Same-sex marriage should be federally legal in the USA.

I realize that I should have set ground rules in the beginning, for Con formulated a new argument, rendering my own useless. Con has the advantage being he has two opportunities to refute my arguments while I only have one to do the same to his. My opponent attempted to belittle my argument by deeming it irrelevant to his argument. However, my argument came first, thus Pro had no preconceived notions of what the Con's response would entail. Said irrelevancy is itself irrelevant. Additionally, Con's explanations of marriage and love and how advocates of same-sex marriage often view this matter is an assumption and irrelevant to the argument Pro presented. The same applies to Con's interracial analogy argument, which is irrelevant to Pro's argument. Pro did not make reference to the said analogy. Pro agrees that the analogy is irrelevant. In this second and final round, Pro will make rebuttals to her opponent's statements. Con's opening statement stated that "the state has a vested interest in protecting this relationship because it is essential to both the production of virtuous citizens and the continuation of society. " Same-sex marriage does not endanger "this relationship" (heterosexual marriage), so said protection is not needed. Same-sex marriage does not interfere with heterosexual marriages, just as the marriage of one couple doesn't affect the marriage of another. Same-sex marriage produces "virtuous citizens" just as heterosexual marriage does, and has been proven to perform better than heterosexual marriages. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004 and had the lowest national divorce rate in 2008, declined 21% from 2003 to 2008. Alaska prohibited same-sex marriage in 1998, and saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. Same-sex marriage also can guarantee the continuation of society, explained within the remainder of this argument. Pro encourages the audience to weigh the notion that marriage is a legal institution in the eyes of government, as explained in Pro's first round. Con explains that the 1000+ rights correspondents of marriage benefit from is provided by the state "for the maintenance of a healthy society," for Con explains that "heterosexual marriage provides a framework under which future citizens can be raised and produced due to the fact that heterosexual union is possible under this type of relationship. " Con concludes that marriage is a vessel through which citizens are cared for, an essential part of sustainability. Con fails to recognize that whilst this is true, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike can adopt to care for citizens. Same-sex marriage will give homosexuals the legal rights that make adoption and said care more easily feasible, thus improving society's efficiency and increasing sustainability. Con uses Jim Spiegel's six-step argument to form the foundation of his contention. The first clause outlines what heterosexual union is—the joining of sperm and egg. The fourth clause states that "civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. " However, Con fails to realize a hole in the argument. To understand this hole, the audience must first take into account what Con is sustaining in his argument: marriage is a vessel through which heterosexual union occurs, producing offspring. However, marriage is not essential to produce offspring; only heterosexual union is (with the present limitations of technology). Arguing that same-sex marriage rejects the "special value" of heterosexual marriage (which is created by heterosexual union, according to Con) is invalid because marriage is not defined by heterosexual union. (In fact, Con already concluded that marriage is a vessel through which citizens are cared for. It is not a vessel of producing offspring. ) Pro explained that adoption is an option available to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Thus, same-sex marriage does not "constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. " Additionally this is so because the 1000+ rights bestowed upon heterosexual marriage can be transferred to same-sex marriage in which adoption is an available option, which actually honors and benefits heterosexual union through caring for and nurturing offspring. Con argues that "since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex. " First, Pro would like to point out that the debate is on a basis of the powers of the federal government, not state government. Con argues that because "marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with," then the exclusion of sterile couples from marriage is irrelevant. Pro points out that this argument of Con is not in accordance with Con's previous argument that marriage is a vessel through which citizens are cared for by 1000+ rights granted by government. This is not affected by the reproductive ability of the married correspondents. Thus, those that are sterile and homosexuals alike can fulfill the definition of marriage. This sustained fulfillment is kept consistent through, again, adoption, which is available to both heterosexuals and homosexuals and those who are sterile. Furthermore, Con offers no proof that marriage is based "on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with," which is ironic when Con previously concluded marriage is a vessel through which citizens are cared for. Whether the married correspondents can procreate or not is irrelevant. On a different note, the United States of America Constitution guarantees freedom, equality, and liberties to every citizen. Denying homosexuals the right to marriage, which is a liberty granted to heterosexuals, is unconstitutional and not in correspondence with the law, or legality. Jim Spiegel's argument that Con is defending is thus irrelevant, for the debate is centered in legality, not the supposed "special social value" that is instilled or detracted from either side by the opposition. Pro will now answer Con's challenge: "what are the state's interests which warrant extending legal recognition to same-sex couples? " Con then goes on to presume that "marriage is heterosexual by nature," though offers no evidence. Marriage has been heterosexual sexual not by nature, but by cultural 'definitions,' which really are paradigms. Anyhow, marriage cannot be argued to be of either sexuality by nature, because government is concerned with legality. The federal government's (not the state) interest in extending legal recognition to same-sex couples is that of which Con stated himself: caring for citizens through the 1000+ legal rights to married couples. In the eyes of government, a legal institution, marriage is purposed for the beneficiaries to receive aid to assist in the care of citizens, a statement of Con. Pro reminds the audience that government may only look at this issue legally, for it is the only thing possible within its powers. The debate is based on legality, as stated in the Pro's opening round. Thus, government may view marriage according to the Pro's view but not that of the Con, since the Pro's view focuses on the legal 1000+ rights given to married correspondents while the Con's view focuses on definitions and foundations of marriage and "special social value" which are not legally recognized and which Pro previously addressed and disproved. (Con actually flip-flopped his argument, but ultimately took the latter view. ) In conclusion, Pro urges the audience to see the contradictions and double standards as well as the hole in Spiegel's argument which Con defends, and the benefits of same-sex marriage, and to vote favoring the instigator (pro).