Same-sex marriage (SSM) Should Be Legal in the USA

Kohai tries to define marriage as "social union or a legal contract between people that create kinship". A few problems with this definition. In the USA (which we are discussing) marriage is defined by the defense of marriage act as between one man and one woman, so his definition falls. Using that definition there are no reasons for the stae to recognize ANY marriage, so again, it falls. Furthermore, the definition provided by Kohai is not agaist the law so it isn't topical. Vote Con just because my Opponent cannot even porvde a definition for the marriage he fights so fiercly for. Now onto my argument.1. Kohai says that the indispensable means is fertilization. .. yes. That's the point. Only though a heterosexual union can society continue to exist. The argument isn't talking about heterosexual marriage. I'll get more into that later. Thus, his argument falls.3. He says "marriage is a special value to both gays and straights". Umm, no? A homosexual relationship does not provide unique benefits for society. A heterosexual relationship does. Therefore the state ought to value a heterosexual relationship over a homosexual one because fertilization can only occur through a heterosexual union, therefore society cannot exist without them. Your appeal to equal rights, again, falls, because you can't ask forequality when the relationships themselves are not of equal value to society.4. A rejection is constituted because it is recognizing a heterosexual relationship as equal with a homosexual one, when it is not. That would be like awarding every soldier in the military a citation for bravery. Homosexual rlationships are of a lesser value to society than homosexual ones. 5. Con asks "What could be a better arbiter of social value than the popular opinion of society? ". This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Some logical analysis please? Con also makes the mistake of claiming that the argument could also ban infertile couples. False, becuse they are still in a heterosexual union I. E. they are still performing the act of fertalization, even if it does not work. Furthermore, I concee to the fact that the State has no interest in recognizing non-child bearing relationshps, however since the vast majority of heterosxuals can procreate, the State is justified in legislating in the favor of the rule, not the exception. Answers:1. It means that since society depends on the action, then it has a spcial value. .. It's rather obvious.2. I would think so. Since it is a simple fact that society depends on the action.3. I do not understand the question.4. The argument explains this. Questions:1. Appeals to equality aside, what compelling reason does the state have in recognizing a homossexual relationship?2. Do homosexual relationships provide any uniqyue enefits to society?3. Using your definition of marriage, why should the state recognize it at all? Marriage is a universial rightCn states that "My opponent seems to think that the state can just force us to marry someone of the opposite sex or someone who we do not love. This is absurd. " Con shows here either a complete misundestanding of my statements, his own unfathombale ignorance, or his willful and foul deception to the audience. The argument was not that ays should be FORCED to marry a memeber of the Opposite sex, rather that they are already equals! The definition of Marriage does not allow for a same sex couple to get married, and he has not provided any reason for the state to recognize it. He dismisses the polygamy analogy, because it isn't what we are debating. Ok, but that analogy simply shows that the same arguments used to justify same sex relationship, can be used to justify all kinds of relationships. UDOHRHe ignores my analysis that this doesn't cover same sex marriage. Extend it. The UDOHR is only binding in our dealings with other nations. Con asks me for my source to explain this, but he's the one making the claim and thus must justify it. Furthermore, even if he wins on this argument he still loses, because if the U. S. has a legal obligation to legalize same sex marriage, than that explains what it MUST do, not what it SHOULD do.