Same Sex Marriage

My opponent mentions the economy. First of all, Con's example of photographers refusing to serve same-sex couples is unethical. In the capitalist and corporate economy of America, you are providing a service to obtain revenue. The SSM ban has not prevented ceremonial marriage between couples, removing the ban would simply make the bond accepted by law. If you are providing a service for economical purposes, restricting customers because of your morality is simply absurd. Capitalism functions on the idea of greed and desire. Also, there is no federal act regarding denying service based upon sexual orientation. These laws are only in roughly 20 states, and a few local governments in which their state has not passed said law [1]. My opponent also mentions this is "not fair." It's very fair, seeing as every organization under the act must obey it. I would like to address that, in my opponent's second argument, the statistic for single parents of both forms of marriage is left out. Dr. Amanda Gordon of the University of Canberra conducted a study on the success rate of homosexual civil unions, legalized in 2008, to heterosexual marriages conducted after 2008. Homosexual couples received roughly 1.1% divorce rate, with the heterosexual estimate about 33% [2]. This has been credited to the heterosexual pressure to find a spouse quickly. Homosexual couples are given more time to thoroughly and consciously decide upon the commitment. While it is also stated that the legalization of homosexual marriage would most likely mirror the heterosexual divorce rates, it proves the point that marriage requires hard work to succeed, often overlooked with heterosexual couples. The issue of interpreting the Constitution in this matter is counteracted by the fact that this ban is discrimination of sex. A man cannot marry another man simply because he has a Y chromosome. Calling this phenomenon "new" is just displaying ignorance. Homosexuality is displayed in over 200 recorded species, and in a study by Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk, from the University of California, it is observed that in populations that contain female-to-female pairings increase evolutionary fitness. By making use of an excess population of females, the nurturing environment for the offspring was significantly more beneficial. It is also noted that, in certain species, "divorce" (in this case finding a new mate/partner) was less likely in populations with same-sex pairings. The flexibility also strengthened the social bond of the organisms [3]. I would like to address Con's statement about churches being shut down for failure to conduct same-sex marriage. This is a complete fallacy. It is already an active law that prohibits the act of forcing a priest to conduct a marriage that he/she does not agree with [4]. This is demonstrated in the common occurrence of Jew and non-Jew couples. The purpose of marriage is not, in any way, to produce beneficial offspring for society. It is a legal institute to dignify two people as a union for taxes and property. Marriage exists so the spouse can make decisions if their partner is in terminal condition, joint taxes, and joint property ownership. This allows a safety net if the relationship falls. The prime example of this is the practice of prenuptial agreements, or prenups. This prenup is used often to ensure that you keep what you own if the marriage fails. Other common uses are to ensure that you do not acquire your spouse's debt and to set child property before the marriage is sanctified [5]. Works Cited [1]: https://www.legalzoom.com... [2]: http://www.canberratimes.com.au... [3]: http://www.yalescientific.org... [4]: http://www.slate.com... [5]: http://www.nolo.com...