Gay marriage shouldn't be legal

An ordained minister is required for Christian church weddings only. Not for non-Christian weddings. Since the resolution deals with legality, we are looking at what power the state has. The state presides over public weddings via public officials/civil servants. The church does not. The placement of Christian ministers has no bearing on the resolution. My opponent claims that "Churches vary, but each religion is based on some doctrine. That doctrine doesn't approve of gay relationships and it follows that weddings wouldn't be approved of either. " I have demonstrated that some churches do approve of homosexual marriage. Additionally, there are many Scriptual interpretations of the Bible claiming that the Bible does not disapprove of homosexuality. Jesus himself never spoke about homosexuals. Becuase of the Bible's many translations over the years, it is impossible to make any absolute interpretations. The Bible cannot be considered an authoritative source on the subject. Other religious doctrines are equally mixed. Some say nothing about homosexuality. "You dropped my argument about two consenting incestual adults. If they both consent, why can't they be married? Also, a slippery slope is different from the slippery slope fallacy. I didn't conclude that gay marriage would result in marriage of bestiality but stated the obvious that this would result from the same liberalization on who can be married. " I did not drop this argument. The incestual example was a pillar of the overall argument my opponent was making, not an argument on its own. I addressed this argument. My opponent claims it a difference between a slippery slope and a slippery slope fallacy; however, the argument he makes is a slippery slope fallacy:If we allow gay marriage, then we will be letting people marry animals! " This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because action A is permitted does not mean action B will ensue. The argument against allowing incestual couples to marry is a different one and not relevant to the resolution at hand. Biological evidence (as this is the last round, I wil lrefrain from introducing new sources) that children produced by such unions suffer genetic defects. Outside of this, however, there is little reason to make incestual marriages illegal. "My point is that marriage is natural considering the biological purpose that males are anatomically matched to be compatable with females. " My opponent again reasserts that marriage is meant for procreation. I have already addressed this point - something my opponent dropped. Why do we then allow infertile/sterile, elderly, and couples who plan to be childless to marry? Furthermore, if marriage is about procreation, why marry at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to procreate with as many people as possible rather than be shackled to one? "The US is not a theocracy but the institution of marriage has religious tie-ins. The governmental benefits of marriage are separate from the sanctity of marriage. This sanctity should be preserved. "Based on this point alone, my opponent cannot win this debate. He concedes that the US is not a theocracy. The US does not make laws based upon religion. The US has a separation of church and state. Laws are therefore secular in nature. The resolution deals with gay marriage being legal. What is legal is not cotingent upon what is religious. Therefore, gay marriage cannot be made illegal because of religion. My opponent cannot find his source despite having two rounds (three, if we count the original claim) to do so. There is no evidence to support his claim. Even if there was, his claim has no bearing on the legality of gay marriage. Many, many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, yet my opponent is not claiming that heterosexual marriage should be illegal. I believe I have succesfully discredited the resolution. I have demonstrated that the US, with its separation of church and state, cannot make religious laws. Laws cannot be used to carry out religious ends, and questionable religious ends at that, as there is no consensus on Biblical interpretations, and many churches support LGBT equality and gay marriage. The resolution deals with the legality of gay marriage - "Gay marriage shouldn't be legal. " Many of my opponent's arguments stemmed from religion and thus cannot justify making gay marriage illegal. I have refuted each of these points.