Marriage Equality

Opening In round two I made it clear that, to win, Con had to prove denying all 1,138 legal benefits allowed to married couples is acceptable. This is where this becomes an equality debate. This is where the discrimination lies. This is where things need to change.-------------------- The Role of Government Marriage is a basic right, not a “critical right.” America is a nation founded on individual liberties, not collective liberties. Con claims the Federal Government supports collective/majoritarian liberty, but does not cite a single historical example where rulings or laws were made under this concept of “liberty”. However, I can cite dozens of individual liberties: no national language, no national religion, the existence of voters’ rights, the existence of workers’ rights, the first ten amendments, etc. The Federal Government supports individual liberty, where a person is free to do what he/she pleases so long as it doesn’t arbitrarily interfere with another person’s freedom to do what they please. [7] Con insists the examples I use are insufficient because they aren’t centered on marriage equality. Here is my response to that: [8]. Let that sink in. Regardless of how individuals feel about the issue, the Federal Government has the obligation to promote individual liberties. It’s time we made a fine distinction here. Calling it “gay marriage” as if it’s something unique—something that should be examined “critically”—is like saying we need to “critically” examine the idea of allowing “black/women voters”. There’s nothing needing critical examination about the Federal Government’s role. Their job, as elected officials, is to promote our general welfare regardless of its popularity/unpopularity. Con lists several "consequences", not supporting any of them. However, for the sake of argument: a) “Society does not recognize it:” this is a debate about the Federal Government’s role, not societal pressures. b) “It’s abnormal:” so is being short, tall, dumb, smart, skinny, fat, six fingered, six toed, one armed, one legged, handicapped, blind, or deaf. Abnormality does not justify intervention by the government. c) “It destroys society:” prove it [9]. Heterosexual couples are still free to marry whomever they want. d) “It could cause a chain reaction:” how is the State supporting marriage equality going to cause everyone to be homosexual? Let’s be reasonable. e) “Diseases:” If a person is too worried about an STD from homosexual relations, their not forced to do it. The State is not going to rally up the nation and mandate everyone to have sex with people. The USA is a land “by the people, and for the people.” This means we are a country that values individualism, opportunity, and equality. This is not a land supporting radicalism, but marriage equality is no more “radical” than civil rights issues of the 20th century. What is Marriage? Instead of answering my question, Con proposed a counter-question. “Does definition evolves?” Yes, definitions of words most certainly do and I answered that already. [2] My question still stands, as does this one: “…what is it in this word that demands a static definition?” Change won't confuse people any more than it “confused” people to allow blacks and women to vote. Con must demonstrate why this word, this word specifically, demands an unchangeable definition, and so far he has failed to do so. Personal Convictions Con fundamentally misunderstands my entire argument. I am not making my own personal convictions; I am criticizing personal convictions as an argument against marriage equality. Con says, “everyone have a right to life, and whatever makes them happen they should pursuit it,” except legalizing same-sex marriage. This is the contradiction that always comes up. If Con concedes people have individual liberties in the USA, he should also concede marriage equality. Otherwise, he must shoulder the burden of the systemic oppression in the status quo, including 1,138 marriage benefits they are currently denied. Just because perfect equality can't be achieved doesn't mean the Federal Government's role is to ignore the foundation of our rights. The governement doesn't restrict what's right, they restrict what's wrong. Homosexuality isn't wrong because it doesn't harm anyone. I'm glad Con got a laugh out of my analogy.-------------------- Rebuttal: Institution of Marriage Assuming Con’s statements are true, this actually helps my point. Marriage is not a permanent bond, which means the definition is already fluid. It can’t be “weakened”, but it can change and it should. Con’s claim that “joke” marriages would increase is not very strong because a man and a woman could do this. If anything, the harms of 1,138 inaccessible benefits to two homosexuals in love massively outweigh the harm of a weakened institution. Again, this is about how the State should handle marriage equality. There are real couples in the USA who love each other and want to spend their lives with each other, but are systemically oppressed, and Con’s response is "principle". What kind of principle is this? Rebuttal: Traditional Values [10] Con is partially correct. The ability to work together for their fellow people shows remarkable strength in a nation. Then, Con adds a little spin. He defines a “family” as one man, one woman, and a child. This is not an accurate description of a family because the core of being a family is the bond between two people in love. The bond of a family does not rest on traditional beliefs; rather it rests on compassionate ones. Homosexual couples certainly can love. I rest my case: [11]. Rebuttal: Slippery Slope It’s astonishing this is still considered a main argument against marriage equality. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Stare Decisis is the legal term for precedence, which means Con has to show how the term can be carried over between species. Just saying "why not?" doesn't suffice. Bill Maher sums it up clearly: "Gay marriage won’t lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant interspecies coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn’t lead to hamsters voting. No court has ever extended the equal protection clause to salmon." By the way, the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional so long as it has the term “under God” in it. It’s irrelevant to the context of this debate, but it needed to be pointed out. Rebuttal: Expectations And nurses should be women, doctors should be men. Wives should stay at home and husbands go to work. It's not as appealing now, is it? Children are confused not by homosexuality, but by the constant opposition conflicting with its presence in society. Rebuttal: Life Expectancy This research has been repeatedly refuted and the one “study” done by Paul Cameron and the FRI is so methodologically flawed it’s laughable. [12] (myth #4) On top of that, it’s completely irrelevant because their shorter life-span in no way conflicts with the life-span of heterosexuals, unlike smoking and drinking, which do bring external consequences.--------------------Closing StatementCon's burden was to show why the oppression in the status quo is worth keeping by proving the consequences outweigh the benefits. So far, it's clear that's not true. As of right now, individual liberty coupled with State discrimination clearly outweighs anti-gay rhetoric. I'll leave with one question to Con: why would a homosexual marriage devalue the term "marriage" when people are still free to have heterosexual marriages? I look forward to Con's response. [7] http://dictionary.reference.com... [8] https://p.twimg.com... [9] http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com... [10] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [11] http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com... [12] http://www.splcenter.org...