now a common argument to refute this is that it is irrelevant, let popular will control the states. This argument fails under the argument I am providing. Before you do X or Y, or redefine X to Z, we must have a reason, under the argument I have provided there is no societal or legal reason to allow SSM. Henceforth my opponent now must either refute this as false, or find a counter reason that supersedes this one. CONCLUSION: I think the case I provided is bullet proof, it seems as though there is no reason to allow it, as it has no overall interest to the state. The case is also hard to refute as the objections to it often fail. So to allow something that changes the status quo, one must either find a reason or declare the arguments provided are irrelevant. This, in my opinion, is nearly impossible. So to conclude the journey of this round, we must ask, why allow gay marriage if the state has no reason too, and is homosexuals and heterosexuals role in societies differ to such large degree? The answer is there is no reasons, hence I urge a PRO vote. Questions to pro: 1) states interest to regulate marriage, what are they? 2) do the states interests make it so there is a reason to legalize SSM? 3) what is marriage? Sources: [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... [3] http://tech.mit.edu...