Gay marriage should be illegal

Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Because I agree with him, I negate.I. Harm principleThe debate has to establish a framework that shows at what times the government can properly exercise its authority without embracing some form of authoritarianism. The government's own authority is determined by its purpose. There are multiple theories that try to find what gives the government legitimacy and authority, and they all have agreed that a government lacks legitimacy if it suppresses individual liberties without reasoning. According to John Locke, "the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others." [2] But Locke did not mean people can do *anything.* He agreed that there had to be some limit on liberty. [2] But what decides those limits? John Stuart Mill found a solution: he argued that a person could do anything as long as it doesn't cause harm to non-consensual others. He distinguished between "other-regarding acts" and "self-regarding acts," the former being an act that affected non-consensual others and the latter being one that was a decision of oneself. Why should we buy the harm principle? First, the government's legitimacy is entirely decided by the harm principle. The government can't be justified at all, except by the sole purpose of helping its people. A government exists to maximize pleasure and minimize pain; its laws are made to ensure that people are happy. If a government doesn't follow the harm principle -- and exists for some other purpose -- it lacks any legitimacy; therefore, the alternative is absolute liberty and anarchy. Second, the harm principle is inherently utilitarian, since it hinges on minimizing harm and maximizing benefit. The government legislates on utilitarian purposes. Pro's own argument is entirely based on cost-benefit analysis. Utilitarian judgements are based on the harm principle. The harm principle has to be applied to the resolution. The link to the resolution is pretty simple. I argue that gay marriage doesn't harm anyone, so there is no rational basis to ban it. Of course, Pro disagrees, and holds that gay marriage *does* pose harm (e.g. economic harm). So I'm using this argument as a sort of resolutional analysis: if Pro doesn't convincingly show that gay marriage causes harm, presume Con because of the harm principle. II. DiscriminationThe government has to make logically justified decisions in cost-benefit analysis. As such, its judgement of people has to be based on the choices they make, and *not* based on their characteristics. Basing government decisions on characteristics is absurd. For instance, it is intellectually dishonest and absurd for the government to favor blue-eyed people alone, or only men. The reason patriarchy and racism are rejected are that it is intellectually dishonest and non-utilitarian, and is inherently unjust. The government making unjust decisions is unacceptable. Reject the resolution because arbitrarily basing policy on a person's sexual orientation legitimizes further discrimination. Yep, et al. explain, "Heteronormativity, as the invisible center and the presumed bedrock of society, is the quintessential force creating, sustaining, and perpetuating the erasure, marginalization, disempowerment, and oppression of sexual others." [3] That's a little difficult to understand, so let me explain: the idea that heterosexuality is the norm sexual orientation encourages gender roles, that lead to marginalization and oppression of women, transgendered people, and homosexuals. Making gay marriage illegal is an inherent acknowledgement of this discrimination. It would be a symbolic gesture accepting the idea that homosexual love is not equal and would reject it. This rejection causes psychological harm. A study by Wight, et al. shows that same-sex couples that are married have significantly less psychological harm than those that aren't and attributes the cause to the recognition of them as an equal part of society. [4] Not recognizing same-sex marriage promotes stigmatization and expresses the idea that same-sex couples are fundamentally different. As such, it promotes people treating them with discrimination, and further promotes heteronormativity. All recognizing heteronormativity does is encouraging gender roles, since by differentiating heterosexual marriage, it *categorizes* male and female. Gender roles have led to oppression in many circumstances. The government acknowledging heteronormativity is harmful. R1) Economic harmsa) Economic benefits outweighThe recognition of gay marriages actually brings more economic benefit than harm. Adam Stevenson (2012) conducted a study that showed that gay marriage would bring in between $20 and $40 billion more in tax revenue. The marriage penalties brought in increase overall labor and this labor, according to the study, isn't cancelled out by the marriage bonus. So, even considering the marriage bonus effect, this much revenue would be gained by the government in income taxes. [5] Multiple state-level studies have shown that, because of gay marriage, the amount of money spent on wedding ceremonies, gifts, et cetera, would significantly boost the economy by (1) increasing consumption, (2) allowing greater sales tax revenue, and (3) creating jobs, allowing more income tax revenue and inherently boosting the economy. [6] Another major economic benefit is that since people become more financially secure due to marriages, they will no longer be eligible for government-provided welfare and safety nets. It would save the government hundreds of millions in welfare costs. [7] Pro also doesn't provide a clear impact, since he doesn't provide the *amount* of money lost from gay marriage, so I have nothing to weigh against. Discount Pro's impacts against mine for that reason as well. b) Arbitrary rejection of same-sex marriagePro's argument is that the more marriages that the government allows, the more revenue it loses. I've already shown above that this is objectively false. But even if it were true, Pro is *arbitrarily* rejecting same-sex marriages alone. Note that, in the status quo, both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are legal. Pro's advocacy is to ban same-sex marriage. But there's a failure of the link: why is it same-sex marriage that has to be banned and not opposite-sex marriage? If opposite-sex marriage is to be banned, it will, by Pro's logic, generate more revenue (this is given that (a) is wrong; if (a) is right, discard Pro's argument anyway). I also have an impact turn here. By Pro's logic, better for the economy would be to privatize all marriage and distance government from marriage affairs. If this is the case, gay marriage would not be illegal. Note that "illegal" is different from abolition of an institution. If the resolution was "gay marriage should be abolished," Pro would win, but the resolution states "gay marriage should be illegal." So if the contention is turned into privatization, vote Con. Note that I am *not* advocating for privatization: it is not an advocacy of mine. I am merely saying that by Pro's logic, privatization is the best state of affairs, so Pro is arguing against his position. R2) Marriage is not a rightThis is a defense; it doesn't provide offensive reason to vote Pro. I never argued that marriage is a "right," only that if it exists, it has to apply to everyone. Furthermore, if marriage is to exist, the government should not impose restrictions based on a persons characteristics -- that is discrimination. But Pro preempts my racism point here by arguing "race doesn't matter, but gender does matter." That is a bare assertion. Why does a person's gender identity matter when the government legislates? How is that relevant to same-sex marriage? R3) Moralitya) Pro doesn't establish a clear moral framework. He doesn't establish what is "moral" or what is "immoral," and whether the government is a moral actor rather than an amoral one. As seen in my harm principle framework, the government should legislate on cost-benefit analysis and base itself on the practical concerns of society. b) Same-sex parents are as good as opposite-sex parents. Pro doesn't prove that a male parent is important as well as a female parent. It is a demonstrated fact that same-sex parents are as good as opposite-sex parents, and the scientific conensus lies with that idea. [8, 9, 10] c) The right to freedom of religion is not absolute. There are multiple exceptions to the freedom of religion. For instance, people are banned from baking cakes for only marriages of a certain race, or from making such racist decisions on the basis of religion (which was one of the major justifications for racism). The freedom of religion can be infringed to prevent discrimination and ensure basic equality within society. Furthermore, this debate is *not* about whether anti-discrimination laws should be abolished; it is whether gay marriage should be legal. Thus, this is also irrelevant. d) Whether people are faithful to their spouses or not is not significant to making same-sex marriage illegal. As long as the knowledge and approval of the partner exists, there isn't going to be any harm to, for instance, the children or the couple. Apply the harm principle here. Furthermore, their open relationships has little to do with them being homosexual; this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. A vote for Pro is a vote for sexism and oppression. Voters, you don't want them in your world. [1] Google ("define gay marriage")[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...