Gay Marriage

"Nowhere did I claim the institution of marriage was inherently natural, rather that once marriage was created it was natural for it (the norm) to promote procreation."_16kadams, round 3, paragraph 2. "That is, it is a relationship which nature calls for the union to have procreative type acts to encourage procreation, in principle, to help further society."_16kadams, round 2, paragraph 3.My opponent didn't claim it was inherently natural, but he did claim nature has something to do with it, which it does not, as it is a man made institution. He also says that "once marriage was created, it was natural for it to promote procreation". But as I have pointed out, marriage has not always been for procreation. To quote from my opponent's previous argument: "'The right to marriage is often debated amongst scholars. And many of them argue the only reason a right to marriage exists in current society is because “Acknowledging that the purpose of marriage is inherently normative—To foster a certain kind of sexual union between men and women characterized by caretaking, sharing of resources, procreation, and longterm commitment in order to encourage the protection of children and the reproduction of society.' So marriage itself is not a product of marriage, rather the man made institution natural spews marriages purpose. For example, a nuclear reactor is man-made but naturally spews radiation. And the natural purpose of a nuclear reactor is to create energy. In other words, my opponent has failed to understand my argument."First, these scholars argue that the only reason marriage still exists is to foster a sexual union between men and women. This is false. Here in America, marriage is simply a legal union, with some benefits. Nothing in the law requires children. That itself suggests that SSM should be allowed, on the basis that it discriminates against gays by not allowing them benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals, which are not relevant to procreation.Secondly, my opponent appears to say that legal marriage in the US is simply a denomination from the man made institution. That man made marriage spews natural marriage purposes. Again, false. Man made marriage has no origin, or definition. So basically, we got our idea of marriage from an ancient tradition, of which not much info is avalible. What does this have to do with SSM? It shows that there is no reason not to allow it. There is no evidence that it harms traditional families, or procreation, and furthermore is discriminatory.My opponent asks if the discrimination is unjust and if there is a right to marry in the first place. He also claims I have failed to back either point up. First off, in my last argument, I pointed out that the discrimination that occurs is preventing homosexual couples from marrying and enjoying the same benefits that married heterosexual couples can enjoy. Is it unjust? Yes, because as I have shown, there is no reason not to allow SSM. So why is it being banned? Because of an idea that it destroys the traditional family. Is there a right to marry? Yes, because there are benefits that heterosexuals can enjoy if married. Which, by the way, are too many to list here, but a few include [1] assistance if a spouse is serving in the military, tax free property transfer upon the death of a spouse, and right to inheritance of property. These are all federal, by the way. And the only thing couples have to do to become eligible, is get a legal marriage. None of the benefits require a couple to have children, some only come in to play if children are present, like custodial laws and such. But there is no requirement. So why should homosexuals be discriminated against? "'So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded.'"In other words, unless under a current legal situation the marriage law is not defined as X or Y, we cannot assume any rights are being taken away. In more words, it is unlikely it is unconstitutional unless my opponent can provide a compelling states interest that requests the state define marriage any other way."What this means is, the state can define marriage however it wants to, as long as it meets the criteria the deem necessary, and can say no to anyone else. At face value, this seems ok. But really, it isn't. To say that marriage is for procreation and can only be a heterosexual union, and then to go around and offer benefits that have nothing to do with procreation is wrong, and unconstitutional. SSM should be allowed because there are benefits of marriage that homosexuals will not be able to enjoy, like heterosexuals, simply because they cannot have children, while heterosexuals can enjoy them even without children. That's like giving men certain benefits because they can impregnate women, even though they don't have to, or give benefits to women because they can bear children, even though they don't have to. It's wrong, and unconstitutional.My opponent goes on to claim that marriage serves a public purpose, but this is false. It promotes procreation while offering benefits not able to be enjoyed by homosexuals, and not necessary for procreation.A few points I'd like to refute-"In other words, these laws do not represent the public function of marriage, and if anything may hamper its ability to be effective."They do not in any way hamper it's ability to be effective. "My opponent claims the reason rates fell was due to population drops and fertility rates before the ban, but he cites no evidence therefore it’s a bare assertion."I showed statistics that show birth rate drops and an aging population. This easily explains the drop of the marriage rate, and is much more logical than the legality of SSM. "I never cited the public purpose of marriage is family, and if I did it would be a lie. I have proven, however, the public purpose of marriage is procreation and the point stands. I shall the leave the point as is, as the "family structure" is irrelevant to the legal purpose of marriage." "Now this states interest serves many purpose, chiefly being responsible procreation creates good morals, family structures, and a growing and functioning society."_16kadams round 2.So actually, you did. And I refuted those claims in round 3. Conclusion- I have shown that not allowing SSM is discriminatory, because it prevents homosexuals from enjoying the benefits of marriage enjoyed my heterosexual couples. I have shown that marriage is not necessary for the process of procreation, but that it simply gives benefits to heterosexuals, simply because they can reproduce, and discriminates against gays. Vote Pro! References-[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...