Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Round 1: Challenge and Opening Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttal
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Rebuttal
Round 5: Final Rebuttal and Closing Statements.
LET"S KEEP THIS CIVIL, BUT IMPASSIONED.
Opening Statement: With the forthcoming decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, the debate over marriage equality has never been more pertinent. However, upon reviewing the transcripts of the oral arguments, I came to the conclusion that not only did the defendants fail to address the questions asked in the brief, they also failed to provide a sufficient reason explaining why homosexuals should not have the right to marry. It is my intention to challenge any argument submitted against marriage equality, proving there is no sufficient reason for the government (and the Supreme Court) to deny the national legalization of gay marriage.
Thank you to Pro for instigating this debate. My space is limited, so let’s go.
What is Marriage?
1) In order to discover who can be married, we have to discover what marriage is. Marriage is not something malleable, that we can change. Marriage is an objective thing with a true definition. Marriage is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. Throughout all of human history, even in homosexuality-celebrating cultures, marriage has *always* been seen as being about the natural possibility of children. The only relationship that produces children is this relationship. Indeed, this is the only relationship in which having children actually *enhances*, rather than hindering, the relationship.
2) Society has no vested interest in promoting same-sex marriage. It *does* have an interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage because these are the relationships that produce children, and a low-stress marriage with a mother and father is the best situation in which children can be raised to be productive members of society, replacing those who are too old to work or dying off.
3) The only reason that marriage should have the expectation of permanence is because of children.
4) So labeling this as “marriage equality” is an attempt at poisoning the well. The marriage debate is not about equality. With natural marriage, homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one has a right to marry just anyone they fall in love with. If marriage is something we can just define, there is no principled reason to exclude family members from marrying, plural marriages, etc.
I was on the fence about same-sex marriage. My reason for opposing it now is because I discovered that the revisionists have no argument for why we should allow same-sex marriage. The only people with an argument are those supporting natural marriage. The same-sex marriage supporters rely on demonizing the opposition to support their case.
Here's my rebuttal to your claims.
1.) My opponent has left himself open for the usual rebuttal: Infertility. According to Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC.gov), "About 6% of married women 15-44 years of age in the United States are unable to get pregnant after one year of unprotected sex".  http://www.cdc.gov...
If marriage is constructed based on the ability to procreate, it should only be available to fertile couples. Having read a similar argument in the Obergefell v. Hodges transcripts, I can't resist quoting Justice Ginsburg"s question: "Suppose that I"m a 70 year old woman..." I could go further, but for the sake of characters, won't.
2.) Society has several reasons to promote same-sex marriage.
I. With the procreation argument refuted, what possible reason does a nation have in denying same-sex couples the right to be recognized as spouses?
II. Morality aside, Gay Marriage does benefit society in an economic sense. According to GayMarriage.ProCon.org, "Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.".  http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
3.) Children are not suitable evidence for permanence. Consider divorced couples who must battle over custody for their children.
4.) The definition of marriage HAS changed over the years. Consider the fact that interracial marriage was once illegal. Allowing gays to marry will not "poison the well" and does not create the possibility of incestuous relationships or polygamy. Marriage is considered the legal binding of monogamous relationships. Beyond that, any reliable definition of natural marriage is refuted when DOMA was struck down. With the separation of church and state, religious reasons are also refuted. For the sake of characters, I"ll end here.
Thank you for your consideration.
Reminder: THIS IS A TIE
Reminder to the voters: The debate is a tie. And the cake is a lie.