Gay marriage

1. Homosexuality is not a choice See item 2. 2. "My opponent's only argument here is that marriage *is* a choice. But offering heterosexual marriage to a gay person is a false choice. I can't tell whether my opponent advocates that gay people should just pretend they are straight, but he seems to make this argument." Again, homosexuality being a choice or not is irrelevant because the state is not there to issue love licenses nor has it ever. The main purpose of civil marriage is to promote responsible procreation and rearing of children. We don't allow same sex marriage is the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamy. It's a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships for legitimate state interests and not against interracial marriage because it affirms marriage. From Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning case: "Our rational-basis review begins with an historical fact -- the institution of marriage has always been, in our federal system, the predominant concern of state government. The Supreme Court long ago declared, and recently reaffirmed, that a State "has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved." Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 734-35 (1878), quoted in Sosna v. Iowa 419 U.S. 393, 404 (1975). 3."My opponent demands court cases. In Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in the state by ruling that there was no rational basis for denying gay people equal rights to marry" NOOOO. PRO misunderstood me. I was asking for PRO to provide evidence in the form of a court case from the U.S. supreme court ( the supreme law of the land) that the fundamental right to marry established by the supreme court includes same sex marriage under the DUE PROCESS clause NOT the equal protection clause 4A. "My opponent says that there is a rational basis to have a men's restroom and a women's restroom. This I agree with. However, there is no rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry. The ability to have children fails the rational basis test because we allow infertile couples to marry." Well first off, rational basis test does not require over and under inclusive arguments. Only strict scrutiny requires this. Second, Again, If we define the purpose of marriage as purely a matter of choice between adults regulated by the state, then everything else that follows from that premise could possibly be true. It probably would be discriminating against gays and lesbians from marriage based mainly on the Romer v. Evans case; just like with interracial marriage according to the Brown v. Board decision. However, this is a false premise. What marriage is really about , according to the state, involves a child-centered view of it: see item 2 4B. "This proves that when you divide institutions into two separate parts, the group that is historically discriminated against is *never* awarded the same rights and resources. " NO. This proves the exact opposite because we have always had many separate institutions for men and women even when women are themselves a minority and have been historically discriminated against and yet society still been able to provide separate but equal institutions for men and women. 5. " the denial of the proper nomenclature is insulting, tantamount to granting interracial marriage, but forcing interracial couples to call their marriages a "bi-racial union" instead of a "marriage" in order to emphasize that the state does not view these types of marriages as legitimate." see Item 2 6."However, many state and federal laws still specify "marriage" and thus don't apply to domestic partnerships, such as the requirement for employers to cover spouses under their health insurance policies. ..." The benefits that PRO is referring to are based on mainly federal law or not state agencies but by separate ones. Even with gay marriage, they would not get those benefits because of DOMA. So it's a redherring and continues to be so every time they bring up the issue. Otherwise, gay activists would not be fighting to get those same federal benefits in their federal case called Gill v. OPM in Massachusetts. 7."tax revenue from marriages goes mostly to states, which need the money more than the federal government does. $1 billion over 6 years would do *wonders* for California's state budget, but the federal government would hardly care about that sum of money." Again,Even if experts could show that the economy boost would ultimately overcome this and help the country in the end, the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and predictions. Also, its a zero sum game. Less money will be available to support important government programs. 8."Firstly, a study of countries where gay marriage is legal, including Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands, found that the legalization of gay marriage has *not* caused heterosexual marriage rates to decline." This is actually false. There are studies from the Netherlands that does show that heterosexual and homosexual marriage has declined. Here is the study from the Netherlands that reflects this: http://www.nomblog.com... 9."My opponent keeps saying that the state encourages people to have children responsibly by using marriage. How?? What specifically does the state do?" Well this is how Schools: In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children. California law's Education code: 51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that: (D) Family health and child development, including the LEGAL and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. Media: "The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it." Businesses: The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals? preferences when it comes to dating services in California. In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception. 10.""If "a)" is true, then gays should get marriage in order to increase the longevity and stability of their relationships." Majority of gay families do not have the status of marriage or the benefits for that matter and are doing just fine. The gay parent studies show gay families who are mostly without the protection of marriage are just as healthy as heterosexual married parents: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... 11."b) the term marriage has no actual benefit" I have explained this already. The state infusing the traditional notion of marriage through schools, media, business, etc within the minds of each incoming generation of heterosexuals is warranted because ,according to the selection process, people who hold the traditional view of marriage are most likely than anyone to have a successful marriage.