Same-sex marriage in the U.S.

This debate comes down to a very simple argument: The government grants marriage as a right to heterosexual, opposite sex-couples. The government denies that right to homosexual, same-sex couples. This is discrimination. In order for that discrimination to be legitimate, there must be a compelling reason for it. Con’s only reason, procreation, is not compelling on its own and is undercut by his other arguments. Therefore the discrimination is illegitimate, and same-sex marriage should be allowed, affirming the resolution with a Pro vote. I’ll go in the old order except for potentiality:PotentialityCon dropped all arguments against my potentiality points in his R5. This means that my arguments about same-sex couples being able to potentially become parents and raise children, either through medical procedures or adoptions must be accepted. Given this, all Pro’s arguments about procreation fail to exclude same-sex couples given the potentiality standard he’s used for opposite-sex couples. Both same-sex and opposite-sex couples have the potential to have and raise children, thus under his standards both should be allowed to marry.Vote Pro.Discrimination:Con argues that since the states discriminate against both men and women, they’re really discriminating against neither. Call me crazy, but I’d call discriminating against both, discriminating against both.Con also argues that since the purpose of marriage is procreation, disallowing same-sex marriage isn’t discrimination. This ignores my earlier argument about justification vs denial. Saying there’s a reason rights are extended to one group and not another is a justification for discrimination, not a denial of it.Marriage as a fundamental rightCon continues his insistence that marriage is a fundamental right for opposite-sex heterosexuals only. Once a right is established for one group, there must be a reason to deny it to others. A compelling reason.Con cites two court decisions here. One from a 1971 Minnesota Baker v Nelson decision against same-sex marriage, and one from the Supreme Court appeal finding a lack of federal issues to overturn the decision on.No weight should be accorded the issue of what courts say is current the state of marriage rights, because we’re arguing about what the rights should be. However, if the voter places weight in the cases anyway, my 2008 decision trumps his 1971 decision on the grounds of recency. The supreme court decision was largely a jurisdictional ruling and doesn’t apply here.Once Con admits marriage is a right, he must defend why he’s discriminating in its application.ProcreationCon is arguing that procreation justifies the discrimination.I argued that this is a poor justification, since procreation is not a standard applied to opposite-sex couples, so it’s not just to apply it to same-sex couples.I challenged Con that, “If he wants to claim that states require this potential, lets see the laws. Not the rationale for old court decisions, but the actual requirements to get married.”He responded that, “PRO is challenging me to present more case law that mentions this state interest”In addition to failing to grasp my challenge, Con failed to show any requirements for marriage. in actuality or potentiality, of bearing and raising children. I found a list of marriage requirements by state[1] as well as a source to click through various states for the different laws[2]. Unsurprisingly, nowhere is there found any requirement for fertility, intention, or capability to have children.Completely unfit, unwilling, and unable opposite-sex couples are permitted to be married with no objections. Con would like to apply those objections to same-sex couples. This is an unfair, unjust reason and not the least bit compelling. This goes beyond fertility and into the realms of child-killers being allowed to marry, while same-sex couples are not because they won’t be good parents.If that doesn’t capture the absurdity of Con’s position, he argues that requiring fertility tests is an unjust intrusion of state power into individuals lives, but denial of marriage rights based on sex or orientation is fine. It seems that the former is significantly less life-altering than the latter, an indication that priorities are far out of place.That said, let’s look at the case-law that Con did bring up.He cites the Nebraska case of CEP v. Bruning from 2006 that decided it wasn’t unconstitutional for the state to ban same-sex marriage. In addition to applying my above arguments about the weight of court cases, note that this court applied a rational basis test rather than a strict scrutiny test as orientation wasn’t a suspect class in 2006. In 2012, in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, a federal trial court held that orientation was a suspect class, and thus the CEP v. Bruning case would likely play out very differently today[3]. I like this quote from this more recent federal decision: Furthermore, to the extent Congress was interested merely in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing by opposite-sex married couples, a desire to encourage opposites-sex couples to procreate and raise their own children well would not provide a legitimate reason for denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages.The denial of recognition and withholding of marital benefits to same-sex couples does nothing to support opposite-sex parenting, but rather merely serves to endanger children of same-sex parents by denying them “‘the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure,’ when afforded equal recognition under federal law.” Even if you grant Con that procreation between opposite-sex couples is a desired outcome of marriage, that’s not enough to deny it to same-sex couples because not only does it not promote more opposite sex procreation, but it harms the children of same-sex couples, which turns Con’s entire procreation argument on it’s head and is a reason to vote Pro.Separate vs EqualCon claims that I’m putting words in his mouth, assigning him positions he didn’t argue for. Let’s revisit the root of this contention in R3, where Con says, As long as each gender equally has a choice in going to both schools for both genders and that, interests in creating separateness based on the biological differences grounded in sex and GENDER are a legitimate state interests. Just like with marriage in this situation. My bold. So when I said that Con conceded that the discrimination against same-sex couples was unjustified and required a separate way to access those rights in civil unions, it was because he argued that the marriage debate here was “just like” when a female was denied access to one school based on gender, and it would have been unjustified discrimination had not an equal school offering her admission been available.If that is “just like with marriage in this instance,” if there aren’t civil unions then denial of rights based on sex/orientation for the reasons of procreation are not compelling. By Con’s logic, there must be an equal opportunity for marriage rights available to same-sex couples to avoid this.My argument is the once you’ve gone that far and have given same-sex couples all those rights, there’s no reason to deny the name of ‘marriage’ but for bias. In Con’s case pedagogical theory on same-sex education was the justification for separate but equal access to schools. There is no similar reason here for separate access to marriage rights, and denying one group the social sanction of marriage is not something many would consider equal [4].SourcesCon's sources have been continually mislinked and fail to show the claimed evidence.[1]http://www.weddingcram.com...[2]http://www.themonastery.org...[3]http://ia600509.us.archive.org...[4]http://cregs.sfsu.edu...