Gay Marriage

My opponent has presented six premises that his case hinges on. I will be dissecting these premises, then I will be defending my case. At the end of this round, we will know that con"s case"s logic is broken, that gay marriage bans are indeed unconstitutional, and that recognizing gay marriages yields a net societal gain. Con has presented six premises: P1: The state regulates marriage. P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is. P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society. P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing, which is only present in heterosexual unions. P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union. P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden. Before I attack his logic, I would like to present a question about your sixth premise. You say that same-sex marriage must be "forbidden". You mean that it should be forbidden from being recognized by the state, as opposed to not allowing gays to have marriage ceremonies at all, correct? Now, the central problem with Con"s case lies in his 4th premise. This premise is flawed in that it assumes marriage only has one societal purpose: procreation. In reality, marriage has four other societal advantages. Once I prove this, his logic obviously falls apart, as banning gay marriage gives society a net loss. First, data shows[1] that homosexual individuals not in a recognized union have an inferior psychological state to those that are. This logically contributes to higher rates of depression and suicide, as well as simply having society made up of less stable individuals. Thus, nonrecognition of gay marriage is detrimental to society. Second, according to the Williams Institute[2], states that recognize gay marriage get a significant boost to their economy. Now, Con made a very big point of the state needing to have an inherent interest in recognizing marital unions. To put it bluntly, unless Con wishes to claim that states don"t want money, gay marriage obviously fulfills this standard. Further, a boost to the economy is a societal benefit in and of itself. Therefore, nonrecognition of gay marriage yields a net loss to society. Third, Con conceded in his last statement that gays will have families regardless of if their marriages are legally recognized. Now, families are the smallest social unit in society and trends in the family inevitably affect trends in society as a whole - and vice-versa, of course. Allowing gays to marry will help better integrate them and their relationships into society. Ensuring that gay relationships are stable and receive support will benefit the stability of society overall. Now, logically, nonrecognition of gay marriage achieves the opposite: it further delegitimizes gay families, reduces their stability, and thus harms society. See a pattern here? Recognizing gay marriage yields society a net gain. Fourth, recognizing gay marriage actually helps children (and furthers the goal of effect procreation presented by Con). Con conceded that "Of course. Child adoption is and should be available to other unions. " Obviously, this means that gays will have children whether or not they can marry. Con argues that "Marriage, however, provides a view of how children ought to be raised and the ideal way of raising them. Other unions lack a connection to intrinsic procreation and are less efficient in the areas of raising children the best they can be raised." My argument is this: Children of married couples are shown to be overall better off than children of unmarried couples. Therefore, children of married couples will be better off than children of unmarried gay couples. I believe that causing tangible, objective, positive impact on children"s lives should be valued above "setting a good example". For the last time, recognizing gay marriage yields society a net gain. Now, I would like to show that nonrecognition of gay marriage is indeed unconstitutional, via legal precedent. There have been many[3] previous legal cases in which gay marriage bans were considered unconstitutional. Now, with all due respect to both parties: we"re a couple of guys that like politics on the internet, whereas there are multiple court rulings declaring same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. Therefore, even if everything in this (I don"t know what to call it) speech up to this point is blatantly false, gay marriage should still be recognized, as the constitution must be followed. What do we know about gay marriage? We know that recognizing it yields society a net gain. We know that banning gay marriages has been declared unconstitutional. For all these reasons, we can see that gay marriage should, objectively, be recognized. Sources: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... http://gaymarriage.procon.org...