Same sex marriage should be legalized in the USA
Debate Rounds (4)
I'm ready; let's rumble.
My case will be the secular case against SSM.
1." Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).
2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.
3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.
4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.
5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.
6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust."
~More of the Same: Marriage and procreation~
Marriage in the states eyes only cares about 2 major things: A procreative type relationship and child rearing. This is the only reason the state gives heterosexual couples the benefits the goverment gives them. The goverment makes laws due to their interests, and they are giving away benefits to heterosexual couples. This indicates they have some interest in these couples, or have some service they can utilize. The service they want is more people. Due the fact they can create children, the goverment ought to give them some recognition, should they not? The most common state interest discussed in the debate over SSM is the states interest in marriage.  The courts have held that the only reason they are involved in the SSM debate is because the states interest in marriage is to ensure the future of the human race, and a procreative-type union. [2,3]
Also there is no discrimination towards gays when banning SSM, as we will and be forced to ask what is exactly marriage, and what is it's purpose. As I have stated the purpose is procreation. But historically, and by its nature, marriage is between a man and a woman, as this is the case, no right is being deprived. It cannot be discrimination unless we find the definition of marriage, as historically and naturally (procreation) it is one man and one woman, then it is not discrimination as nothing is being deprived.
One common pro SSM argument is that marriage is about love, not procreation. Well this argument is totally false! The majority of relationships that are heterosexual marriages end up with children. If marriage is about love, then why would the goverment regulate it? IF they cared about love any relationship that involved this quality would be regulated! If you had a girlfriend, and the goverment cared about love, then it would be regulated. Further more what interest does the goverment have in ensuring love? None, therefore this common claim is false, and marriage should not be legalized as the state cares about ensuring procreation, not love. Also ask this: If marriage was about love, then bestiality, polymory etc. would be allowed. So marriage is not about love.
The state only cares about furthering the link of marriage and procreation, and they do not care about love, this means the state has no reason to allow SSM. As they have no reason to allow marriage, and marriage is fundamentally between a man and a women, then I urge a CON vote.
"THE STATE INTERESTS IN MARRIAGE" William C. Duncan, AVE MARIA LAW REVIEW, 2004, PDF. 
Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 
My opponent has presented a multi-pronged argument against same sex marriage in the US. He has first argued that heterosexual union (I take this to mean a life-long pair-bond between opposite-sex mates) is special and loses specialness if same sex marriages are recognized. He then argued that marriage, as far as the state cares, is entirely an issue of furthering procreation.
I thank my opponent for his arguments, and will now proceed to dismantle them before making my own.
Picking Apart the 6-Point Secular Case
The entire case hinges on the phrases "special value" and "special social value", but these phrases are never defined. Moreover, it is never stated why anything's "special social value" confers any obligation on society. I will pick apart the five points which support the conclusion. The conclusion itself is admittedly valid if all of the premises are true. However, none of them are.
Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society)
In terms of humanity coming into existence, the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field are just as indispensable. However, neither of these appears to have any "special social value" and so neither must a life-long pair-bond between opposite-sex human mates.
The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.
Star Wars can be argued to hold a "special social value" in the US due to its widespread popularity. However, George Lucas is the indispensable means by which Star Wars occurred, and much of the fanbase deeply resents Lucas for his work on Star Wars since the original trilogy.
What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.
Most of the nouns in that point are being used purely for their connotative value. Define special in terms of value, special in terms of social recognition and sanction, as well as value, social recognition, and sanction themselves.
This claim may require further support, as your definitions may not yield a self-evident statement.
Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.
To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.
These are unsupported claims. How does same sex marriage deny any "special social value" to a life-long pair-bond between opposite-sex human mates? Why is denial of "special social value" unjust, either inherently or in this specific case?
In order for my opponent to stand by the 6-Point Secular Case, he must resolve all of the issues I have outlined here.
Marriage and Procreation
My opponent contends:
The goverment makes laws due to their interests, and they are giving away benefits to heterosexual couples. This indicates they have some interest in these couples, or have some service they can utilize. The service they want is more people.
This is provably false if we look at marriage between cousins across the US. Marriage between first cousins is prohibited in 25 states, and allowed in 25 others. 6 of those that allow it only do so under certain circumstances. In four of them, first cousins are allowed to marry if neither is able to reproduce. If the state interest in marriage is children, it makes no sense to marry some couples only when assured they will not reproduce.
We can also look at "green card marriage." Lawful resident status can be obtained through marriage to a US citizen. It is fraudulent and illegal if the marriage is not a committed relationship but just a means to obtain a green card. Officials may interview the couple to investigate fraud. Potential interview questions show that a child is neither sufficient nor necessary to prove a good faith marriage in these investigations.
Procreation and marriage are undeniably related - but this is because intimate relationships tend to involve sex, which tends to lead to procreation, and because marriage is a legal recognition of intimate relationships. Correlation does not equal causation, and marriage correlating with procreation does not mean either is essential for the other.
Why The US Should Legalize Same Sex Marriage
Marriage means different things to different people. There is not one accepted definition. For some people, it is a lifelong commitment to a member of the opposite sex intended to produce chidren. For others, it is a way to smooth out some details of cohabitating while being in an intimate relationship. For some, marriage involves two people. For others, it can involve more. For some, marriage between people of different ethnicities is wrong. And those are just views on marriage from modern times - there are even more interpretations available throughout history.
However marriage came to be, and whatever meaning or relevance past generations ascribed to it, marriage in the US today is, at its most basic level, the formalization of a romantic or intimate relationship between two people. When two people marry, they gain access to a host of benefits that make their partnership easier. To list a few:
I have perforated the 6 Point Secular Case my opponent presented. To salvage this Case, he must address all of the concerns raised.
I have offered solid evidence against the idea that the state's only interest in marriage is to incentivize procreation. My opponent must debunk all of it in order to stand by this claim.
I have offered a competing view of how law sees marriage and reasoning for why same sex marriage should be legalized. My opponent must successfully argue against my reasoning. I caution him against bringing up civil unions to do so, as I am readily prepared to invalidate any argument relying upon them.
|defense of the 6 point case|
Yes, the atmosphere has an indespensible nature, as do heterosexual relationships. These relationships create new life and further the human race. A homosexual relationship however cannot create and further the human race, and as heterosexual ones can then they are essential to society, homosexual ones are.
Are you using star wars in an SSM debate? Interesting... Well what this means is; heterosexual couples are in procreative type marriages. Star wars cannot continue the human race, therefore heterosexual unions have more value.
This dies state special. Procreative type unions are indeed special and they can end up in children. No other thing other then heterosexual unions can create new life, and/or have procreative type unions. Therefore the argument procreation.
Extend 4th point. No refutation.
This claim is supported by nature: procreation. Allowing SSM means your depriving them of something they can do and homosexuals cannot. Allowing SSM means the heterosexuals lose their recognition of procreative type marriages. It ends their well deserved by nature unions. (1)
-defense of my main argument, procreation:
My opponents argument is based off of cousins. May I note this is banned in most states, likely as their offspring may be faulty, and is only legal in a few states. Now, your argument is a misenterpreted refutation as you misunderstood the argument at stake. These cousins are in procreative type unions, as they will use contraception, avoiding child creation. The goverment wants procreative type unions, and these cousins technically fall into this category.
My opponents next assertion is the correlation refutation. I actually have logic on this end, and court rulings. The Washington state argued the reason they bann SSM is due to the fact they cannot procreate. They allow heterosexual marriages to propagate the future of the human race[procreation]. (1, 3) The ninth circuit court held that homosexual couples never create procreative type marriages. (3, 4)
My opponents argument of benifits actually help my case. He cited many benifits of marriage the goverment provides: well he must justify these rights. The state has no reason to give them benifits as they will not produce offspring. As I have proven the state wants procreative type unions, therefore the state has no reasons to grant them these benifits. The state wants procreative type unions, the state gives benifits, as homosexuals cannot do this then the state should not give them undeserved benefits. (5, 3) Due to this fact, they do not deserve the benifits.
The state has no reason to give homosexuals the benefits he stated. The states interest are in procreative type unions, as homosexuals cannot do this, SSM should not be allowed.
Singer v. Hara. Washington court. (2)
"the states interest in marriage" avia Maria law review. (3)
Adams v howerton. 9th circuit court. 1982 (4)
Nougatrocity forfeited this round.
Nougatrocity forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF