Gay Marriage Ought to be Legalized

Good luck Crypto!Making the Case:C1: Homosexuality in HistoryThis is not a new phenomenon. In fact, the ancient Greeks, Romans, and the Apes from which we evolved from all engaged in homosexual acts. What a lot of people do not realize is that the origins of marriage for people who were homosexual. Ancient Rome, ancient China, and ancient Greece all had records of homosexual marriages. They were considered part of a representation to the commitment to one another via society. It isn't until Constantine converts to Christianity that suddenly religion plays a role in marriage. Therefore, I assert to my opponent, and to the audience today, that the following can be concluded from this fact:1) If religion is forced legally to marry homosexuals, it is not an infringement of religious liberties, it's society reclaiming an ancient practice it once possessed until religion hi-jacked it.2) This is not a new phenomenon, it is an old practice that has been around for centuries, thus when the impacts of homosexuality are considered, the "inconclusive" argument, most often presented by the anti-LGBT side, for homosexuals being able to raise children is null-and-void. 3) This does not weaken the family unit, but strengthens it as noted by the Romans and Greeks for justifying gay marriage. A man in ancient Greece was known to marry boys to be responsible for their care and transition into adulthood. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... C2: Legality In the United States, as was noted by legal expert and Republican lawyer Theodore Olson who fought against Proposition 8 noted several interesting facts about gay marriage in the US: 1) this is not a new right, the Supreme court has ruled several times on marriage being a fundamental right to all and 2) that there is simply no evidence that any harm to the institution of marriage would occur if Gay marriage was legalized in the US. Source: http://www.foxnews.com...Furthermore, the US is one of the few developed countries who has not unilaterally established the legality of gay marriage. Canada, Sweden, Spain, Brazil, France, etc, all have legalized gay marriage. To which no study has ever found that the nucleus of the family was effected in a harmful way as a result of gay marriage being enabled. On the contrary, they were strengthened and even saved those countries money. Source: http://finance.yahoo.com...http://www.academia.edu...C3: So What? ... At this rate why don't you just marry a DOG?! What we will be discussing isn't the justifications for a man to marry an animal, or some inanimate object, or anything else. We are simply discussing if homosexuals have the same right as a heterosexual to marry the person they love. That is it. To claim we're on the path of beastiality is a slippery slope fallacy. And while most people make the false claim that they cannot marry another man themselves, that argument lacks the emotional fact of the individual, and who they associate with as their partner. A common argument I hear is that somehow we're all equal because no person can marry another of the same sex. However, this fails to take into account the emotions homosexuals feel towards other homosexuals, which are similar if not the same as heterosexuals towards their partners. C4: Marriage for ProcreationThe final point to my case I would like to raise, is the common misconception that marriage was originally designed for procreation and that is it. It was not. It was to ensure a man would care for his wife, or to the group of individuals they were married too as well as freedom of association. So if polygamy occurred, or a group marriage occurred, everyone in the tribe was responsible for the well-being of one another. This didn't always mean procreation was necessary. In fact Roman Emperor Nero was said to have married two other men as well, and he took them in under his care as a result. Now, even if it were true that marriage was intended for procreation, then I ask the following though experiment to expose the inconsistency of denying same-sex marriage:A woman had cancer, and loses her fallopian tubes. In essence she can no longer reproduce. However, luckily she survives the cancer, falls in love, and gets married. Does the fact that this woman cannot give birth make her marriage somehow suddenly illegitimate? I think we all agree it does not. So I ask my opponent what is the difference between two men who can also not reproduce? Or two women? Thus, if my opponent does try to take this route, I contest it's consistency. Source: http://www.britannica.com...Conclusion:------------I therefore conclude to my opponent, that gay marriage ought to be legalized in the US. In summary, this is an ancient social practice, not a religious one, it commits no harm against the heterosexual population, it enables the liberty of the homosexual, and it's reclaiming what religion hi-jacked in earlier times from the collective societies of their times. Other countries have legalized it, and nothing has happened that has outright caused them to get rid of it due to some unintended consequences that occurred, and furthermore, the legality and previous rulings of the supreme court compel the supreme court to find that laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional. Marriage is a fundamental right to all, and what is in question here isn't if a new right is being created, but if an old right can be taken away. It is of my opinion, that it cannot. The constitution and US justice system does not allow it. Thank you!Hitchslapped!