Legalization of Gay Marriage

My Refutations What is marriage? What is the right to marry? Con first asserts that under the Constitution, Gays are not denied the right to marry under the one man one woman rule, but are denied the right to same sex marriage. However, my opponent merely states this without any evidence or source. He then explains how I described the benefits or marriage, but not what it was or what it was not. I believe at the beggining of the debate, I defined marriage as: a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.[1] Therefore, the right to marriage is what is given in the definition. Now, I will prove that denying marriage is unconstitutional and refute Con's point. Recently, Calfornia Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional for reasons such as a violation of fundamental rights.[2] It also did not possess legal standing to defend the resulting law in federal court.[3] Therefore, governing bodies of the United States have already ruled some bans on gay marraige unconstitutional because of the Equal Protection clause and the 14th Amendment.Cons objections to my argumentsCon states yet again that my third contention is a non sequitur in support of SSM, and that people can share rights obligatons without entering a marriage. True, but as I mentioned before in the second round, civil unions aren't the same as marriage. They don't provide the same benefits as marriage. On average, the benefits civil unions are usually less generous then marriage in regards to taxes, health insurance and social security benefits.[4] An Iowa Court rejected civil unions because they don't satisfy equal treatment. The Iowa Supreme Court quotes: "A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution."[5] Homosexuals should be able to share equal rights and obligations as heterosexuals through marriage.For my refutation of the brother and sister argument, Con asks: "Why does the incest couple sexual attraction disquailty them from the right to marry but the gay couples same sex sexual attraction does not disquality them from the right to marry?"As a response I say this: It's not just about sexuality, it's about the inbreeding impact. Children of these parents are prone to disorders and diseases due to inbreeding.[6] Mostly, it's for the safety of the children. I've shown that kids raised by gays can be healthy, but kids from incestual parents are not.Defining marriage as between a man & a womanFirst of all, Con needs to define what pro-creative in type means. He then states: "It is not necessary for two people to produce children to be recognised as pro-creative in type." This basically means that if gays don't produce children, it can still be a pro-creative relationship. Con then states: "This argument is given to justify the states interest in recognising a marriage IF and ony IF the marriage is procreative in type. A SSM does not satisfy this requirement."Yet again, Con needs to define what pro-creative in type means. He then states without any evidence or source, that SSM doesn't satisfy this requirement. However, I proved that homosexual males can adopt and lesbians can adopt or have artificial insemination. What exaxtly is your definition of procreate? Procreating is raising a new generation, and most Gays are looking to do this by adopting....[6]My Conception of MarriageI believe at the beggining of the debate, I defined marriage as: a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. The rights and obligations part was the part I was stressing. I didn't just say the marriage was just about rights and obligations. I also mentioned the legitmate defintion of marriage in Round 1, and I described the legal aspects of marriage in Round 3. Do you call this vague? I desribed the entitled rights of marriage in Round 3, and obligations would be love and respect. In my third contention, all I did was shorten the defintion of marraige. Con then states meaningless semantical questions such as: "Should the state recognize best friends forever as a marriage too ?" Friends are not spouses that would be willing to share rights and obligations and raise children.My Arguments:Gays raising kidsAccepted by Con.Marriage is a Constitutional RightCon has no evidence that it's not, while I do. According to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Justice Kennedy, " “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”[7] Banning Gay marriage violates a number of Amendments and the Constitution. Hence, this has resulted in the abolishment of California Proposition 8. Morgan Freeman's voice: Therefore, Marriage is Constitutional right upheld by the 14th and 5th Amendement. Not only is it granted by the Constitution, but is granted through the Universal Decleration of Human Rights.[8]Two people who love and respect one another should be able to share rights and obligations equal to heterosexualsBy rights, I mean "the right to favorable treatment in tax, inheritance, insurance status, immigration rights, adoption and custody, decisional and visitation rights in healthcare and burial". By obligations, I mean love and respect i.e. not cheating. I don't think this is vague as Con asserts. In conclusion, two consenting homosexual adults should be able to share rights and obligations through marriage. Hence, guaranteeing them rights equal to heterosexuals. If gays benefit society just as much as heterosexuals, they should be able to get married.Conclusion: 1. Pro's one and only contention is quite vague and ultimately fails since gays can procreate.2. Banning gay marriage has already been deemed unconstitutional by some Courts.3. Homosexual marriage benefits American society and International society through adoption.I thank Illegalcombatant for an excellent debate!Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]http://www.cato.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://divorcelawfacts.wordpress.com...;[4] http://www.australianmarriageequality.com... [5] Wolf, Arthur P.; Durham, William H. (2004). Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest Taboo: The State of Knowledge at the Turn of the Century. Stanford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-8047-5141-2. [6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...? [7]http://www.un.org...;[8]