Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.

My Opponent’s Case My opponent’s case is lacking in warrant. This may surely serve as a history lesson for Marriage but I do not believe it is an adequate argument for the legalization of homosexual marriage. Even if we are too accept the historical significance of marriage as a valid point it does nothing to support my opponents conception of marriage. Furthermore, as I mention below the purpose of marriage has never changed, the implications of marriage are what change. Simply because something is used as a tool to accomplish another end doesn’t indicate that that end is what the thing is. For example, marriage may be used as a legal contract but that doesn’t mean it’s a legal contract in of itself. Homosexual marriage not only devalues heterosexual unions but hurts the procreation conception of marriage. My opponent seems to think that procreation is somehow devalued in the face of overpopulation and the economic reality of present day. I have three different arguments against that notion. My first argument is that regardless of the validity of my opponent’s accusation, it doesn’t produce the effect intended. If overpopulation makes procreation irrelevant then it simply makes marriage irrelevant. If my opponent argues otherwise he is simply begging the question in that he assumes a non-conjugal view of marriage. My second response is that it doesn’t follow that because a tool isn’t being actively in use that it somehow is of less value. This is for several reasons, one it may have future use to different people, two this specific tool is necessary for the continuation of the human race and three it is the only method in which the species can survive reliably. My third argument, simply stated, is the overpopulation doesn’t make procreation less valuable at all! Even if we accept my opponents reasoning that overpopulation is a problem for a conjugal marriage advocate, we soon realize that this isn’t a problem at all. Procreation is necessary whether overpopulation occurs or not because eventually if we do not reproduce then we discontinue as a species. My opponent says that the purpose of marriage is to “create the stable environments that children require and giving couples freedom and stability themselves. ” I have three main objections to this definition of the purpose for marriage. My first objection is that the purpose of creating stable environments for children fundamentally presupposes the creation of children, most likely through procreation. My second objection is that if marriage isn’t interested the creation of children why is it interested in the preservation of children? What the connection? And my last objection to this conception of marriage is that if marriage is simply an institution revolving around the protection of children and spouses, aren’t there other tools that do this? Why is mutually exclusive from CPS or organizations that protect spouses from each other? My Case: The Procreation Argument In order to set up a contemporary conception of marriage, marriage must be defined. Why doesn’t the state regulate ordinary friendships? Why doesn’t the state punish individuals for betraying or hurting their friends? Why does the state not grant benefits for having good friends? It’s simply because ordinary friendships do not warrant any special recognition from the state. The state has no business regulating a purely emotional relationship. If marriage is to be defined by the SSM advocates in such a way that marriage is a purely emotional relationship, why need the state recognize it? However, the reason why marriage is recognized is because marriage insures the precondition for society. Procreation. As Tim Hsiao argues “In other words, marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive. " The procreative act, therefore, is at the heart of what marriage is. This fits in with how the traditionalist defines marriage -- as a union between one man and one woman. It is only when it is understood this way does the state's role in marriage make sense. The state, therefore, has a compelling reason to recognize as marriages only those relationships which are procreative in type. This is precisely why the state subsidizes heterosexual marriages with certain legal and economic benefits” Furthermore, heterosexual unions have intrinsic and instrumental value in that they are the only kind of union in which insures the continued survival of the human race. Homosexual unions by contrast have no sort of value to society as a whole. Valuing homosexual unions on the same level as heterosexual unions devalues the ideal of both a male and female complementary pairing. If we support this kind of union on the same level as homosexual marriage then we cannot say that anything is specifically beneficial about procreation. “legally enshrining conjugal marriage socially reinforces the idea that the union of husband and wife is (as a rule and ideal) the most appropriate environment for the bearing and rearing of children—an ideal whose value is strongly corroborated by the best available social science. Note, moreover, that the need for adoption where the ideal is practically impossible is no argument for redefining civil marriage, a unified legal structure of incentives meant precisely to reinforce the ideal socially and practically—to minimize the need for alternative, case‐by‐case provisions. ” - SHERIF GIRGIS, ROBERT P. GEORGE, & RYAN T. ANDERSON The biggest point to be made here is that unless my opponent not only tears my definition of marriage down, but defends his own, he must lose the debate today. The No Difference Theory is flawed My second argument is partially in response to my opponent’s case but also is an argument I set to advance independent of my rebuttal. While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression. " A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years. This has a significant effect on the raising of children because children need stability above all else. Furthermore, the Journal of Family Issues published in September 2001 published a study regarding the differences between heterosexual and homosexual parenting which showed that the parenting styles of homosexuals and heterosexual parents differed 15 % for gays and 30% for lesbians. Furthermore, as 16kadams shows in his debate with Stephen Hawkins from a study done by the Journal of Human Sexuality that fathers are extremely important and that only fathers can actually teach their children certain things the research was summarized as follows: Lesbian mothers interact with children in different ways than heterosexual mothers. The presence of a father reduces the chance that his children will use drugs or become criminals. Children raised by lesbians were more sexually active, the presence of a father helps promote chaste. One biological aspect: Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex. People with the best sexual lives are raised by both genders. When interacting with people in the future, the father is actually more important than the mother. For boys, when going through puberty they need to begin to interact with the father. The father teaches the child how to be assertive, how to be “a man”. For all these reasons I can see no other but a Negative vote today.