Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

Defenses and Rebuttals D1: "I am arguing that the state...should not legalize it." R1: You offer a series of conclusions with absolutely no basis. The inclusion and equality of the homosexual community is actually a rather compelling reason, indeed. Why leave these people in civil unrest? People's sexuality are no individual person's business, for all intents and purposes, with the exception of scientific study. People do not necessarily get married to procreate; as there are exceptions to that rule that already exist, I have already shown in my previous arguments that it is fallacious to accept present exceptions, but not allow further exceptions in the interest of harmlessly benefiting a substantially large group of people. Moreover, homosexual couples can raise children, and rather functional children in fact, as has been shown repeatedly in related study: "Rosenfeld's study shows that children of gay and married couples had lower grade-repetition rates than their peers raised by opposite-sex unmarried couples and single parents. And all children living in some type of family environment did much better than those living in group housing. Those who were awaiting adoption or placement in a foster home were held back about 34 percent of the time." Therefore, if your main concern is preserving the lives of children, particularly unwanted children, in a practical fashion while at the same time, increasing the stability of future generations, then legalizing gay marriage can actually benefit that. D2: My opponent then lists...it should not be legalized. R2: That rebuttal was in response to your fallacious definition of marriage meant to specifically exclude homosexual marriage (when in fact, as I've shown, it actually adds support to why the government should federally approve homosexual marriage). I corrected your definitions with the actual definition of marriage, so that it is clear that marriage as a concept does not intrinsically exclude homosexuals. D3: My oppoent then...'marriages' shouldn't. R3: Here, my opponent applies a faulty assumption as proof to his premise, which is that marriage raises the likelihood for procreation. In fact, procreation is more likely between unwed couples that live together, according to the New York Times. D4: My last argument...homosexual marriages shouldnn't be legalized. R4: Indeed, you indicated yourself that your last argument was contingent on interpreting the legalization of gay marriage as a slippery slope, which is a fallacious interpretation. Moreover, women's suffrage did not directly result in the legalization of abortion; in fact, it was greatly influenced by the horrifying accounts of illegal abortions performed before the legislation's ratification that make it the lesser of two evils. Rebuttals and Defenses R1: My opponent...therefore it should not be legalized. D1: Marriage in medieval times was indeed sanctioned by the state, and financial benefits were in fact given to both heterosexual and homosexual married couples, as implied in my reference as follows: "And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures." "In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained." Moreover, I have shown in earlier arguments that homosexual marriage can in fact benefit society in at least two major ways. R2: My opponent doesn't really do anything here but state that homosexuality is natural. Even though I disagree with my opponent on that, it is a subject for another debate at another time. D2: Given we are discussing the viability of same-sex marriages, the nature of homosexuality is indeed relevant. If homosexuality were indeed socially counterproductive or harmful in other manifestations, then there would be evidence to support stripping a group of people of rights they should have. Conclusion My opponent's case is clearly fallacious, as it is based on logical fallacies and faulty assumptions. Even his rebuttal to my first argument was based on a faulty assumption. He neglected to approach my second argument at all. The rational vote is clearly Pro. References http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.now.org...