Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

As for this turning into a debate about God, I am interested, have I ever done that in the past? Though I firmly believe in the existence of God AND the transcendence of moral values, I am quite content with using terms we both can accept. ========================== Contention 1: The Definition of Marriage ========================== I am assuming my opponent does not wish to use the federal definition of marriage or the definition of 42 of the states (30 of which have added "one man one woman" provisos to their constitutions). Since words themselves are given meaning by people, and the majority of people confirm that marriage means a union between one man and one woman, I wonder then, does my opponent believe that marriage is a human concept? If it is a human concept, its meaning is defined by humans and therefore cannot mean what my opponent wishes it to mean. If I say that skepticism actually means "very gullible and accepting of all things," would that become an actual definition? At what point WOULD it become a definition? My opponent must show why marriage is not defined by the humans who created it. Of course, if it is not a human concept, my opponent must show the source of the definition he appeals to. Since the resolution is akin to saying black should be allowed to be white (which is impossible given definition of black and white), perhaps my opponent was trying to say that union between homosexuals should have conferred rights exactly equal to marriage. Civil unions or domestic partnership would make more sense. As it stands, the very resolution is nonsense, for the definition of marriage itself does not permit my opponent's use of it. ========================== Contention 2: The Nature of Laws and Morality ========================== If homosexuality is viewed as wrong by not only the majority of the US population, but also the entire world's population, one may rightly wonder, what is the nature of law? Are laws designed to uphold what is right or what is wrong? For instance, are illicit drugs illegal because of some other reason other than they are thought to be wrong? How about murder, incest, polygamy or pedophiliac behavior – are these illegal for some other reason other than they are thought to be wrong? Of course, one may rightly suggest that some things are wrong because they infringe on the rights of others. But wait a minute, what are these so called rights and where do they originate? Are rights a transcendental concept or are they also another human convention? If rights are an idea formed by humans for the sake of humans, it stands to reason that humans are the ones who define rights. If the majority of people agree that homosexual behavior is not a right, on what grounds does my opponent disagree? If my opponent cannot show that homosexual "marriage" (I say this only for clarities sake) is a right, then he cannot show that it is either immoral or unlawful to regulate against it. Moreover, if he cannot show that it is lawful, moral or a right, he has no grounds to argue that it should be legal. ========================== Contention 3: The Legal Reasons ========================== "I'm arguing that it SHOULD be legalized because there is no valid legal argument against gay marriage. " The following is from Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U. S. C. ï¿½ 7 (1997): "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. " The Federal Defense of Marriage Act was legally passed and thus legally binding and legally valid. The other 42 states have legally passed laws against the union of homosexuals, making them legally binding and legally valid. If my opponent appeals to the law in order to trump the law, he must show why the law he refers to is trumping. If his legal reasons against the FDMA and other state ratifications are predicated on rights, he must show where these rights originated, how they are quantified, and why they are binding. ========================== Contention 4: Should the Government be involved at all? ========================== If the meaning of marriage is really about the joy and love that consenting couples share, why should the government be involved at all? If we remove the artificial "right" to marry, there would be no bickering. Elimination of marriage would stop the problem all together. Could not the meaning of marriage be achievable without conferred rights? I would not have to divorce my wife, we would just cease being legally recognized – it would not change my relationship with my wife in the slightest. If this is an adequate solution then my opponent cannot win. ========================== Conclusion: ========================== A quick summary of some of the important points that need to be addressed: 1. My opponent must show that humans do not define marriage in order for his use of the word to be permitted. If he admits that humans are the ones who give words meaning, he must admit that marriage does not mean what he intends it to mean. 2. My Opponent must show that rights, morals, and laws are not human ideas. If they are human ideas than it stands to reason that they are defined by humans. 3. My opponent must show how same-sex "marriage" is a "right" and where this "right" originated? 4. My opponent must show how the listed laws are not validly legal. 5. My opponent must show why his legal reasons are trumping of the majority supported legal reasons. 6. My opponent must show why the government has the "right" to get involved in relationships in the first place. I reserve the right to add additional contentions in my following round. I look forward to my opponent's response. InquireTruth Sources: Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U. S. C. ï¿½ 7 (1997)