Legalization of Gay Marriage

All states prohibit marriage between blood relatives and more than two people, about half prohibit marriage between first cousins, and some even restrict marriage from those suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis. [1] [2] [3] Contrary to popular belief, marriage is a heavily regulated legal institution, not the extremely inclusive union that many gay marriage advocates make it seem like. Homosexuals do not compose the only group that cannot marry. Indeed, marriage is strictly regulated. And it should be. Why? Because it is a contract of great legal significance. When the government recognizes the marriage of people, it bestows unto them exclusive benefits and rights that others do not get. These rights and benefits include collecting a deceased spouse's social security, receiving an extra tax exemption, and spousal health insurance coverage, among myriad others. [4] The bestowal of these rights and benefits is costly to the government, as well as to other individuals under its jurisdiction, so why, then, does a government have a vested interest in the institution of marriage? Reworded, what incentive does marriage hold for the government? Because the union of two opposite-sex individuals creates the most pragmatically ideal situation for procreation and child-rearing. And let us remember that propagation of the society is indubitably a compelling state interest. --- My opponent states: "The way society recognizes marriage today is vastly different from the way marriage was recognized in ancient times." Indeed, marriage has changed over time, but this does not address my argument. Rather than taking on the traditionalist view that my opponent is countering, I am taking on the view of legal practicality. I am emphasizing the pragmatic reasoning behind marriage and why the government legally upholds it, specifically the matters of procreation and child-rearing. The idea that marriage has changed in the past is irrelevant; I am discussing marriage as a contemporary legal issue. --- The opponent misrepresents my case with his skewed argumentation model. Firstly, the purpose of marriage is procreation AND child-rearing. Secondly, the "Reason" is simply inaccurate; in actuality, I am arguing that 1) The legal basis of marriage, with government offerings of benefits and rights, is procreation and child-rearing, which successfully create future citizens that propagate the society. 2) This is the sole basis of the legal institution of marriage, since there are no other rational criteria that would justify its existence. And based on these criteria (i.e., procreation and child-rearing), I am arguing that homosexuals should not be allowed to engage in legal marriage. --- My opponent claims that the purpose of marriage is to form "familial units." This is simply an incomplete explanation to the issue at hand. Why does the government have a vested interest in forming "familial units" through legal marriage? What does the government gain from them? The government does not have interest in forming a legal familial bond for every two people who happen to have feelings for each other, so where does the interest lay? The "familial units" argument is simply a more indirect step to my argument, which upholds the idea that marriage is founded on procreation and child-rearing. Homosexual couples can raise a child but not procreate; but this does not fully serve the government's goal of creating new citizens to propagate society. Without procreation, the ability to raise children is futile. This is why, for example, a single parent who raises children cannot be married to himself/herself. --- The argument states that "hospital visit denial to homosexual couples is unjust and therefore, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry" is flawed in that it forces a false dichotomy; the dilemma makes it seem as if the two outcomes are to allow them to marry so they can have visitation rights... or not to allow them to marry so they would not have said rights. However, this overlooks the idea that hospital visitation policy itself may be changed to better suit the needs of couples, regardless of marriage status. Furthermore, these rights can be acquired by gay couples by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir; this right is, therefore, not exclusive to married couples, since only rights and benefits that are costly to the government are not offered to unmarried couples, since the government has no legal investment in their unions. --- My arguments have been indirectly replied to and have ultimately remained unrefuted. Therefore, we can conclude that gay marriage should remain illegal, because homosexual partnership is not compatible for the institution of marriage or its legal significance in contemporary society. --- [1] http://stdlabtest.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.nolo.com...