Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

Since my esteemed opponent seems overwhelmed by the burden this places on him, I waited till near the end of my time to post my argument... Responses: 1. On the Will of the People. My opponent begins with a somewhat (deliberate?) disingenuous reading of the analogy to segregation. Public opinion was clearly in favor of segregation in the 1950's. Public opinion was NOT in favor of desegregation. Yet the country was desegregated anyway... A fundamental problem that exists with a utilitarian model of morality is that it leads to cases like this where the majority of people support something that is indeed immoral. Using this model, IT would have to admit that if the majority of people considered wanton murder to be a moral act, it WOULD be. The transcendent nature of morality is not up for debate here - nobody seriously believes in the utilitarian view of morality. People don't even conceptualize morality in that fashion. For example, in Shaun Nichols' "Sentimental Rules" there was a study asking Amish children if God ordered them to do an immoral act (I believe it was poking someone's eye out) it would STILL be wrong. Clearly, there are many people that believe that morality is a transcendent concept. At the end of the day, it is clear that the will of the people creates situations which are arbitrarily fundamentally unfair. The appeal to some sort of public morality is NOT a satisfactory appeal under strict scrutiny. 2. On Genetic Disposition. Actually, the article from Psychology Today posited that the sexuality of women was in general more fluid, thus accounting for lesbians and the greater proportion of bisexual females. There is no hard, EXACT evidence for genetic predisposition, but there is also no evidence to the contrary. In the absence of such evidence, consideration should be given to the notion that if it IS genetic, there is a terrible injustice going on. Again, for cases of pedophilia and incest, there are health concerns allowing regulation of these. As for polygamy... why not? You find it "icky"? I'm sorry - that's not compelling. 3. On The Imbalance of Rights. My opponent pretends that laws that are facially nondiscriminatory, yet discriminatory as applied are not discriminatory. This is quite clearly nonsense. If a law were passed prohibiting the consumption of wine in church on Sundays, it would be facially nondiscriminatory, but in practice burden all Catholics and thus be discriminatory. 4. On the Meaning of Marriage. Clearly, the sanctioning of marriage increases the solemnity and importance to the couple, as well as conferring social benefits like tax breaks upon the couple. The meaning of the concept itself can be achieved without government interaction, but the corollaries of the concept cannot be achieved without the government's approval - because the government confers these benefits. My opponent's reading of a "contradiction" in my line of argument is nothing more than him misunderstanding that the state DOESN'T have the power to arbitrarily legislate in the fashion I describe... To answer his "contradiction" .... >> "if the logic used to permit same-sex marriage is granted - does one have for barring polygamy and/or incest?" Same sex and polygamy may have similar reasoning, but incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, toasterphilia, etc... are regulatable based on health concerns... This is a completely separate debate. We are concerned with same sex marriage. The "slippery slope" argument is simply uncompelling in light of the vast differences in situation. Same sex marriage is about TWO adult individuals not fifteen, not children, not animals, and not toasters. A. Consequences. The will of the people is undermined every time the Supreme Court overturns a piece of legislation. Big deal. Again, the slippery slope argument is both a separate issue and fairly uncompelling unless a good analogy can be drawn. B. Tendencies -> Rights. The argument from biological/evolutionary/anatomical matches fails in light of the fact that there are dozens of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org... . Furthermore, the argument that heterosexuality is genetic begs the counterargument that if sexual preference/orientation is genetic, homosexuality must also be genetic. C. Marriage vs. Choice. A pedophile cannot chose a child because the child is a minor. People cannot marry those of the whole or half blood because it increases the proclivity towards genetic disorders. D. Christian Values. The relevance is that in your other debate you said to send students that didn't agree with mainstream beliefs to other schools: "If Christians want to teach their kids Christian ethics and values, they send them to a private school." You are imposing Christian values on the entire populace while maintaining that they are not and that there should be separate from the majority of the population. *************************************** On Marriage as a Fundamental Right. >> "What makes marriage a fundamental right?" This is normative legal debate. From Loving v. Virginia: "Freedom to marry has been recognized as a fundamental right." Very cut and dry. >> "The question is not whether marriage is a fundamental right, but whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right." From Goodridge v. Massachusetts: "Without the right to marry – or more properly, the right to choose to marry – one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." What does marriage mean if you do not have your choice of partner? I addressed this issue before, and my opponent's only response has been the slippery slope argument. He seems to entirely miss the notion that one's choice of WHO is fundamentally different from a choice of HOW MANY. It would be easy to change a law so that it simply said that marriage was between two individuals. This would not present ANY sort of danger towards polygamy/polyandry. On Suspect Class. My opponent has an unusual definition of suspect class. Grossly unfair is NOT part of the legal classification. It is: 1) Has an immutable characteristic. 2) Is politically impotent. 3) Has a history of discrimination. 4) Is a "discrete and insular" minority. Obviously homosexuals are politically impotent, have a history of discrimination, and are a discrete (distinct, separate) and insular (isolated on some basis) minority. The only one of these in question is immutable characteristic. If homosexuality is genetic, it is an immutable characteristic. If it is a demonstrably unconscious situation, this burden is fulfilled as well. To shoot down the notion of immutability, CON must show that it is not genetic and is a conscious choice. Consider that if one holds homosexuality to be a conscious choice, it would also be demonstrable that heterosexuality is a conscious choice - it is silly to hold there to be a gene for sexual preference that only selects heterosexuality - this would be like a gene for eye color that only selected blue. ***************************** Please not that either the presence of a fundamental right OR suspect classification triggers strict scrutiny and places the burden on CON. Once again: "Freedom to marry has been recognized as a fundamental right." - Loving v. Virginia (US SC) Thus, the burden of proof is on CON to show that laws regulating one's choice of marriage are 1) Concerning a compelling government interest. 2) Narrowly tailored to effectuate only that interest. 3) The least restrictive means to the end. AFFIRMED.