Gay Marriage should not be allowed in the United States

Thanks to Alex for accepting. Alright, well basically you decided to just turn this debate into a semantics, definition war. Unfortunately, despite the fact that I didn't clarify, you took a definition that so blindly alienates morals which is what this debate is about. If it "should" be kept between a man and a woman can you tell me how that is even remotely just, provide me with some moral rationale as to why that works? I would also go on to contend the validity of that definition seeing as I find it hard to believe that there would be a moral rationale, or another rationale as to why it would be just to withhold equality, the same equality that all humans are able to attain. I would like to point out that if there was nothing to allow, the entire world would not be discussing and legislating on the issue. Furthermore, I would like to contend my opponent's definition by using his own source. The Cornell law website states that this definition is from January 8, 2008 [1], though my opponent claims that this is the most recent definition, I must contend that he is wrong. The most recent updated definition was found on March 3, 2009. This definition could now include other parameters seeing as the older definition was in effect prior to the passages of legalization in Iowa, Vermont, and Connecticut. I will provide two definitions for marriage – one from Webster's New World Dictionary circa 2002 and Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary circa 2006. The reasons for two separate sources is because any dictionary printed prior to 2005 will define marriage between a man and a woman, but since then things changed and dictionaries scrambled to reprint their dictionaries to be equal. Marriage: to join as man and wife [2] Marriage: to unite in wedlock [3] Should : used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [4] Allowed : to make possible [see permit] If we really want to go definition for definition, I could simply say that gay/lesbian partners should be united in wedlock due to the fact that the government has an obligation to be equal. It has a moral duty to promote egalitarianism/equality to all of its citizens. If you would venture to claim that homosexuals are not citizens, I would be eager to hear that argument as well. The first reason as to why Gay marriage should be allowed is that the rights of a minority should never be entrusted in the hands of the majority. We watched attentively in the 1960s when this happened and ultimately failed, and it is happening the same way now. We are speaking of completely separate interests here. Most Americans are pro gay rights, just anti – gay marriage. These rights include the same rights in housing, jobs, public accommodations, and equal access to government benefits, equal protection under the law, so on and so forth. However, that percentage seems to reallocate itself when the issue of gay marriage comes to the table, and this is sad. Ward 8 D.C. county council member Marion Barry said, that he voted against having gay marriage in D.C. because he is a moral politician. Marion Barry, moral politician, since when? Doesn't he still evade his taxes and deal crack? We cannot allow people who have no interest in promoting the status of gay Americans vote on their rights that is unfair. Who says what marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriageable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. Denying people rights without compelling reasons go against the idea of democracy. Second, what does allowing gay marriage cost you? As a matter of fact, New York City noted that if they allowed gay marriages they would make up to 210 million dollars over three years [6]. In a time of swift economic downturn, it would be fiscally irresponsible for a state to deny a way to make money. In addition, with worrying about Korea's nuclear missile problem, the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor and the like you would think gay marriage would be a no – brainer issue. What is so wrong about allowing two people who love each other the ability to marry? This graph accurately shows what impact legalizing gay marriage would have on a state [7]. Due to the minimal impact it would have on a state's economy and basically the well – being of the world, it should be legalized. Finally, denying gays the rights to marry is simply a denial of equality. Gays are humans too, they live their lives, they want to build a family and they just want to be treated the same way as everyone else. Gay Americans should be permitted the same rights as straight Americans, anything less is simply undemocratic. If you don't want Gays to marry in your, personal church, fine. However, that should not bar them from marrying in your state. Sources: [1]- http://www4.law.cornell.edu... [2] – Webster's New World Dictionary [3] – Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary [4] – www.merriam-webster.com/should [5] – www.merriam-webster.com/allow [6] - http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com... [7] - http://3.bp.blogspot.com...