Same sex marriage

1. What marriage isa) That's not a conduct violation, if it was claiming your opponent is straw manning (example) would be a conduct violation. And asking for points in round one like that is poor taste, and therefore the "conduct vote" would cancel out. But that's up to the voters. b) Abbreviating words is not a spelling and grammar mistake. Saying we'll is still proper grammar. This point is a moot and asking for points (other then vote pro/con) before the final round is again poor taste. c) Why? It is quite simple, actually. Responsible procreation is vital to society, the family unit, etc. Unless we had this procreative union, society would cease to exist, and therefore whither away. Procreation is vital to society, so the government subsidizing marriage to preserve procreation seems a valid thing to do. My opponents Mormon case is likely hunting towards if marriage is about procreation we should allow polymory, which is actually a misinterpretation of my case, a straw man. Marriage is not just about procreation, but also responsible procreation. Polygamous marriages cannot provide that, therefore they are unequal. Also if we assume marriage as a religious institution most texts have a vow to fidelity, and the government also only recognized sexual relationships that have vowed this as they are preserving responsible procreation, not mere procreation as my opponent is claiming. d) My opponent agrees the analogy is correct, but adds gays do not fit in as they can adopt children. Procreation warrants legal recognition as it is required for society to exist! Adoption, however, is just a mere transfer of a child to one area to the next. And also as homosexuals can raise children does not mean they should also be allowed marriage, incestuous marriages can also raise children, yet are still not recognized. I am not comparing SSM to incest, just saying the adoption argument is a moot as it would also be used in those type of debates, and fails on a legal basis. My opponent has also shown no benefit to the continuation of society through adoption. Further, procreation as stated is the more important part to states interests as continuing society is vital. Raising children can be done by homosexuals, but because they can do this does not warrant legal recognition. This means a single parent raising a child should get the same benefits marriage gives. Again merely child rearing is not what the state wants.**Note my opponent is using shot gun argumentation**e) My opponents only rebuttal is a few states interests is procreation, therefore does not apply. But this still fails as I have proven the state is interested in advancing society, and that responsible procreation is the most effective way to create good society, something homosexuals cannot do. Point being this point is merely a red herring and mainly dances around my point. Either way, my opponent forgets the federal circuit courts have ruled that way before. [1]-My opponents case-C1: Constitution a) The single parent objection fails as the argument is about responsible procreation and a secure mother and father for the child. A single parent goes through many relationships therefore fails to meet the argument, a straw man argument.b) Ah the old worn out equal protection clause, ah... And again the SSM debate is fundamentally over what marriage is. One cannot simply claim to have a right to X without knowing what X actually is, and vice versa. As noted in the harvard paper:"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [2]In arguing the equal protection he is assuming the right does in fact exist. And only if this right exists will there be discrimination. By doing this he begs an important question, though. Doing this he argues the conception of marriage covers homosexual couples. As the right of marriage does not apply to homosexuals, no illegal practice of discrimination is occurring. Further, this assumes all discrimination is unjust, and as my case proves a states interest it shows the discrimination is NOT unjust, therefore this point is a moot. C2: Married couples get benefits This is indeed a fact, we agree. But this case fails to prove why they should get these benefits. So let me ask, why should they get these benefits? Again, getting rid of taxes would help people and would be moral. But it is within's the states interest to tax people, as it is necessary for it to do so. It is argued taxes are immoral, but in this case states interest trumps morality of getting rid of taxes as a whole.As for same sex couples, as demonstrated the states interests are in propagating society, mainly through responsible procreation one could argue again that a states interest trumps morality. The states interest is unjust and immoral in taxes, wars, and many upon many other reasons. So my opponents argument here is illogical and is mainly trying to stir emotions of immorality. Also morality is a driver of some laws, but not all. Meaning this point may actually be irrelevant.CONCLUSION:My opponents case relies on false information, straw man fallacies, or mainly attempt to dance around the point of the debate. Vote con.[1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) [2] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)