Same-sex Marriage Should be Legalized

I would like to point out that I'm disappointed that my opponent chose to present his arguments by just copy and pasting an entire article. However, I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, since this could be his own work. Nonetheless, I will rebut what I believe to be my opponent's three main contentions against same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriages don't meet the state interest of procreation or childrearing. My opponent's article starts by stating that the reason why traditional marriage is recognized by the state is "Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest." [1] Since homosexual couples can't procreate it can't meet the state's interest thus it shouldn"t be legalized. However, the article also states that these restrictions aren"t absolute since infertile couples, elderly couples, and couples who don"t intend to have kids are still given the right to marry. The main reasoning that my opponent uses behind this is because these couples tend be in the minority thus excluding them wouldn't be costly. However, if what my opponent is saying is true then it seems like even if the majority of couples intend to have children, we still have a few exceptions for the minority of couples who choose not to and/or can't procreate, thus the purpose of marriage can't simply be procreation. Perhaps a more important factor is child rearing, but even then my opponent would also have to note that we still allow couples who don"t intend to have kids to get married. Granted, these couples are in the minority, but so are same-sex couples, so my opponent would need to explain why we can exclude them from marriage. My opponent also notes that same-sex marriage doesn't meet the state interest of procreation and that the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise. However, there are methods where same-sex couples can procreate, such as artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization. My opponent anticipates this and claims that although there are ways in which same-sex couples can procreate "children need both a male and female parent for proper development." The evidence my opponent cites for his claim is evidence from the book "Life Without Father", but my opponent fails to cite any actual evidence from the book and seems to leave us off with only assumptions. Once again, the burden of proof is on me to show how same-sex parents can accomplish the state interest of child rearing. As I noted before, the American Academy of Pediatrics conducted a review on 3 decades worth of scientific literature concerning the "well-being of children raised in same-sex households" and found that the sex and sexual orientation of the parents didn't affect the well-being of the children. Of course, my opponent points out that "small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting" [1] but the AAP also states that "despite these imperfections, it is likely that the extensive research efforts that have been carried out would have documented serious and significant damages if they existed." [2] Cecilia Ridgeway, president of the American Sociological Association, stated in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in 2013 that "There is no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed, the greater stability offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents may be an asset for child well-being." [3] Indeed, it seems like not only do same-sex couples meet both state-interests, but that legalizing same-sex marriage would allow same-sex couples to adopt and would also allow them to raise their kids in an appropriate environment. Now the burden of proof is on my opponent to show otherwise. Same-sex couples can get the same benefits as married heterosexual couples. My opponent states that "Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir." [1] Same-sex couples can get just about the same rights as married heterosexual couples, although they have to pass through a few more legal hurdles since they don"t serve either of the state's interests. However, same-sex couples do meet both of the state's interests, so my opponent would have to show why same-sex couples shouldn't be entitled to these benefits and also why heterosexual couples shouldn't have to go through with these legal hurdles if they don't serve any of the interests. Same-sex marriage would redefine marriage to where sexual love is the sole criterion for marriage, thus paving the way for the legalization of polygamous and incestuous marriages. Even if the sole criterion becomes sexual love, there are still good reasons for why polygamous and incestuous marriages should be banned. For example, polygamous marriages don't meet the state's interest in childrearing since men in polygamous marriages have been shown to neglect their kids. As Dr. Joseph Heinrich, an evolutionary psychologist who testified before the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2011, noted that "One study found that amongst the Dogon of Mali, even though per capita resources were equivalent between monogamous and polygamous households, children under age 10 in polygynous households were 7 to 11 times more likely to die." [4] This isn't to say that America is equivalent to Mali, but the evidence shows that men in polygamous marriages are more likely to neglect their kids, thus polygamous marriages can"t meet the state interest in childrearing. As for incestuous marriages, the main reason it can be banned is because it would lead to procreation between incest couples which would result in children with genetic birth-defects. The problem for my claim arises when we deny marriage to incestuous couples who are infertile since the harm principle doesn't apply. However, even if we don"t legalize same-sex marriage the arguments for marriage between incest couples still applies since they could serve the state"s interest in childrearing, though studies haven"t shown if incest couples can provide adequate care. Since there are no studies showing how incestuous marriages meet the interest of childrearing we can"t legalize it regardless of whether we legalize same-sex marriage or not. I would like to note that this argument assumes that if we allow this form of marriage then states would have to accept the other forms of marriage, but this argument is suspect for one reason. In none of the 18 countries or 35 states that have legalized gay marriage has polygamy or incestuous marriages been legalized or considered as a result of legalizing gay marriage. This should give opponents of gay marriage a pause, since this would mean that the whole argument boils down to a hypothetical worst case-scenario. Conclusion In conclusion my opponent has decided not to debate with me but rather copy and paste an article that states his arguments. I've also rebutted each of his arguments by noting three errors: 1.)Same-sex couples can meet both the state"s interests in procreation and child-rearing 2.)If same-sex couples serve both of these interests, then why should they go through more legal hurdles in order to gain the same benefits. 3.)Even if the sole criterion of marriage becomes sexual love, it wouldn't entail that we recognize polygamous or incestuous marriages. In closing, vote pro. Sources [1] http://tech.mit.edu... [2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [3] http://www.asanet.org... [4] http://huntergatherer.com...