Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

This debate was issued to InquireTruth... twice. He let it expire both times. Now I open it up to the public to defend his position because he apparently will not do so. *************************************************** The proposition on offer is that Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States. For the purposes of debate, "Gay Marriage" will be held to mean marriage between two individuals of the same sex. This definition arises from two segments of relevant law common to most states. From Illinois: 750 ILCS 5/201: Formalities. A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State. 750 ILCS 5/211(a)(5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex. Section 5/211(a) details prohibited classes of marriage. These laws are found at least in general form in many states. Marriage shall be held to be in relevant part: (1) The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (2) The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce) (3) The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created The three definitions show the traditional meaning, an updated definition concerning the state in which married people live, and the nature of the institution. Other definitions recognize marriage as between simply two individuals without legal sanction. Legally, a sanction is "The part of a law that is designed to secure enforcement by imposing a penalty for violation of the law or offering a reward for its observance." Thus, one can see that the institution of gay marriage has been socially recognized, but there is a lack of "reward" in social benefits like tax breaks, as well as a "punishment" in the form of no legal solemnization of the institution. This lack of sanction violates rights of individuals considering entry into a marriage. Inquire truth has put forth the following in another debate: **************************************** Gay marriage should NOT be legal for the following reasons: 1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages (1). Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages. 2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality. To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities. 3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights. 4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty? **************************************** To address the issues: 1. Once upon a time, the majority of people were against segregation. This obviously shoots down the notion that laws cannot be passed against the will of the people. Putting the rights of the people to the whim of ad populum is one of the things the founding fathers were most concerned about - tyranny of the majority. 2. There is indeed evidence for homosexuality being caused by genetic factors. A recent "Psychology Today" has an article on the very concepts that Synderella mentioned in your other debate. Propensity towards homosexuality increases with each male child. Homosexuality is not sexual perversion. Also, there is no danger to the argument in considering pedophilia, zoophilia, etc... to be innate because these sorts of behaviors are regulated by other, far more compelling concerns than the ones the regulate homosexuality. 3. Homosexuals inherently have less rights if they do not have the right to choose who they can marry. If the state has the power to regulate who people can marry, then the state would have the power to refuse marriage licenses between two stupid people or any other arbitrary, even innate, distinction. Clearly, homosexuals lack the right to choose who to marry. 4. My opponent asserts that marriage will loose its meaning if homosexuals are allowed to marry. It seems to me that the meaning of marriage is far more about the love and joy that a couple share in spending the rest of their life together than about making sure a penis and a vagina share the same bed. The "dangers" of polygamy/polyandry (multiple spouses) and pederasty (sexual relations between two males, esp. a minor) are regulated by other concerns for tax laws and the familial unit, as well as laws concerning the age of consent. ************************************ To head off a couple counterarguments... IT asserts that there are "trivial benefits" that "do not trump the consequences" of legalizing gay marriage. However, he never states what these consequences ARE. More, stabler families? Solemnization of relationships for a segment of the populace? It sounds like IT is afraid that allowing gays to marry will suddenly have people "catching gay." >> "We should not verbally abuse and discriminate someone because they are homosexual, but we should not do this to a pedophile either. We cannot say however, that their sexual tendencies give them rights." But a sexual tendency towards heterosexuality should be given the right to choose who to marry and to have social benefits like tax breaks and solemnization conferred upon them? This position is simply not salient. >> "100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex." This is the same way as choosing your partner how? >> "If Christians want to teach their kids Christian ethics and values, they send them to a private school. Public school education should reflect the view that is congenial to the masses and consistent with popular opinion." The notion that homosexuality is a sexual perversion is a Christian value. It's very clearly outlined in Leviticus. ********************************************** The position of denying homosexuals the right to marry is not legally tenable. I assert that: 1) The right to marry the partner of one's choosing is a fundamental right. 2) Homosexuals are suspect class. Either of these considerations, if accepted places the burden of proof on CON to fulfill all three prongs of the strict scrutiny standard: First, it must concern a compelling government interest. Second, the law must be narrowly tailored. Third, the law must be the least restrictive means to the end. Laws forbidding individuals from marrying a member of the same sex fail all three of these prongs. AFFIRMED.