"Resolved: Gay marriage should be okay in the united states"

First I will be going over my con's case and then I will be giving my own. CON'S CASE: 1. Religious Freedom. My opponent's tag line for this contention is "religious freedom," but she never really makes a clear connection to it. She has not proven how legalizing gay marriage would infringe upon religious freedom. This is quite simply, because gay marriage does not infringe upon religious freedom. Allowing same-sex couples to marry can not and will not adversely affect religious individuals. Under the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."[1] The first amendment is pretty self-explanatory. Legalizing same-sex marriage will not prohibit the free exercise of religion. On the contrary, America is a secular state and if same-sex marriage remains illegal under a Christian pretense it would be unconstitutional because it would be respecting an establishment of religion. Furthermore, freedom is a two-way street. The United States is a very diverse nation with many different cultures and religions. It wouldn't be right for one religious group to decide what is and is not legally permissible for the rest of the citizens. "Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan?" First of all, my opponent has not provided the source for this evidence. I researched it myself and found that the "70%" she's referring to is only based on the proposition 8 vote in California a few years back [2]. Regardless of how many people support the ban on gay marriage has nothing to do with how just it is. Numbers alone have nothing to do with whether or not an idea is right. There are countless historical examples of this. At one point in time, most Americans believed that slavery was justified. At another point in time, most people believed the Earth was flat. Arguing that something is right because it conforms to the beliefs of a majority is known as a "bandwagon fallacy." Additionally, comparing opponents of gay marriage to the Ku Klux Klan is not even an argument. I don't see how this is relevant to anything. 2. Rights of Children. "More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion." In the case of children who are waiting to be adopted, they are already living without any biological parents. It would be far better for these children to be adopted by a same-sex married couple than sit in an adoption home for countless years waiting to be adopted. Same-sex couples obviously can't procreate so if we were to allow them to marry and adopt, then foster homes and adoption centers wouldn't be nearly as occupied as they are today. This would essentially be providing for the greater good. As for emotional pain and confusion, I would like to see some evidence for this claim as the con has provided none. Therefore, this premise is dropped. 3. Whither traditional marriage? This entire contention is about tradition and how legalizing gay marriage would change the essence of marriage. This is totally and completely irrelevant. Tradition has no bearing on what is just, or moral, and therefore has no say in whether or not same-sex marriage should not be legalized. Furthermore, the concept of marriage is not exclusive to any religion currently practiced in America today. The concept of marriage is even older than Christianity. If that is not a sufficient refutation, I also provide civil marriages as an alternative to "traditional" marriage. Civil Marriages are undertaken in accordance with law and have no relation to the traditional religious marriages[3]. If we allow same-sex couples to partake in civil marriages then both sides are satisfied, and everything is just peachy. "most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional." Once again, I must see some evidence before I can take a claim like this seriously. MY CASE: This resolution is specifically referring to the United States and the legality of same-sex marriage. Because this debate is centered on the U.S., we must refer to the United States Constitution as this is the very foundation of this country's legal system. In order for my opponent to win this debate, she has to prove that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Contention 1: The Harm Principle. The Harm Principle essentially states that an individual is free to do as they please as long as their actions don't cause harm to another person[4]. Allowing same-sex couples to marry under Federal law would not adversely affect any individual, nor would it cause harm to any religious groups. Therefore, same-sex marriage is morally permissible and should be legally permissible as well. Contention 2: Equality. In the Declaration of Independence, individuals are guaranteed three unalienable rights. These include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness[5]. Same-sex couples, just like any other couple should be guaranteed the right to marry. To not allow this is bigoted discrimination that can't be justified rationally. The only criticisms of same-sex marriage are religiously inspired, and as I have stated earlier by quoting the first amendment, America is a secular state. In a truly secular state, religion has no say in what shall be written into law. Same-sex couples have every right to be allowed marriage and the legal privileges that come along with said marriage. If you are a proponent of equality, freedom, and love; I strongly urge a vote for pro. Thank you. Sources 1)http://www.house.gov... 2)http://www.cnn.com... 3)http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4)http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk... 5)http://www.archives.gov...