Gay Marriage

Opponent’s First Proposition: Legalizing gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples My opponent continues his argument that gay marriage is discriminatory toward religious beliefs, suggesting that it is analogous to forcing a sirloin steak down the throat of a vegetarian. As such, I will reiterate my point that gay marriage does not force churches or religious believers to alter their beliefs nor would they be required to marry gay individuals. Marriage between a man and a woman is currently legal and recognized by the government, yet religious institutions can refuse to marry straight couples for any reason, or no reason at all. If gay marriage were legalized, religious institutions would still have this same power to refuse marriage. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion and guarantees the freedom to practice religious beliefs without government intrusion. Due to these protections, no religious institution can be forced to marry any couple, of any sexual orientation. To state that legalization of gay marriage would force churches to marry homosexual couples necessarily misunderstands the protections of the First Amendment. Similarly, many churches and religious groups believe that gay couples should be free to marry. One could argue that the illegality of gay marriage is discriminating against these churches and their religious beliefs that homosexual couples should be free to marry. Opponent’s Second Proposition: If gay couples aren’t willing to become civilly unionized, then they don’t deserve to be married My opponent previously argued that civil unions and marriage were legally identically, but now, seemingly admitting that is not the case, shifts his argument and states that if gay couples aren’t willing to become civilly unionized, then maybe they don’t deserve to be married. My opponent is essentially arguing that if gays are not willing to accept some lesser right (i.e., civil unions), then maybe they don’t deserve the full right (i.e., marriage) that everyone else is entitled to have. Imagine how offensive and discriminatory this assertion would be if applied to any number of rights that the government currently recognizes. Imagine if the government said to African Americans, “if you aren’t willing to accept that you are 3/5ths of a person, then maybe you don’t deserve to be a full person.” Or, imagine if the government said to women, “if you aren’t willing to accept 70% of the pay that a man receives for the same job, then maybe you don’t deserve the equal pay that the men receive.” No one is required to accept some lesser right to “prove” that they deserve equal rights. My opponent also states that “[a] marriage should be about love, not about legal stance.” This is an admission -- that is widely accepted -- that one of the primary purposes of marriage is as an expression of love and unity between two individuals. Civil unions do not share this same historical and cultural importance. Gay couples, both religious and non-religious, wish to be part of the institution of marriage, an institution that encompasses this cultural significance, not the sterilized union created by a bureaucracy to recognize a legal relationship. Opponent’s Third Proposition: Allowing gay marriage would offend God and religion My opponent argues that marriage is the “bringing together of 2 souls under the eye of their God.” However, the institution of marriage pre-dates modern religious belief systems and has historically existed in societies with many religions, many gods, or no gods. Marriage is a social contract between two individuals that originally existed to ensure paternity and transfer property. It is not limited to any religion or belief system – for example, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Jews, and atheists all may get married, yet their beliefs systems, gods, or lack of gods, conflict with one another. My opponent states that allowing gays to be married would offend “a certain religion’s God.” Yet, Catholics are free to get married despite that it would offend the Muslim god, since Muslims believe Catholics are infidels that will go to hell, and vice versa regarding Muslim marriage. Alternatively, most religious believers think atheists will go to hell, yet atheists are free to marry. Marriage is not specific to any particular religion or belief system. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, simply because a religious person will be offended by gay marriage is not relevant to whether gay marriage should be legalized. Many religious people were offended and opposed freeing the slaves, opposed women’s rights, opposed black rights, and currently oppose gay rights. The fact that they are offended is of no consequence to whether gay couples should be given equality in the institution of marriage.