Gay marriage should be illegal

== Rebuttal ==R1) Harm principle A single religion cannot enforce its beliefs on non-consensual others either. Here, the religious believers are also causing harm, and the government is infringing on a liberty for appeasement. Appeasement isn't sufficient to constitute as "harm" for the government to ban something. Furthermore, this debate is *not* about whether schools should teach children about gay marriage -- I could even disagree with the court and still affirm the resolution. This debate is about the legality of gay marriage alone, and nothing else. A gay couple marrying doesn't affect an individual's beliefs at all. Just because a person doesn't like it does not mean it is actually harmful to that person. As long as it doesn't affect that person, vote Con. Furthermore, I'm not necessarily arguing this as hardcore offense -- I'm merely asserting that the default position in this debate is to support my side.I also fully concede that budgets are important and constitute a violation of pleasure; so the point of contention will be entirely topical to that argument. R2) Discrimination Pro's argument formatting is messed up, but I'll still take it from Pro's source. Pro's source simply says this: discrimination is only considered "discrimination" if there's no rational basis for the differential treatment, and that denying gay marriage has a rational basis for the denial. The former proposition is one I agree with, and one I outlined in my argument already. The second part, though, is typical con-gay marriage nonsense. There is absolutely no rational basis for denying gay marriage. The economic argument, for instance, is fully impact turned, because it suggests that marriage privatization is the best way to go, which would mean allowing gay marriage; it also seems to irrationally differentiate between gay marriage and opposite-sex marriage, failing to justify why the former should be banned but not the latter (when there are more opposite-sex marriages). There's no unique benefit to banning gay marriage. The benefits Pro presents are addressed below. The source also says something about "redefining marriage," which isn't a clear harm. Pro asks how acknowledging heteronormativity enforces gender roles. Banning gay marriage is equal to saying the only true marriage is one with both a man and a woman, which is creating a social difference between them. This categorization is essentially the root of gender roles and sexism. There isn't any unique benefit to this, but all it does is make a social difference between men and women, thus treating them differently. Treating them differently and classifying them based on that (when the only differences are biological, which is no rational basis to differentiate) is essentially what sexism is. Furthermore, extend that this categorization causes psychological harm. Psychological damage is the strongest impact in this debate, because we're judging from a utilitarian standard, in which psychological damage includes things like clinical depression. Depression is among the worst forms of suffering, and being denied marriage can cause that. It has been demonstrated that allowing gay marriage reduces depression and similar psychological issues. [11]Pro then argues that "homosexual love is not equal," because of greater rates of unfaithfulness -- specifically, via open relationships, by Pro's own R1 source. Open relationships means both partners accept it. Since Pro accepts my utilitarian framework, it means there is no pain and only pleasure caused by this. Which means open relationships don't render homosexual relationships "unequal." Pro fails to demonstrate how this forms a rational basis for inequality. R3) Economic harms(1) Pro *drops* that this is a non-unique benefit. Extend that Pro doesn't explain how same-sex marriage should be banned because of this, rather than opposite-sex marriage or generally marriage privatization. Also extend that Pro's own logic would mean marriage privatization is the best course, under which gay marriage would be legal. This turn dooms Pro's argument. (2) I accept that there would be some impact on tax money. But that would be *outweighed* by the other benefits. Pro addresses Stevenson by highlighting some tax exemptions for gay couples. But that doesn't show poor calculations by Stevenson, because the study *also* weighs marriage penalties. There are marriage bonuses and marriage penalties. Pro highlights some of the bonuses, and his source only says they *exist.* It doesn't talk about whether marriage penalties outweigh them. Stevenson's study actually *addresses* marriage bonuses and says marriage penalties *outweigh* them totally. [Note: I would like to correct my last round; I accidentally typed $20 to $40 "billion," when it should be "million."] (3) Pro claims the other benefits are all "short term ones." He is wrong. The business benefit is, according to the studies, a *long term* benefit, since the marriage business will gain a lot of money, create more jobs, and allow more tax payment to the government. Revenue will significantly increase anyway. Also extend the argument from safety net programs: marriage will make people relatively financially secure (due to a working spouse, for instance) and that will mean less government spending on welfare and other safety net programs. R4) Right to marriage(1) Extend that this is a defense, not an offense. It doesn't provide a positive reason to vote Pro. Pro drops this point entirely. (2) I'm not saying it "should apply to everyone." I'm saying if there's a benefit being provided to a certain group of people while being denied to another group of people with no rational basis to it, *then* it should be extended to the latter group as well. There's no question that marriage is a benefit. It allows for greater psychological well-being. [11] It also allows people to balance work between each other, thus creating more financial security. If both people in a couple earn an income each, then there naturally would be a greater income. Marriage poses a significant benefit, and it is illogical to deny that benefit to same-sex couples, especially when -- with regards to their resolving issues between each other better than opposite-sex couples, and similar things -- they often reap the benefits of marriage *better* than opposite-sex couples. [12] R5) Morality(1) Pro is confusing the meaning of claiming something is immoral and establishing a moral framework. All Pro's argument did, from R1, is that it claimed gay marriage is immoral because of a certain set of reasons. It doesn't establish *why* those reasons are immoral. For example, Pro claims same-sex couples are often more unfaithful, but doesn't explain how it is *immoral* for them to be unfaithful. Also extend that Pro doesn't prove that the government should legislate based on what is moral as opposed to what is desirable. The United States currently rejects legislation based solely on moral concerns. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that it isn't just going to make something law based on moral concerns -- it has to pass through *some* form of benefit/harm review. (2) Pro's first source (source 4) regarding this is *not* a study, so it does not represent the research here. Pro says he has "studies that show this," but the first link he sources isn't even a study. Pro's source 5 doesn't even deal with gay marriage. There are only four mentions of the word "parenting," and they are with regards to parenting by a single parent. They have nothing to do with same-sex parents. Pro is merely source-mining. Source 6 argues that the samples made by the majority of studies are wrong -- but the article doesn't mention the studies I cited. The article also cites a study by the NFSS. That study is a bad one. The NFSS study has multiple problems. It examines children who witnessed their parents having a same-sex relationship, but it doesn't at all consider the *duration* of the relationship, and many other major factors. In fact, Mark Regnerus -- the scientist who carried out the study -- admitted under questioning that "only two of the subjects in his study were raised from birth by committed same-sex couples and both had positive outcomes." [13](3) Baking a cake is irrelevant -- that is with regards to anti-discrimination laws. This debate is about same-sex marriage, not anti-discrimination laws. Furthermore, happiness matters insofar as it is weighed against the suffering/sadness caused, and I've already proven with my sources [4] and [11] that non-recognition of the sexual orientation of homosexuality itself, and similar discrimination, causes psychological damage. (4) Pro says there are enormous differences between men and women, which is why non-recognition of same-sex marriage isn't discrimination. This is nonsense. The differences between men and women only matter to society as much as the differences between people of different races. That's why sexism is considered as bad as racism. (5) Pro says homosexuality is a choice, and people who choose to be homosexual are merely making themselves victims of discrimination. But Pro's sources are bad ones. Source [7] is merely a media article of an "admission," which doesn't match peer-reviewed research. Source [8] says homosexuals are not *born* homosexual, which is *not* identical to saying it isn't a choice -- environmental factors that influence homosexuality are also non-consensual. Finally, source [9] merely represents the individual views of a person, and is an appeal to authority. On the other hand, scientific consensus suggests that homosexuality isn't a choice. [14, 15]For all the above reasons, Vote Con. [11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] Mary Ann Lamanna, et al. "Marriages, Families, and Relationships," p. 82