args

Gay Marriage should be legalized in the sate of California

Is there a right to same sex marriage? My opponent’s main argument throughout the debate is homosexuals need equal rights and have a right to choose whom they marry. But this is irrelevant unless my opponent can prove there is some sort of right with same sex marriage. He must prove, legally, they are being violated of some constitutional right rather then just assuming this right exists. This opinion is not universal; therefore my opponent must justify his claim. My opponent has failed to define or prove his terms on why banning homosexual marriage is illegal based on loss of rights, therefore fails on a legal basis on which the resolution is based. Benefits of marriage There are, indeed, many benefits of marriage. All of which cost the state millions of dollars to provide. They give these benefits out as they have subsidized the marriage business, hinting they have some interest in the institution. So they are giving benefits out for a reason, and only if there is a good reason are they obligated to hand these benefits out. So the question here is not what the benefits are, rather why the state gives these benefits out to specific classes of people (married couples). Marriage is a legal institution, which is former around one man and one woman in attempt to create procreative type unions. Many think marriage is about love, but this is a perk of marriage not its purpose. If it were, then ordinary friendships would also be regulated by the state. So the only viable state interest in marriage is a procreative type union that creates proper family structure that helps further the production of society. The states subsidization of marriage means they are using marriage to promote responsible and healthy procreation to raise a healthy society, as only procreation is not in the bests interest of society as a whole, rather how it is done is. Therefore the states interest only applies to heterosexuals, and not homosexuals. They love each other!! This is not a valid reason to allow homosexual marriage as love is not a valid states interest nor does it serve any purpose to the state worthy of millions of dollars in benefits. Therefore this point is irrelevant to a legal debate and is only an emotional argument. Conclusion: My opponents argument fails to prove on a legal basis whether or not gay marriage should be legal, it first asserts there is a right to gay marriage. But it is only backed up by assertion and not actual evidence. He later argues there are benefits to marriage; evidence suggests some type of government interest in the marriage institution. Therefore its not if there is benefits, rather why the state should grant them to certain people and not others. The reason they grant benefits is procreative-type unions, therefore there is no reason for homosexuals to get these benefits nor do they deserve them. Love is irrelevant as love serves no purpose to the state therefore they have no obligation to recognize their relationship as marriage.