A Good Debate on Gay Marriage

Thanks once again to InVinoVeritas. I will use this round to rebut Con's case and to defend my own. OVERVIEW All three of my points in my overview are dropped. I will briefly summarize and impact these arguments. 1. Purpose is Nebulous 1A. Purpose cannot always be determined 1B. Objects often have multiple purposes so it is a fruitless task to attempt to synthesize an object's/institution's purpose into one thing as Con attempts to do 2. Purpose =/= should. Simply because a gun's purpose is to murder does not mean that is how it should be used. 3. Purpose is not exclusive. Simply because a gun's purpose is to murder does not mean it cannot be used for other things (hunting, deterrence, self-defense, sport, etc. ) Impact: If you buy ANY SINGLE ONE of these points, you must also accept that Con's analysis is an enitrely invalid non-sequitur. Con is attempting to show that the purpose of marriage gives us insight into how it should be used--but that is a fallacious line of reasoning. Therefore, the impact is that these drops void Con's case. CON's CASE As before, I shall italicize Con's remarks. -- Purpose of Marriage -- "[Marriage] must have some kind of meaningful purpose. " I have contested what the exact purpose of marriage is. But, even if we believe Con's biologically-based argument, we can refer back to my overview and see that purpose is largely irrelevant to this debate. "Why does the state incentivize marriage, but not 'friendship' or just 'dating,' for example? " There are three plausible explanations for this: (1) tradition, (2) marriage is a human right, (3) marriage is important for social stability. One key thing to note here is that Con recognizes that gay marriage also promotes stability. -- Exclusivity of Marriage -- "I said that marriage is not a natural right. " Even so, then it is a natural right for niether straight nor gay couples. Since we cannot find this right in nature, we must look to the law. Under the legally-bind ICCPR, marriage is a legal right for all people. Therefore, it is a right, and the U. S. has a legal and ethical obligation to uphold it. "He may seek equality under my opponent's absurd, borderless idea of marriage. The state must be selective about who receives marriage benefits; otherwise, marital status will become meaningless and the benefits granted with it may as well be granted to everybody, regardless of marital status. " My opponent is employing a slippery slope fallacy here. [1] He says that marriage benefits will devolve to everyone, yet provides no logical reason WHY this will happen. He is assuming that X will lead to Y, but X might lead to Z instead. In other words, Con is supposing, without justification, that no middle ground might be found. Con is simply making a bold assertion here in an attempt to garner impacts he cannot otherwise access. In addendum, Con asserts that my idea of marriage is "bordless. " Yet, in the last round, I clearly provided the border of "consent. " I will justify this border further in this round--but it is simply wrong to say that my idea of marriage is without any limits. "But [the story re: the lesbian couple] has little to do with the matter at hand. Policies regarding death benefits and whatnot can be adjusted without involving changes in the definition of marriage. " I disagree. The story is important in this round inasmuch as it emphasizes what I pointed out in Point 1 of my case's Equality Contention. Civil Unions and other partnerships between gay people are not substitutes for marriage. Marriage conveys certain rights that Civil Unions just don't. Moreover, if you are willing to give that couple leeway regarding death benefits, would you give them leeway regarding adoption benefits, hospital visitation benefits, etc. At what point do you stop giving them benefits and say "the rest of the benefits are only for married couples? " -- Redrawing the Line -- "By mandating fertility tests for infertile couples, the state would counterbalancing any actual incentive that marriage carries by expecting couples to undergo long, expensive, and thorough examinations. " So what about a person who knows that they are infertile before they get married? Should they be obliged to reveal that information to the state? Simple declaring your known infertility does not seem like that much of an imposition. Why not do that? Why not also require all marriages that do not produce children to be officially dissolved--so that people are free ot form more fertile couplings? Con also spends much of his time addressing the infertility argument. In so doing, he DROPS the following: 1. Gay couples would be a boon to the adoption market. Literally thousands of kids are in need of loving families, and allowing gay marriages would increase the number of available families to adopt. 2. Marriage has other purposes besides procreation. As I said before, "marriage has become. .. an institution of love. " Not all couples married because they wanted to procreate; they married because it was a way to express the affection and love. "[Homosexuals] are always externally dependent for this process and therefore lack the foundational stability necessary to create a fundamentally cohesive unit--i. e. , a family. Homosexual couples raise children that cannot be entirely their own and they depend on systemic inefficiency. .. surrogate mothers who could have had their own partners, for example. " Being biologically related to both parents is not necessary for creating a stable family unit. For instance, a divorced lady who remarries might live in a household where children are related to only 1 adult. That doesn't mean that this couple cannot raise a healthy family. Look also at couples who adopt--in those case the child is related to neither parent. Yet, many adopted children grow up in a stable and loving environment. It is therefore incorrect to say that because gay people cannot produce children related to both parents that they cannot create a "fundamentall cohesive unit. " As for "systemic inefficiency," many surrogate mothers may not want children of their own or have decided to raise no more children. Moreover, if surrogacy is systematically inefficient, so too are in vitro and sperm/egg donations. By your own logic, we would have to deny straight couples access to these services because they are "inefficient. " You're saying that the purpose of marriage is to procreate safely. In a sense, you want to maximize the number of children who can be cared for by responsible parents. Therefore, if a surrogate can give a gay couple several children after having several children of her own, then we have maximized the number of children in good families. Thus, society has benefited. -- Slippery Slope -- "My opponent has established his own standard, but he has decided to justify it in any reasonable way, instead choosing to appeal to 'international law' (but at least he gets an extra source out of it! ). So, bsh1 ought to do us a huge favor and explain why your standard is reasonable. " I find it rather offensive that Con would claim I said this solely because I wanted a source. In fact, I had already used this source earlier, so I did not get an extra source out of it. I would be happy to explain my rationale here for Con: 1. International Law: this is, in fact, legally-binding. Con says it is unreasonable to use this source, but yet Con fails to explain WHY it is unreasonable. I think that legislation that carries legal weight here in the U. S. is pertenant to the resolution, insofar as we should not violate the law. 2. Marriage is, legally, a contract. [2] Non-consenting parties cannot enter freely into a contract, and so should no be able to marry. 3. Consent is important to make sure other rights--like the right against enslavement--are not violated. Insofar as someone is forced into a marriage, a slew of natural and legal rights have been breached. Consent acts as a check against this by ensuring all parties willingly enter the contract. "For someone who is such a champion of 'equality,' [bsh1] sure likes to exclude those who want to marry their horses and tables. " I have provided reasoning in support of my stance. Just like the State can descriminate against blind people by denying them driver's licenses, I can descriminate against goats by denying the marriage licenses. Equality is for equals--when their is a relevant distinction, it should be called to light. Unfortunately, procreation is not such a distinction, as I have argued. PRO's CASE -- Polling -- "Most countries in the world oppose the USA's expansive doctrine of freedom of speech. " My studies do not refer to "most countries;" they are U. S. -specific. Insofar as the government represents the will of the people, it should legalize gay marriage. Con says marriage is a "right," but legalizing gay marriage does not prevent heterosexuals from marrying. Therefore, no one loses rights, people only gain rights. Moreover, I've already discussed at lenght that the right to marry is not exclusive to heterosexuals. -- Libertarianism -- This is a cost-benefit calculus. No one loses rights, but people gain them. Why not permit gay marriage then? Con misses the point here. -- Equality -- Con says this has been "covered. " In fact, they've not been. 1. Civil Unions are a poor substitute for marriage. Con DROPS that this assertion is true--it is conceded. Con also DROPS my Supreme Court cases backing this up. Extend these points. 2. Con never refutes, thus DROPPING, the fact that the ICCPR grants all people a right to marry. -- History -- Con never contests that "marriage" was not, historically, solely the purview of heterosexual couples. It is DROPPED. Also, Con makes the following BIG concession: "same-sex households are very beneficial and pro-stability. " This point will become important in the final round impact analysis. SOURCES 1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thanks!