Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the United States

My opponent’s argument rests on two assumptions: his definition of marriage as “a comprehensive union with a special link to children” and that government should promote societal development. Definition of Marriage The definition given by CON is drawn from this PDF. However, this is not supported by other sources. Simply searching “marriage,” “marriage definition,” and “legal definition of marriage” has provided various definitions. For the sake of conserving space, I have simply provided links. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... . http://www.economics.uci.edu... . http://en.wikipedia.org... There are many more, of course, but the bolded one provides the definition used in law. There is no reference to “a link to children. ” While my opponent can use his definition in his argument, it is not valid from a legal standpoint. The government does not use his definition, so NO argument on the legality of marriage can be based on it. Individual Rebuttal “My opponent argues what the role of marriage is… As stated in my opening argument, you cannot redefine marriage rather you can only distort marriage. ” Who defines marriage? Society, but through the government. Society changes, so its definitions must change. Marriage has changed throughout the course of history, so it is only more likely that it will continue to change. The legal definition must change to keep up with fundamental changes in the world, such as with marriage. This is what happened to other topics concerning sexism and racism. “My opponent argues that marriage is about the privileges given in marriage, but as stated earlier benefits are dispensed to promote couples into marriage and to further stabilize already married couples. ” I never argued that marriage is about these privileges, only that these privileges are what permits government to intervene in marriage. The gov. protects these economic rights (property). The benefits were there before they were defined by the government (as explored in my original argument). It only became involved as a way to protect them and define them, so that they could not be taken away. “Civil unions allow other relationships to participate in these benefits…” Not really. They don’t exist everywhere. In the US, some states allow them and some don’t. (. http://www.ncsl.org...) Also, this type of argument was commonly known as “separate but equal,” but it was used to defend segregation. It was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education because it was classified as discrimination. “A central problem with my opponent’s argument is that he assumes marriage is a right to be given to all… Since by definition marriage requires a heterosexual couple it is not discriminatory to not allow other relationships into marriage. ” No, that it is what I am arguing for. Moreover, I extend my argument that the definition can and must be adapted to the modern world. “If the government recognizes X because of Y, then it is not discriminatory for the government to not recognize Z because it cannot fulfill Y. ” This is not empirically true, as its conditions can be distorted. Let’s assume it is, though. In this case, Y is not what my opponent says it is. His definition of Y The government recognizes marriage because of the distinctive right of all people to pursue happiness and also the right to access economic advantages allowed to the majority. With this Y, the government protects rights instead of promoting something, which it is not the government’s role to do (see my original argument on government). “It is important to note that another major role of the government other than protecting the rights of citizens is to also promote the well-being of the citizens, whether it be through social programs or institutions such as marriage. ” It promotes the well-being by protecting rights. That’s it. There is nothing that the government does today that does not primarily defend rights. Social programs like welfare protect life (they provide people with economic or other disadvantages to survive and provide necessities to survive- shelter, food, water). “The problem is that there is no basis for recognizing a relationship based solely around love…” I agree and concede this argument. However, this still does not offer any reason why the government should limit who marries. The government SOLELY protects the natural rights of people, and gay marriage does nothing to violate these rights, “There are solutions for kids who have no families, but recognizing gay marriage on the basis that gay couples might adopt children is not the proper solution to the problem, for in somewhat solving the problem is distorts marriage from its common good, therefore creating another problem. ” The entire “infertile couples” portion of this debate rests on my opponent’s definition of marriage, which again holds no legal basis, and the assumption that the government should promote societal growth, which again holds no legal basis. I never argued to recognize gay marriage on this basis, it is merely a supplement. And again, how does gay marriage create a problem, or detract from the common good? There is STILL no reason provided on why the modern government should regulate the parties in a marriage. The only, I repeat, ONLY problem arising from its legalization is with the definition, which CAN be changed. Conclusion My opponent has failed to address my primary argument. Modern government’s role is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, and nothing more. My opponent has failed to justify why the government should promote the ‘common good’ on any basis of political theory, whereas my arguments (and the modern government) are based on Enlightenment theories of Locke and Rousseau. There is simply no reason for government to monitor who gets married, but only to protect the rights of all to pursue economic advantages that have been assigned to marriage longer than government’s interference with the institution. I advise all voters to thoroughly examine all arguments from both myself and my opponent before reaching a decision. I also would like to discourage any vote-bombing and for all voters to cast votes not based on their own opinions, but on their fair assessment of the debate. I do not want myself or my opponent to win because of a biased voter. Finally, I would like to thank my opponent for a tremendous debate on this controversial topic. It is by far the most interesting discussion I have had on gay marriage, especially because no religious or hateful arguments were introduced. I’m glad to see there are intelligent thinkers on both sides of this subject.