Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

In my opponents opening arguments, he made several false declarations, including: 1. Marriage is not malleable 2. Marriage is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. 3. Society has no vested interest in promoting same-sex marriage. 4. The only reason that marriage should be seen as permanent and exclusive (monogamous) is because of the possibility for the production of children, which is only present when the man and woman engage in sex. There are more irrational statements, but for the sake of characters I shall face them after I take down the big four. 1.) Marriage is not malleable. This is inherently false because not only has society’s viewpoints of marriage changed, but because the legal standards for marriage have changed as well. Firstly, there’s the original, misogynistic perspective of marriage as a union between a dominant man and a submissive female. However, for many years it was the standard viewpoint for marriage. In some countries, it is still the viewpoint for marriage, and this outrages us, as a nation. This viewpoint is now largely frowned upon and considered sexist and prejudicial. Justice Ginsburg once said, “Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court's decision in 1982, when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?" Secondly, there’s the expansion of marriage standards with the legalization of interracial marriage. At one point, in the United States, it was considered just as unusual and just as futile for a man and woman of different races to be wed. Now, America is often describes as a melting pot for diversity, which includes a grand union of thousands upon thousands of interracial marriages. I, myself, come from an interracial marriage. Sources supporting my assertion that marriage is, indeed, malleable including the staff from TheWeek.com, who state, “Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras.” They go on to quote Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University, “Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands.” [1] 2.) Marriage is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. This is where my opponent leaves himself open for the usual rebuttal: Infertility. According to Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC.gov), "About 6% of married women 15-44 years of age in the United States are unable to get pregnant after one year of unprotected sex". [2] If marriage is constructed based on the ability to procreate, it should only be available to fertile couples. Having read a similar argument in the Obergefell v. Hodges transcripts, I can't resist quoting Justice Ginsburg"s question: "Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don't have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children." Furthermore, my opponent has failed to address the series of couples who do not wish to have children. Due to carrier aspirations and personal beliefs in their own paternal status, several married couples have conceded they shan’t have children. Should their marriages be revoked because they are not fulfilling my opponents idea of marriage. Using one source to support his case for marriages “true” definition, my opponent has proven that his definition is opinionative and NOT factual. This leaves me open to the assertion that my definition is also opinionative and not factual. This is true. As with my opponent, I can find several justifications supporting my definition, including an article in the Huffington Post which states, “The meaning of sexual reproduction among higher organisms therefore through mutual desire and love brings into being a greater range of meaning and significance than the singular, instinctual purpose of propagation, but rather the same mystery that unites Christ to his bride, the Church, which is LOVE.” [3] However, I will argue that my definition of marriage is far closer to the definition of marriage found in Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which is: - The relationship that exists between a husband and a wife - A similar relationship between people of the same sex - A ceremony in which TWO people are married to each other [4] Nowhere does it mention the necessity of children. 3.) Society has no vested interest in promoting same-sex marriage. Another false assertion. 1. Firstly, the denial of marriage equality is MORALLY wrong. As mentioned in my own opinion piece, The Homosexual Agenda, “It’s important to understand that anyone who condones any violations of someone’s basic human rights is condoning bigotry.” [5] Supporting my assertion is GayMarriage.ProCon.org, which openly states, “Denying some people the option to marry is discriminatory and creates a second class of citizens.” [6] Beyond articles, there’s the mere fact that 37 states have had their marriage bans struck down with the ruling that they are discriminatory. My opponent argues that homosexuals are not discriminated against only because he will never be a target of that discrimination. His argument, as per usual, is opinionative. However, in this case, his opinion is nowhere need popular. Consider the massive backlash when Indiana passed their religious freedom protection laws. Countless people, including celebrities, politicians, and the common American Citizen, viewed this as discrimination. So, when my opponent asserts that homosexuals are not discriminated against, he is actually fighting a losing battle. 2. Morality aside, Gay Marriage does benefit society in an economic sense. According to GayMarriage.ProCon.org, "Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances and decreases in costs for state benefit programs." Using additional sources, the site goes on to further state: “In July 2012 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that gay marriage had contributed $259 million to the city's economy since the practice became legal there in July 2011. In 2012, the Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) found that in the first five years after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004, same-sex wedding expenditures (such as venue rental, wedding cakes, etc.) added $111 million to the state's economy.” [6] 4.) The only reason that marriage should be seen as permanent and exclusive (monogamous) is because of the possibility for the production of children, which is only present when the man and woman engage in sex. The absence of logic in this assertion astounds me. Firstly, the assertion of permanence and exclusivity is refuted by the concepts of divorce and adultery. Secondly, my opponent has only mentioned one of the many ways modern couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, can procure a child. With adoption and artificial insemination, it is very possible for homosexual couples to have children and reap in the “permanency and exclusivity” of it. In addition, the infertility argument still stands against my opponent. Lastly, I’d like to quickly refute a few comments my opponent erroneously made. 1. “The marriage debate isn't really about equality at all.” FALSE. Until my opponent experiences discrimination in the form of his love for his partner being denied to be legally recognized under constitutional law, my opponent cannot say equality has nothing to do with it. 2. “There is no principled reason why marriage ought to be monogamous, and one can certainly have a monogamous relationship without the marriage license.” This is still happens when marriage is recognized as the sole focus of children. A man with multiple wives still has the recourses to procreate. 3. “There is no principled reason why plural marriages or incestuous marriages should not be allowed.” FALSE. Unlike gay marriage, incestuous and plural marriages are not supported or condoned by the majority of the nation’s citizens. Also, again, incestuous and plural marriages still have the recourses to procreate. 4. “Indeed, this is the only relationship in which having children actually *enhances*, rather than hindering, the relationship.” Where is the logic in this assertion? Not only does my opponent have no evidence that homosexual’s having children hinders their relationship, he cannot possibly believe that every heterosexual couple who have children enhance their marriage. With divorce and postpartum depression, there is no sufficient evidence that having children does not hinder a couple’s relationship. 5. “Sex unites the couple comprehensively because their two bodies become like one, united in the act of procreation…” While poetic, this assertion makes the mistake of assuming that sexual congress between married couples is always carried out with the intent of procreation. My earlier argument about couples who do not want children refutes this. While I have much more to say, characters forbid me to continue. Citations: [1] http://theweek.com... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://hermangomez.weebly.com... [6] http://gaymarriage.procon.org...