Gay Marriage

Since the Resolution is a little unclear, I will make it more specific: Resolved: Same-sex Marriage should be recognized by the state. Semantics:Love: a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Rebuttals:Pro Copied and Pasted his entire argument without providing the source, also known as plagiarism. The purpose of this website is to use your own writing, not let other websites do it for you. Hence, I am not going to rebut Pro's argument as the writing is not original. Here is the link he used:. http://essaycamp.com... Arguments: What is Marriage? There are two views of what marriage should be. The first of which is called the Revisionist view, which solely includes love and romantic feelings. The sole difference between this union and others is that the state recognizes it. We soon run into a problem with this view of marriage: There are multiple relationships that exist because of love that are not recognized by the state. You can have love for a friend without the state recognizing it. While marriage cannot last without love, love itself is not enough to have a union recognized by the state. We can see that this view has no legitimate foundation for its argument. There is no purpose for the state to recognize it. [1]The second view is called the Conjugal view. This view holds that two people unite for a common purpose which is procreation. The goal of this union is to share a life that is oriented towards child-bearing. Now only one union can accomplish this goal of procreation, the union of one man and one woman. Marriage in this sense is not like any other union as it has a purpose. [1] The New Family Structures Study found that young-adult children of gay fathers reported statistically significantly higher levels of depression than young-adult children of heterosexual parents and were five times as likely to have thoughts of suicide. When children of lesbian mothers were asked if they had been touched sexually by a parent, they were eleven times more likely to say "yes" than those of heterosexual parents. [2] When they were asked if they were forced to have sex against their will, they were four times more likely to say "yes" than children with heterosexual parents. [3] You can see that adopted children of same-sex do not fair as well as those of heterosexual couples. With this information we can argue the following:P1. If the state regulates marriage, then marriage must have some purpose and it must have a definite meaning. P2. Because the state regulates marriage, the purpose must benefit society. P3. The logical purpose of marriage must be procreation and child-rearing. P4. Unions that contrast this definition of marriage must not be recognized by the state. C1. Same-sex marriage must not be recognized by the state. Defense of Premises:P1 and P2 are generally understood. P3 is explained my opening paragraphs. P4 is logical as unions that do not fit the definition of marriage do not have the societal benefit that procreation and biological parents have. C1 holds true. ConclusionThe Revisionist idea of what marriage should be would serve no purpose to the state, resulting in the state not regulating it. Since the government DOES regulate marriage, there must be some purpose for it to do so. The reason it regulates marriage is for the purpose of procreation which same-sex marriages cannot provide. As a result, it should not be recognized by the state. Sources:. http://discussingmarriage.org...http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...http://www.frc.org...