Same sex marriage does not propagate society The marriage laws ensure that the majority of those

couples who are given the privilege and right to marry are those who can bear children, thus, helping in the propagation of society. Marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children. Propagation of society is a compelling state interest. (A question regarding adoption may be raised, so heres a possible counter argument: children need both a male and female parent for proper development) (A question regarding lesbians being able to reproduce through artificial insemination may also be raised but the lesbians ability to reproduce does not depend whether she is married or not, so marriage is not a necessity for them) The benefits of marriage are costly If the state recognizes a marriage, it grants the couple the costly benefits associated with the same. The state allows an extra claim for tax exemption for a spouse. Furthermore, it grants the coverage of health insurance of a spouse. A spouse may even benefit from the social security of the deceased spouse. Those are just a few of the examples to show that recognizing a marriage has a price. (Other side of the house may argue that gay couples need marriage in order to live together in one house or have inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates so homosexuals may live together in one home.) We are all taxpayers, so we deserve the right to demand that our money be utilized the best way possible. Because marriage posts a cost to the state and other individuals, it is just apt for the state to regulate it. Children need both a male and female for proper development Gays or lesbians are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children homosexuals, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female. It is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? I dont think so. Same sex marriage presents a notion that the law recognizes that the sole basis for marriage is love (We are not looking into religion Caneda, Estola, Hucalla vs. Rago, Cataluna, Esmena on the motion: THBT Same sex marriage should be legalized. Adj: Atty. Ferdinand Berongoy

or something but into the law and love is definitely not the one and only reason the law grants marriage) If the law grants marriage to two women or two simply because they love each other, under what basis can the state deny marriage between first cousins claiming to be in love? If the purpose of procreation is being deliberated, then the answer is pretty obvious. But if only love is being taken into account, the restriction of marriage to some couples loses its logical basis which may cause societal chaos. Same sex marriages do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of same sex marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met. On the motion that same sex marriage should be legalized, WE CONTINUE TO OPPOSE.

Caneda, Estola, Hucalla vs. Rago, Cataluna, Esmena on the motion: THBT Same sex marriage should be legalized. Adj: Atty. Ferdinand Berongoy