Gay Marriage

I believe that due to misunderstanding on both sides of this debate, the previous two posts have been rather muddled. I will first be clarifying my stance and intentions regarding my so-called new arguments and my alleged stawman fallacy. After that, I will be providing multiple sources and logic to back up the four additional societal benefits of marriage. First is the issue of the Strawman fallacy. Based on this statement: "My opponent uses a straw man fallacy to contend that I am arguing for one societal purpose of the marital union, which is procreation. As clearly indicated in the first round by my fourth premise, the purpose of marriage "must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing, which is only present in heterosexual unions".I believe that the confusion has arisen from my wording in the first rebuttal. I was using the term "Procreation" to encompass both child-rearing and ideal child raising, as in my mind procreation has that connotation. This is entirely my fault, however this should have no bearing on the round, simply because my logic works regardless of whether or not his stance is that the purpose of marriage is solely procreation, or also ideal child raising. This brings me to my next point: that of the alleged new arguments. As I'm sure you know, in order to make a true logical statement, all logical premises used to draw this conclusion must be true. These four points were not new arguments in and of itself, but counterpoints intended to disprove his fourth premise. To ensure there is no further confusion, I wish to clarify why I stressed the societal benefits of gay marriage. I wholeheartedly agree with Con"s first through third premises, taking particular interest in premise three: "Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society."Con then jumps to the assumption that marriage has only two societal benefits, or at least only two that he mentions in this debate round: "To promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing" This is the heart of my refutation of Con"s case: with these four counterpoints, I endeavor to prove that there are additional societal benefits to homosexual marriage that the state has an interest in. Therefore, following Con"s own logic, gay marriage should fit at least part of the definition of marriage. Furthermore, this shall prove that allowing gay marriage is overall good for society. Now, I suspect that Con would refute this statement by repeating himself on this point: "Although societal advantages come as a result of marriage, they don't define what marriage really is." However, this demonstrates blatantly inconsistent logic on his part, and here"s why: Con uses the term "what marriage really is". This obviously implies that there is one correct definition of marriage, presumably his. Now, let"s examine for a moment the third premise he uses to justify his definition of marriage: "Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society." Assuming for a moment that homosexual marriages promote societal good, then working from this premise, it is in the state and society's best interest to allow homosexual marriages, and they obviously meet the definition of marriage.Now, I shall be defending my four counterpoints, then proving that nonrecognition of gay marriage is, in reality, unconstitutional.Psychological statesCon has two responses to this counterpoint: 1) Civil Unions, and 2) It"s not a strong point. To his first point, that of Civil Unions, I have two responses. First, Civil Unions do not address the psychological harm that comes with not being able to marry, specifically, and they are therefore unfit replacements to marriage. [1][2] Second, being offered a Civil Union over a recognized marriage "strongly contributes" to the phenomena of Minority Stress.[3] According to the APHA (I can provide many more sources if Con so wishes) Minority Stress has significant and recordable negative health impacts on it"s victims. Indeed, it is theorized that the overall worse health of gays is due to Minority Stress. In fact, it has been found to be probable that it contributes to the higher suicide rates of sexual minorities. This is not some trivial issue to be brushed off, and Con is vastly downplaying it"s impact. Civil unions are not just as good.To Con"s second counterpoint, which is essentially that his doesn"t matter that much, I have two responses. First, the voting analogy Con uses is entirely inapplicable. As established, marriage"s purpose is of societal benefit. Voting"s purpose is to protect the right of citizens to peaceably change their government. In voting, since it at least in theory impacts government, it is crucial to ensure that participants have some level of maturity, so that it can responsible fulfill it"s goal. The distinction between this and gay marriage is that marriage should benefit society and it"s individuals. Increased suicide rates, more deceases, and overall worse health certainly does not benefit society. Second, Con attempts to belittle this argument by referring to it has higher stress, and essentially trying to persuade you to push this under the rug. However, as demonstrated by my discussion of Minority Stress, this is, in reality, and extremely important issue.The EconomyCon had one, critically flawed, response to this counterpoint. He stated that "As Pro pointed out, homosexual couples can already wed in states where gay marriage is not allowed, so money is being pumped into the economy regardless." However, this completely ignores the empirical data I provided stating the opposite. All evidence[4][5][6][7][8][9] points to the indisputable fact that recognizing gay marriage has a gigantic positive impact on the economy. I would like to remind you: Con claims that the state should have a vested interest in marriage, and that marriage must have societal benefits. Gay marriage obviously does.StabilizationUnder this point, Con essentially stated that I need to provide evidence. This is what I seek to do. Multiple sources[10][11] show that gay marriage stabilizes society. Now, Con would likely lead you to believe that Civil Unions are "just as good" in this respect too. However, this is argument is flawed because it insinuates that Civil Unions should be used instead of marriage, and as I proved above, Civil Unions are, in reality, extremely harmful.Child AdoptionCon"s entire refutation of this point consisted of saying I don"t have evidence. Here"s your evidence.[12][13][14] I have provided three pieces of evidence that explicitly deal with homosexual unions under this point. Con has provided none. In fact, Con has not refuted this point, simply said I need to prove it. Well, it has been proved, once again, that same-sex marriage benefits society.As you can clearly see, nonrecognition of Gay Marriage is extremely harmful to society, whereas it"s recognition is beneficial to society as a whole. Now I"ll move on to the defense of my own case.ConstitutionalityUnder this point, Con stated that I am using inconsistent logic and have not sufficiently proven this point. My logic is that of the recent court rulings about same-sex marriage[15]. Instead of explaining in my own words, allow me to quote a few judge that ruled in a recent same-sex marriage case. "After careful consideration, and applying the"law as it must, this Court holds that Texas" prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the"United States Constitution"s guarantees of equal protection and due process. Texas" current"marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity"for no legitimate reason. Accordingly, the Court finds these laws are unconstitutional and hereby"grants a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing Texas" ban on same-sex"marriage,""United States District Judge Orlando L. Garcia said" Finally, I would like to draw attention to one crucial aspect of this debate: the Burden of Proof. I have provided a plethora of empirical data supporting my points, thus upholding the burden of proof, whereas Con has not. To conclude, we know three things: First, not recognizing gay marriage is detrimental to society. Second, recognizing gay marriage is beneficial to society (and thus fulfills my opponent"s third premise of what marriage is). Finally, we know that I have proven my points using both expert studies and sound logic, whereas my opponent has done neither. In light of these things, we are left with one conclusion: that recognizing gay marriage is the right thing for society.Sources:1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...2 http://www.apa.org...3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...4 http://www.nerdwallet.com...5 http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...6 http://thinkprogress.org...7 http://money.cnn.com...8 http://fpc.state.gov...9 http://www.marketwatch.com...10 http://www.thepeoplepro.com...11 http://www.brookings.edu...12 http://www.freedomtomarry.org...13 http://www.hrc.org...14 http://futureofchildren.org...15 http://www.washingtonpost.com...