Gay Marriage

I have dismissed my opponents arguments in regards to the economy and for kids, as the former is irrelevent to a moral issue regarding law and the latter due to its misconception of my argument. After all, if it was required that SSM couples had to adopt, that wouldn't be equal to a traditional marriage anyways, would it? Sounds like a place where Civil Unions would be useful. Racism, again Although I have explained why the antimiscegenation analogy fails, my opponent persists with his accusations. I am defending that the states interest in marriage is subsidizing generative acts, not trying to sepearte classes of people. I am not defending that only white people should be allowed to marry, due to the obvious social injustices and logical flaws. Really, the antimiscegination analogy is the comparing of girlscouts/boyscouts with blackscouts/whitescouts. One of these is an obvious social injustice, while the other is simply ordering people upon their natural tendencies. How the law works Government, when it makes laws regarding marriage, makes a policy. They set standards for whom the clerks at the marriage office (or whoever gives out licences) can give out licences to. For this reason we require a definition of marriage, to decide which couples (heterosexuals) can get married and which couples (homosexuals, polygamist couples, beastial couples) cannot get married. In order for the law to be moral, it has to serve the best interest of the people and also not ponitlessly exclude some situations that would otherwise be fine. This principle deals with two of my opponents objections. First, the sippery slope. My opponent must have forgotten that in setting a marriage policy, he needs to define which couples can get married and which cannot. If we can use the same arguments my opponent used to marry a man and a horse, a group of men, or a man and woman, which we can, then it would be immoral for the law to exclude them based on public opinion. This is the exact same reason the left criticizes the social right in regards to the gay marriage debate, for the right turns away from the morals of our laws and instead turn to person beliefs about the issue, like religious beliefs. Second, the changing definition of marriage. If marriage isn't a real thing, and is instead a morphing entity, then why should the government recognize it in the first place? My opponent simply assumes that the government should, an issue I dealt with in my opening round. The rest of my opponents objections are pointless, (and I'm running out of time to post this) so I'll leave it to the reader. I didn't need to prove that the status quo marriage is correct, only that I have a definition that works better than my opponents. In this case, 1 > 0CONCLUSION My opponent has either skimmed or ignored the foundational issues that arise when creating laws. Instead he turns to superficial reasoning, such as the pursuit of money or other useful entities, to prove his case. I hope that I have shown that superficial reasons aren't good for creating laws, and we should take much more general approaches to these matters than one that would require, say, stamping children to make sure no two couples try to recieve benefits for in effect procreation. I dunno.