args

The government should recognize same-Sex marriages

I thank my opponent for proposing this debate, and I hope we both can understand more about this important topic. 1. Government's reason to incentivize marriage Firstly, I would like to say the true reason the government incentives marriage is because it a benefit to children who are a part of these marriages. Children of intact families are better off than other family structures including divorced, single parent, step families, and more [1]. 2. Marriage Public or Private My opponent claims that the state should not be involved in personal endeavors such as marriage. This is a major problem for two reasons. One, marriage isn't just a personal endeavor. Marriage serves as the basic social unit of a healthy society. The effects of marriage are numerous including better mental/physical health, stronger economically, children are better off, crime is reduced [2]. Also, you can be married without the government approval of sex partners, and two homosexuals can marry each other and commit to each other for life, but they will not get recognition in most states. Two, by saying that marriage is a personal endeavor it makes the government get out of marriage all together, in which case the government would not recognize any marriages including same-sex ones. 3. Role of the Government My opponent claims that it is not the job of the U.S. Government to ensure the prevention of any hazardous disease which might be spread through sexual endeavor. However, it is the job to promote the general welfare which includes trying to prevent disease and promoting health. Which is why we have the CDC who's mission is "to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same" [3]. Notice, how it mentions diseases at home. 4. Civil Rights There are two problems about sexual preference being a civil right like women's suffrage. One, comparing women's suffrage to Same-Sex marriage is a poor comparison. Arguments against women's suffrage included that it would cause divisions in families, Women already have influence due to influence over men, and women who take proper care of the house hold don't have time for politics [4]. These arguments are completely different than arguments defending traditional marriage. Two, Sexual Preference does not meet the requirements for civil rights. The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics" [5]. It might be possible that you could prove widespread discrimination, but it is nothing compared to the 1960s. We have never made Homosexuals sit at the back of the bus, or have separate schools/public areas. Next, we have economic disadvantage. A 2012 study shows that Homosexuals actually tend to have more money [6]. So, there is no economic disadvantage. Third, sexuality is not immutable. There have been many people who have changed orientation [7]. There wasn't a former woman, without surgery, so sexual preference doesn't not meet this criteria either. Concluding, sexual preference is not a civil right. 5. Marriage is more than love "Mutual affection and companionship between partners is a common, although not universal, feature of marriage" [8]. "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world." [8] This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it. "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives." [8] The procreative argument was held up in many courts [9][14] such as Baker v. Nelson [10], Jones v. Hallahan [11], Singer v. Hara [12], Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning [13]. Showing that defining marriage is constitutional. Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. Marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman because marriage is more than just love. 6. Marriage Historically "Although certain aspects of the institution of marriage have varied from society to society, it has universal functions. These universal functions are: 1. Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle; 2. Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible: 3. Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible; 4. Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and 5. Providing men with a stake in family and society." [8] The Netherlands was the first country to recognize Homosexual marriages in 2001 [15]. No society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships" [8]. 7. The Slippery Slope If love is all that matters in marriage then other restrictions on marriage like Polygamy bans, Incest prohibitions, Age restrictions should be allowed too since all of them are able to love each other. Support for Polygamy is on the rise; according to a Gallup poll people who think Polygamy is morally acceptable has double in the last decade. [16] Also, recently a Federal Judge in Utah struck down polygamy ban as unconstitutional, and he relied on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage. [17] "If the natural sexual complementary of male and female and the theoretical procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union are to be discarded as principles central to the definition of marriage, then what is left? According to the arguments of the homosexual “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship are truly necessary elements of marriage. But if that is the case, then why should other relationships that provide love, companionship, and a lifelong commitment not also be recognized as “marriages”—including relationships between adults and children, or between blood relatives, or between three or more adults? And if it violates the equal protection of the laws to deny homosexuals their first choice of marital partner, why would it not do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice?" [18]. There is further proof corroborating these claims. Going back to the Netherlands the country that first legalize Homosexual marriage that "the Netherlands polygamy has been legalized in all but name" [19] In 2005 a civil union of three people were "married" [19]. Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it will lead to more re-definitions of marriage. Sources [1] http://www.familystructurestudies.com... [2] http://www.foryourmarriage.org... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://www.slate.com... [5] http://www.lc.org... [6] http://www.leagle.com... [7] http://www.voices-of-change.org... [8] http://www.scribd.com... [9] http://seattletimes.com... [10] http://gaymarriage.procon.org... [11] http://www.leagle.com... [12] http://www.leagle.com... [13] http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov... [14] http://www.frcblog.com... [15] http://www.bbc.com... [16] http://www.gallup.com... [17] http://www.nomblog.com... [18] http://downloads.frc.org... [19] http://www.brusselsjournal.com...