There are good argunments against Same Sex Marriage

I hope for a good debate.

Jim Spiegel argument goes as follows:

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.

Defense of Spiegel and procreation:

Heterosexual unions' actions generally involve procreation, in which lead to the existence of man kind itself. The procreation given to us by heterosexual unions lay the foundation of what we know today as society. Without heterosexuals, there is none. Hence heterosexuals are special in their contribution to society. A heterosexuals union hold the natural ability to procreate, something homosexuals cannot naturally do. Society can exist without homosexuals, even though they may be productive human beings they cannot procreate, but society would fail without heterosexuals procreating. Marriage is an institution, in my opinion, that creates an environment to promote procreation and therefore is a natural institution. Now I will dig a little in to secular stuff here. With this, we can see heterosexuals are indispensable, hence it is a government interest to treat them with some higher respect, and now have interests in regulating this practice. They have no interest in allowing homosexual unions, however, as society can exist without these unions. Hence this is the legal reason and function of marriage, quite simple, regardless if you get married for other reasons.

Now the BOP unbeknown to homosexual advocates is they have the burden of proof, they must prove homosexual unions should be treated the same as heterosexual ones. It is logically impossible to prove that homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same, hence it is illogical to claim they should have the same "rights". [1] Now, this leads to a problem of pro gay, if I may call it that, supporters. As if they seriously claim this, they then have to prove that naturally homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, as this is impossible under the legal purpose of marriage. So homosexuals are saying we fit in with society and we deserve equal rights. That is their weak argument. This isn't a sound argument, it is a appeal to the majority or to try to gain major empathic waves of people to support them. This argument fails, as it fails to prove in society or in any legal situation that they are in fact equal, which is impossible to prove. Now, they are struggling to prove they can fulfill the reasons for marital status, as well as try to fill the shoes of heterosexual people. The simple thing is: Gays and heterosexuals differ, one is essential the other is not, hence gays arguments fail to prove anything nor fulfill the reason for marriage; procreation.

My arguments show a few things. The argument presented shows the natural meaning of marriage, which gays cannot fulfill. The value of marriage in a social value, described in procreation as well. Motivations of the government, will explain in more detail soon, etc.

Now I move onto the reasons why government should recognize SSM, or not, and then show the secular case against SSM. So now we must ask what marriage is, again, and what sexual practices have to do with natural marriage. The biological unity of a man and a woman usually mean they much of the time once married, meat to have procreative sex and view the idea of having children a cherry on top. So the point is marriage and procreation are intrinsically linked. [2] With that out of the way, we must ask why does the state regulate marriage and for what purpose should people get married? Liberals attempt to red herring on the idea of liberty, yet fail to define liberty in its terms, hence the BOP is here even, and there is no liberty being deprived as they fail to define their terms. So promoting liberty is not taken out of the equation, and if you look at all the options the most logical answer to the question is blatantly obvious: Procreation, and furthering society.

Most states (~50%) prohibit first cousins from marriage, using liberal/pro-gay logic it should be legal for them to do so. But the reason they are not allowed to marry in those half of the states is because the kids they may bring are deformed, and or more likely to be deformed. As we know there are many upon many benefits to marriage, generally the reason gays want marriage. But the overlooked fact is also needing to be addressed: Why do gays deserve marriage? As stated, heterosexuals are blatantly essential to society as we know it, without them society is non existent. Gays however are in fact dispensable to society, hence heterosexuals are as we can say more important. For this we should think governments ought to cherish heterosexuals over homosexuals. So with this, I will provide a quote that sums up the majority of my argument[s]:

"In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. " [3]

Now a common argument to refute this is that it is irrelevant, let popular will control the states. This argument fails under the argument I am providing. Before you do X or Y, or redefine X to Z, we must have a reason, under the argument I have provided there is no societal or legal reason to allow SSM. Henceforth my opponent now must either refute this as false, or find a counter reason that supersedes this one.

CONCLUSION:

I think the case I provided is bullet proof, it seems as though there is no reason to allow it, as it has no overall interest to the state. The case is also hard to refute as the objections to it often fail. So to allow something that changes the status quo, one must either find a reason or declare the arguments provided are irrelevant. This, in my opinion, is nearly impossible. So to conclude the journey of this round, we must ask, why allow gay marriage if the state has no reason too, and is homosexuals and heterosexuals role in societies differ to such large degree? The answer is there is no reasons, hence I urge a PRO vote.


Sources:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...
[3] http://tech.mit.edu...

If I understand my opponents position correctly, he argues that heterosexual couples produce children through sex, while homosexuals do not. Because homosexuals do not, they are not as valuable to society, and recognizing homosexual marriage rejects the special value of heterosexual marriage, so it is unjust.

Homosexual couples do benefit society. While homosexual couples cannot produce children through sex, homosexual couples benefit society. Homosexuals couples can adopt and raise kids, can procreate through a surrogate mother and being in a relationship increases mental and physical health of couples involved. While homosexuals cannot reproduce through sex, having homosexual couples benefits society and should be recognized just like heterosexual couples are. There are many heterosexual couples that are less valuable to society than some homosexuals couples. To disallow all gay marriages because the aggregate benefit of hetero marriages is greater that homo marriages is discriminatory.

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.

I assume that by heterosexual union you mean heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is not the indispensable means by which humans come into existence. Heterosexual sex is the way that people come into existence. In fact, in 2009, 41% of births in the USA happened outside of marriage. More than 50% of births were out of wedlock for women under 30 in the USA. [1]. With 41% of births out of wedlock, marriage does not have that much effect procreation, and no effect on younger moms. People will have kids with or without marriage. Marriage does nothing to increase births.


Infertile couples get married. Also, people get married and choose not to have kids. These groups contribute to heterosexual marriages, but not procreation. Furthermore, considering birth control, procreation occurs when a heterosexual couple decides to have a kid, not just have sex.

In short, heterosexual sex causes procreation and not heterosexual marriage.


What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

While the ability to produce children is special to human society, there are many qualities of gay couples that are special to human society.

Gay couples can adopt and raise kids. 4% of children in the USA are orphans. It greatly benefits society when they are raised by parents.

Gays can also have children through a surrogate mother. This is just as valuable as procreation through heterosexual sex

Being with someone you love improves your mental and physical health. It greatly benefits society to have mentally and physically healthy people. [3]


These special qualities are important just like producing children is important. There are many homosexual couples that are more valuable to society than some heterosexual ones. Therefore, homosexual couples deserve social recognition just like heterosexual ones.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

Allowing gays to marry does not diminish or devalue the ability to procreate in any way. Gay marriage honours the love of two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together. While they cannot procreate through sex, they still benefit society. To diminish it, they would have to worsen it in someway. Nothing is worsened for straight couples when gays are allowed to marry.




My opponent argues that it is illegal for cousins to marry because they cannot procreate "Most states (~50%) prohibit first cousins from marriage, using liberal/pro-gay logic it should be legal for them to do so. But the reason they are not allowed to marry in those half of the states is because the kids they may bring are deformed, and or more likely to be deformed."

Yes, the reason that cousins cannot marry is because they produce deformed children. The reason to disallow this is NOT because they cannot procreate but for the reason that it is wrong to knowingly bring deformed kids into the world. It is done for the same reason that people with a high risk of passing hereditary diseases to children may choose not to have them.


My opponent claims "Now the BOP unbeknown to homosexual advocates is they have the burden of proof, they must prove homosexual unions should be treated the same as heterosexual ones."


Homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals because they are both people. To allow hetero marriage while not gays in wrong, just as it would be wrong to allow whites to vote but not blacks. The 14th amendment of the U.S states that guarantees equal protection of laws [4]

You mention this in your argument "This argument fails, as it fails to prove in society or in any legal situation that they are in fact equal, which is impossible to prove." I assume this pertains to the argument I just gave. Please elaborate. I do not understand. Also you cited a previous debate(citation [1]), to claim "It is logically impossible to prove that homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same, hence it is illogical to claim they should have the same "rights" I do not with to read through an entire 4 round debate to pick out this point, please make this argument yourself so I can understand it.


Homosexuals have the right to marry. It doesn't affect straight people to allow them to marry and only benefits gays.



If my opponents argument is correct, then infertile people and those who do not want kids also should not be allowed to marry

Gays have the same benefit to society as heteros that do not reproduce. If this argument stands he MUST concede that heterosexuals that are infertile or choose not to have kids cannot marry.


Conclusion

I have shown that couples benefit society in more ways than just procreation through heterosexual sex. Couples can raise kids ( adoption ), can produce and raise kids through a surrogate and couples have better physical and mental health. All these things are beneficial to society. Therefore the state should recognize gay couples as well because they have benefit to society. In addition, it is in the best interest of society to have equal rights, as the USA has with the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, if my opponents arguments stands, then hetero infertile people and couples who choose not to have children must be denied marriage rights.


Therefore,this argument is not good and I urge you to vote CON.


[1] http://www.nytimes.com....

[2]http://wiki.answers.com...

[3] http://www.mnn.com...


[4] http://www.answers.com...

To answer my opponents question, no thats not most of my case. I do talk about the benefits to society, but also argue the intrinsic link of marriage and procreation.

Defense of procreation:

My opponent begins by saying homosexuals are helpful to society, I agree I explained this already in my argument. My argument proves that heterosexual couples have a natural unique function to society, and something homosexuals cannot do. There is no question homosexuals have value to society (hence your argument actually misses the point of my argument[s]). Homosexuals as people can be perfectly competent human beings that do good things, but this does not hurt my argument or form a good ground in which they should be married. I argue they are not as socially valuable as heterosexuals. I will again bring up the Jim Spiegel argument, it sums up my argument nicely:

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.
__________________________________________

My opponent then says heterosexual couples can be less productive then homosexuals, this is true, but still fails to see the point of the procreative argument. My point is society needs heterosexuals in marriage, to properly bring forth children and raise them properly, homosexuals however cannot procreate, hence heterosexuals are indispensable. You have not refuted that point, hence your refutation fails.

My opponent then shows children come outside of marriage, I am aware of this and it still does nothing to refute the argument I have provided. But note all of the people (or most) of the children you have cited are from heterosexual groupings, hence strengthening the heterosexuals are indispensable. My opponents argument fails still, as it fails to look into the proper function of marriage. The proper function of legs is to walk, and the proper function of marriage is to procreate. I am well aware marriage itself may or may not influence fertility rates, but marriage and procreation are intrinsically intertwined towards procreation, out of wed-lock births have no reasoning in this debate. Let me go into detail:

Marriage is meant to be complimentary, a man and a women therefore compliment each other to create "good" and "proper" sex functions. Out of wedlock births, however, are not the proper way to bring forth a productive society, and therefore your argument fails. Further, we still need to look into the proper function of marriage, I proved it was procreation, my opponent never has straight up refuted that proper function. Out wed-lock is not the proper function.

I will now refute my opponents claims on infertility and not choosing to have children. I will treat them the same, as they both do not have the procreative effects. Both of them (not having kids and infertiles) can actually still fulfill the public's interests. These couples (homosexuals cannot do this) can live in the marriage norms and fill out the features of marriage and contribute to good marriage culture, something homosexuals cannot do. [1] Infertile, fertile, and not choosing to create kids can still form the same marriage: real marriages. As interfiles can make procreative type acts, and the people that dont want kids can also make procreative type couples, they fulfill states interests by making marriage marriage. And as they make the same basic marriages homosexuals cannot, any differential treatment for infertile people is unjust. As Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson write:

"After all, the more effectively the law teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to enter into marriage and abide by its norms. And the more people form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is
that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents." [1]

Hence those couples can create the needed things under my argunemnt as well.

My opponent then says gays help society through adoption, a common argument I hear. But this is besides the question, adoption and procreation are totally different. Homosexuals still do not have a special link to children (as their marriage never results on balance with real marriage nor creating children). The argument fails as homosexuals can never be naturally wired to creating children.

My opponent then cites artificial ways into creating children, before up refuting that, I want readers to remember these points:

-Real Marriage (gays cannot make "real" marriage [1])
-Marriage norms (sorry homosexuals)
-Natural wiring to procreation (gays dont have it)

Now, she says we can make them have procreative effects through those procedures. In order to refute this, we must look into the nature of human beings. Two women do not have the sex organs alone to naturally create children. A man and a woman do have complimentary sex organs to create children. These organs alone create heterosexual unions. The reason sexes exist is so they compliment each other and create children, and ensure the survival of our human race. Therefore these sex attributes make it a proper function to procreate, and lesbians using artificial techniques is NOT the proper function of the sex organs. Artificial techniques are a defect, as artificial techniques are not the proper function nor form real marriages.

Homosexuals cannot procreate naturally. As homosexuals do not have the natural function nor the complimentary values heterosexuals have when procreating. See: "[h]omosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic [Emphasis mine] on heterosexual ones." [2]

My opponent then claims having homosexuals marry has no effect on marriage. I am low on characters, so I will just say your wrong with a foot note. [1]

My opponent then attacks the cousin thing, it is because the offspring they create is likely to deformed therefore hurts real marriage.[1]

My opponent then brings up the constitution. I am really low on room, so I will e a quote that disproves everything you said, plus heterosexuals and homosexuals are different through procreation (hence my argumentation).

"[B]efore 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. 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." [1]

And my opponents last words are I must concede infertiles, no I dont, see above, and if you want more read source [1] pg 268-67

CONCLUSION:

My opponent fails to refute my argument, mainly dodges the questions and points/misinterprets it, I have defended the procreation argument, I therefore have proven there are good arguments against SSM. VOTE PRO

also, out of room like a boss!!

____________
[1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)
[2] http://www.boundless.org...

My opponent claims that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation.

While procreation is an important part of marriage, it is not the sole purpose of marriage. Another purpose of marriage is to honour a relationship with a romantic partner. It is about finding someone to love, and honouring a commitment to remain with this person through life. Marriage is reconition of a couple in love. My opponent claims that the purpose of marriage is soley procreation, and not about hounoring a commitment or reconizing a couple in love.

My opponent claims that only allowing straight marriage is not discrimination.

Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination. My opponent concedes that gay couples are valuable to society,. He says "There is no question homosexuals have value to society ". Some gay couples are more socially valuable then some straight couples. My opponent groups gays and straights into a whole claiming, that as a group straight couples are more valuable then gay couples. He says "I argue they are not as socially valuable as heterosexuals". While some gay couples are more valuable then straight couples, my opponent groups them to deny gays the right to marriage. This is discrimination.

My opponent claims that heterosexual marriage is indespensable to society

Heterosexual marriage is NOT indespensable to society. Unprotected heterosexual sex is. The point of children born out of wedlock is to show that heterosexual is not indespensable. It is preffered. It is ideal. But, it is not indespensable. Many children are born without marriage. It is preffered to have gay couples instead of gay singles, just as it is preffered to have heterosexual couples instead of heterosexual singles.

The first premise in the Jim Spiegal argument claims heterosexual union is indespensable. It says "Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value ".
In round 2, I assumed that "Heterosexual Union" meant heterosexual marriage(union could be understood to mean different things). You did not take objection to this assumption, so it is the correct assumption, right?

Since heterosexual marriage is indespensable this premise is false

My opponent argues that it is okay to allow infertiles and those who choose to not have children to marry. He cites a quote that says "the more people form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is
that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents"

My opponent argues that when gay marriage is allowed it decreases the fertility rate. That is when only straights marry, it benefits procreation. However, heterosexual couples contribute to the "proper" culture of mariage, therefore do not affect the fertility rate. This is NOT true. This may be the opinion of Girgis, George and Anderson, but it is not true. Statistics show this is not true.

This graph compares fertilitiy rates of the USA the average world rate, Canada ( a country that allows gay marriage that is comparable to the U.S.A), and countries that are strongly against gay marriage including many islamic countries where gay marriage is punishable by death). [1]



The USA fertility rate has be decreasing more than Canada since 2005(when Canada allowed gay marriage nation wide). The fertility rate dropped rapidly in Iran and Afganistan (countries that are STRONGLY against gay marriage).

It is the opinion of Girgis, George and Anderson that allowing gay marriage decreases procreation, but STATISTICS show that they are wrong.


My opponent then claims that homosexual couples are "parasitic"

My opponent does not make any argument of his own. He just cites an argument made by someone else. He does not cite a fact, but an opinion. I am debating my opponent, not David Orland fromboundless Webzine. My opponent must articulate his own argument, not just give a link to somebody elses.

However, homosexuals couples are not parasitic. Homosexual marriages honour commitments to each other better than Heterosexual couples. In the U.K the divorce rate of heterosexuals was half that of homosexuals [2] Furthermore, instead of a "parasitic effect" homosexual marriage seems to have a positive effect on heterosexual marriage. In the USA, states that allow homosexual marriage have the lowest divorce rates. [3]


I argued that allowing homosexual marriage has no negative effect on heterosexuals. Again my opponent attemts to refute this my leaving a citation. He leaves the citation of a 42 page document.

I am not debating Girgis, George and Anderson. My opponenent is not citing a fact, but an argument made by someone else. Please, I ask my opponent to articulate his own arguments. Furthermore, as this debate has an audience, it is unfair to ask the audience to read many multipage documents to keep up with the debate.

I refute my opponents point about cousins not being allowed to marry. Again my opponent leaves a citation to a 42 page opinion.

Please argue your opinions yourself. Please, post the arguments made by Girgis, George and Anderson in the debate or paraphrase them yourself.

Jim Speigal Argument and Summary

1. The success of the Jim Speigal argument is contingent on marriage being soley about procreation. I argue that marriage is also about honoring a commitment to a loved one and reconizing a couple in love. If you concede that marriage is about more than just procreation you MUST reject the Jim Speigal argument.

2. The Jim Speigal Argument claims that "What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction." This is a false premise. To reconize the social value of one group over another is discrimination.

3. The first premise of the Jim Speigal Argument is false. "Heterosexual marriage is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value" Heterosexual marriage is preffered but not indespensable. Heterosexual sex is indespensable this premise is not valid.

4. Infertiles and those who choose not to have children do not contribute to "speacial value". Statistics show that only allowing straight marriages has no effect on procreation. If you believe that these people should be allowed to marry you must reject the Jim Speigal Argument.

5. Further more, homosexuals do not have a parasitc or negative effect on heterosexual procreation so the premise "Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions." is false.

Conclusion

I have shown five problems with the Jim Speigal argument. Although it is an interesting argument it is not a good one. My opponent cites the opinion of Girgis, George and Anderson to "prove" many of his claims. However, STATISTICS show that my opponent is wrong. The Jim Speigal argument is not a good one. I urge you to vote CON.





[1]http://www.google.com...



[2]http://unicornbooty.com...

[3] http://www.usnews.com...

Procreation and Marriage

My opponent drastically misinterprets my arguments. The societal purpose of marriage may or may not be procreation, I stated the states interests and the benefits of society rely on procreation. My opponent, falsely, claims marriage is about love. But this is highly faulty, now marriage's only needed aspect is love. Now polygamous, bestiality, incestuous, and all marriages are now valid. Further, if love was the reason the government regulated marriage, it would therefore be a states interest to look into all love. Now friendships, affairs, teenage "fun" all of that should be regulated.
"The key is to understand the specific type of community marriage actually is—in particular, how it is bodily, sexual, and of a type that would naturally be fulfilled by procreation. In every society, we find something like the following type of relationship: men and women committed to sharing their lives together, on the bodily, emotional, and spiritual levels of their being, in the kind of community that would be fulfilled by procreating and rearing children together. That such a distinctive type of community—marriage—does exist in every society is undeniable. " [1]

Although marriage may not be the key reason for marriage itself on a personal choice level, it is undeniable procreation IS a role in marriage, and is a role in states interests. “The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”[2] (aka Singer v. Hara) This point on states interest remains untouched.

Discrimination; common SSM misconceptions.

This is faulty, as you must determine a few things:
-Just/unjust discrimination[s]
-If it endangers the constitution

I have argued states interests and the benefit of marriage to society. Hence I have this whole debate proven it is just discrimination.

Then the argument on the constitution must come into play for it to be a valid argument (as the definition ins round one show government interference). I will quote the constitution part:
"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. 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."[3]

Sex, indispensible marriage

My opponents claim is hetero marriage is not vital as any sex makes children. But this is a failed look at why society should prefer heterosexual marriage over heterosexual sex.

"Spouses to a marriage tend to be happier, healthier, and wealthier than unmarried partners. This is documented in the recent book by Waite & Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (Doubleday, 2000).

Children of married parents tend to develop in a more healthy way, both personally and in their interaction with society, than children of divorced or single parents. See Waite & Gallagher on this too."[4]

This is essentially saying yes, sex makes babies, but marriage leads to healthier and better babies, hence a better society (looking on a procreation side) comes from marriage, hence marriage is still indispensible.

And yes, heterosexual marriage (I agree with your assumption on the speigel argunment) is invaluble to raising a healthier society.

Infertiles

My opponent main claim is infertile couples do not fit the case as they are not procreating. This is false, you have failed to prove the fertility rate argunment (argued later) and you have also failed why infertile couples are the same as homosexuals. If I recall, I argued they are part of a real marriage (as they can still use their organ[s] in a proper function), and they coincide with my case on protecting marital norms. Now to the fun part.

My opponents claim is places with no SSM have less fertility rate (or is declining faster). First, this fails to take into account other factors, as SSM is not an only factor. So not being able to take into account factors already puts a cloud over the creibility. Also, correlaton does not mean causation, hence the argunment here is invalid. Marriage in the netherlands, for example, has seen negaive fertility, divirce etc. a decade later after the marriage law was passed. [5] Although as stated correlation does not equal causation, your argunment invalid, my counter statistic is even more detailed (as it is more then a mere correlation graph). Either way, point refuted.

I am sorry, but flawed graphs "disprove" my paper, and more reliable statstics refute yours. And there is still the correlation causation argunment if all of our stats are viewed by viewers "faulty".

Vitro insemination

My opponent falsely claims I said gays where parasitic, I never said that, I said vitro and artificial insemination is, you misread the argunment and your argunment here is likely to make me look bad. I have NOT ONCE in this debate insulted a homosexual.

My opponent cites claims showing they are not parasitic, this is a red herring. I NEVER said homosexuals where parastic, but their artificial ways where. I said homosexuals families (aka vitro insemination). My argunments before that hinted what I was saying. Anyway, SSM has hurt netherlands in ALL of the categoies you said it helped england with (whilst using biassed sources).[5]

My opponent then claims lower divorce rates follow SSM passages, once again, correlation DOES NOT MEAN causation, further, I have provided countr evidence and your data ignores other factors.

No effect on marriage

I already argued this, whether it has effects on heterosexuals is irrelevant, as it still has NO bearing on the states interest in marriage, its institution, or my case. But I already proved SSM raises wed l birth rates, divorce, has little effect on gays (rarely get married), and lowers overall marriage rates. [5] It has an effect.

Cousins

Ah, your case supports mine: "Yes, the reason that cousins cannot marry is because they produce deformed children." Round 2. Now, I argue marriage is about procreation and child rearing, this effects child rearing, hence the argunment helps me, and essentially proves my point.

Speigel

1. I agree marriage is about procreation, love, and child rearing. But, love itself has no bearing on how we create the laws.

2. No, it is not, as you must define what marriage is, hence marriage is not applied to homosexuals under my argunment, his etc. Further, I have proven it to be just discrimination, which is socially ok.

3. I refuted this above, marriage and men and women creating offpring in marriage is inispensible. (low on room, hence short responses)

4. Infertiles can still form real marriages and be in the publics interests, hence they can still be married under the argunment, you fail to prove your infertile argunment. [3]

5. I never said they did, I said their offspring (vitro fertilization) is.

Note: Many of my opponent argunments here didn't even relate to the speigel argunment.

CONCLUSION:

My opponents case relies on many false, misinterpreted, or faulty data that was easily refuted and debunked. I urge a vote for me hence my opponent has not refuted my argunments, rather dodged them. VOTE PRO

_____________
[1] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...;
[2] Duncan, William C, “The State Interests in Marriage” 2004 Ave Maria Law Review.
[3] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)
[4] http://marriagelaw.cua.edu...
[5] William C. Duncan, "THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF DUTCH SAME‐SEX MARRIAGE: HOW IS MARRIAGE DOING IN THE NETHERLANDS?" iMAPP Research Brief, Vol. 4, No. 3, May 2011

My opponent argues that "the states interests and benefits to society rely on procreation".

This is one interest of the state, but not the only one. It is also about legally honouring a loving commitment between two people. This is in the states interest because two people that are in love have better physical and mental health. This is shown by both myself [1] and my opponent when he says "Spouses to a marriage tend to be happier, healthier, and wealthier than unmarried partners. This is documented in the recent book by Waite & Gallagher, The Case for Marriage (Doubleday, 2000)".

It is the states best interest to reconize both hetero and homo relationships, because by doing this they are promoting the act of finding a romantic partner. Yes, procreation is a state interest, but also it is a state interest to have romantic couples.

My opponent objects to this by claiming that if love is only what is needed to reconize a relationship then bestiallity, polygamy and incesous should be valid. No, only love between two people should be allowed because this is beneficial to mental and physical health. Polygamy is harmful to society [2]. Since animals can't speak english beastiality is animal cruelty, and is harmful to society [3]. Incest is harmful to children who could be born, and it is not fair to the children.

The state does have an interest to create an enviroment where people can form positive relationships. However, most regulations (that I can think of) on friendship and sex would interfere with liberty.

Just Discrimination

Lets look at some cases to gain a legal/moral perspective on just "discrimination". In the USA gender discrimination in businesses is allowed gender "only when the "essence" of the business operation would be undermined if the business eliminated its discriminatory policy."[4] For example lets look at these cases. It was found that customers preffered female flight attendents, however in this case discrimination WAS NOT allowed because even though females were better at customer service flight attendents, it was not undermining the business. However, it discrimination IS ALLOWED based on gender for Hooters girls and Playboy bunnies, because it is undermining the business. Hooters would not be Hooters if a 300lb man took an order. [5] While straights may be preffered, it is not detrimental to society to allow gays to marry.


Indespensable

I agree with my opponent that people are are better off in marriage then not in marriage. This is why it is beneficial to society to allow gays to marry. So gays also can be better off and in turn society will be better.

I also agree that children benefits babies and leads to a better society. However, marriage is not indespensable. It is preffered, but not indespensable. Sex is indespensable because without it, there would be no offspring to carry on the world. Marriage is nice, but by no means indespensable.

Infertiles

My opponent claims that heteros that are infertile or choose not to have kids should still be allowed to marry because this increases the fertility rate, whereas if gays marry this decreases the fertility rate. He said "the more people form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents". I group these heteros with homos because both do not reproduce. My opponents main argument is that gays should not marry because they don't reproduce. Both gays and these heteros don't reproduce but my opponent allows these heteros to marry because of the reason above.

I have shown that there is no correlation between allowing gay marriage and fertility rates. While the statistics show that countries with SSM have lower fertility rates, this was NOT my argument. My argument was that allowing SSM has no/neglible effect on fertility rates. While I understand that correlation does not mean causation, these statistics make an extremely strong case that SSM has no effect on fertility rates.

Here is the line graph( I included the Netherlands, even though my opponent does not include fertility rates in his statistics). Canada allowed SSM countrywide in 2005 and the Netherlands in 2001. Both the fertility rate in both countries have INCREASED as compared to the USA, in recent years. Whereas countries that are Strongly against SSM such as Afganistan, Iraq, India and Iran have seen decreases. If allowing SSM decreased fertility rate, one would expect a noticiable difference in fertility rate for countries with or without SSM. I agree that many other factors determine fertility rate, but SSM is NOT one of them. This is not strong enough data to discriminate and deny rights to a group. There is NO statistical evidence that allowing SSM decreases the fertility rate.

My opponent claims that "Marriage in the netherlands, for example, has seen negaive fertility, divirce etc. a decade later after the marriage law was passed." NO WHERE IN THESE STATISTICS DOES IT MENTION FERTILITY RATE. My opponent either made a mistake or made this up. In fact the Netherlands fertility rate from 2001 to 2009 has increased from 1.71 to 1.79 whereas the USA has only increased from 2.03 to 2.05. While dicorce rates are down in the Netherlands, my opponent does not compare these stats to anything. Divorce rates have been increasing worldwide as time goes on. My STATS show that states in the USA with SSM have lower divorce rates than states without SSM.

Statistics
My opponent then attacks my statistics. "my counter statistic is even more detailed (as it is more then a mere correlation graph)" he says. In his conclusion he also says "My opponents case relies on many false, misinterpreted, or faulty data" It is good to use a line graph for this data, so data from one country can be compared to other country over time. This gives a better perspective as to external factors world wide that are effecting the fertility rate. For example if the fertility rate of USA shoots up 1000% after they ban SSM it looks like a causation. However if at the same time Canada's ( that allows SSM) shoots up 2000%, it does not look like a causation. I show more countries ( feel free to add more for comparison). It is also clear and easy to see, whereas in yours I had to read it to find that fertility rates WERE NOT included, though you claimed they were.

Furthermore the data from the google graph's data is from the World Bank ( as credible as they come).

Vito insemination

"homosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual ones" is what u said. Refer to my round 3 refutation

Cousins

Your quote of me is misleading. Read the full argument from about cousins from round 2. It stands.

Jim

1. Marriage is about more than just procreation it, is also about love and hononoring a commitment and laws should incorporate all aspects of marriage.

2. This is not just discrimination

3. Marriage is nice but dispenseble, hetero sex is indespensable

4. Infertiles do not contribute to "a culture of procreation" and should be banned if the Jim S argument stands

5. Vito insemination is not parasitic

Conclusion

I have shown that it is in the states interest to allow gays to marry. Allowing gay marriage contributes to a positive better society and does not have negative effects on society or procreation.Here are 5 problems with the argument. My statistics show that my opponent is wrong. Unable to refute my points, my opponent attacks the quality of my statistics, however they are true. VOTE CON.

1http://www.mnn.com...;


2http://www.vancouversun.com...;

3http://stopbestiality.wordpress.com...;

4http://www.halloran-sage.com...

5http://en.wikipedia.org...;