Gay Marriage

Please note that I am going to use this round primarily to address my opponent"s opening arguments. I will defend mine in the last round. 1. Opening Statement My opponent starts off her round by providing a few facts and one demonstrably false statement. First, it is noted that same-sex marriage will continue to exist regardless if the government recognizes same-sex marriage. This point is irrelevant to the debate. Just because something is going to happen, it doesn"t mean that it should be supported. Obviously, the government shouldn"t legalize murder just because it will occur anyway. As for the false statement, my opponent claims "To deny legal protections for SSM would be a gross injustice that is unwarranted, unconstitutional and unfair. " Notice how two of the words are based off her own opinions. The words "unwarranted" and "unfair" describe her beliefs and they are not going to get us anywhere. As for it supposedly being unconstitutional, there is nothing in the constitution about marriage (. http://www.jurist.org...). So, my question is this: "Hey Pro, why is not allowing gay marriage unconstitutional when marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution? " I am very interested to hear my opponent"s response. 2. Gay People and Their Kids Benefit from Gay Marriage There are many problems with this argument. First off, it isn"t true that marriage always makes people "more financially well off, happier and healthier than their non-married peer. " My opponent"s argument assumes a perfect world in which marriage solves all problems. This again, is false. My opponent admits that more than half of marriages end in divorce. Furthermore, "Data on couples suggests that same-sex couples are more vulnerable to poverty in general than are different-sex married couples" (. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...). I am not trying to attack the institution of marriage, but if rights were based off happiness, we wouldn"t really get anywhere. That said, the major problem with this argument is that it assumes that the happiness of all people is important to society. This of course is false. The United States government took out "pursuit of happiness" in the constitution for a reason. There is now a movement to legalize pedophilia but that doesn"t mean that the government should legalize it to make pedophiles happy. (. http://www.infowars.com...). So, the fact that gay marriage makes gay people happy is completely irrelevant to whether it should be allowed. Again, even if gay marriage magically made homosexuals happier and more well off financially, this does nothing to establish that gay marriage should be a right. My opponent is going to have to provide actual reasons to why homosexual behavior should be legalized to do well in this debate. My opponent then goes on to claim that kids benefit from gay marriage. This is not exactly true. I will admit that having parents is beneficial. This is true, but like my opponent says, "sexuality is irrelevant in terms of parenting abilities. " In other words, gay marriage has nothing to do with parenting. It is fully understood that most people can raise kids. So, the question is, "what does this have to do with legalizing gay marriage? " I"d bet that polygamists could possibly raise kids, but what does this have to do with legalizing polygamy? My opponent is right about parenting being a good thing for kids. But this has nothing to do with legalizing homosexual behavior. 3. Government Has No Justifiable Reason to Inhibit Same-Sex Marriage My opponent starts off by arguing that if more kids and people benefit from marriage, society benefits overall. This debate is not about marriage in general. Let it be made clear, I am not arguing against the institution of marriage. This debate is about homosexual behavior and about whether it should be legalized or not. Allowing gay marriage is the ultimate way of accepting homosexual behavior. But so far, my opponent has not provided any good reasons to support homosexual behavior. Hence, if she cannot do this, then there will be no good reason to support gay marriage. My opponent then argues that government does not inhibit marriage based on probability of issues or failure. I tend to agree with my opponent on this point. I mean, technically, the federal government should not be regulating marriage at all since the constitution leaves marriage up to the states. But I do get my opponent"s point. I don"t see what it has to do with same-sex marriage, but I do agree with this point. My opponent then argues that government does not get to impose traditional values on married families. It is argued that gay people are citizens who pay taxes and therefore should get special treatment in regards to who they can marry. Look, the fact that homosexuals are citizens has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage. Homosexuals should have rights as citizens but this does not mean that homosexual behavior should be allowed. So again, my opponent still has not put forth a reason to accept gay marriage. 4. Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Both the Moral and Legally Righteous Thing My opponent again argues that gay people pay taxes and abide by the duties of citizenship. So what? So, do pedophiles, necrophiliacs, polygamists, etc. This has nothing to do with whether we should legalize gay marriage or not. My opponent then argues that the Supreme Court acknowledges a person"s right to marriage. The Supreme Court has in fact abused its power in recent times. The issue of marriage was left to the states in the constitution. The Supreme Court never had any business redefining marriage. But again, I question the relevance of this fact. The fact that the Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage has nothing to do with if same-sex marriage is an actual right. The United States for a good part of its history did not recognize black rights. That does not mean that they did not exist. The Supreme Court is not an objective source of truth. It makes mistakes and the fact that it currently allows homosexual behavior does nothing to show that same-sex marriage is a right. My opponent then argues that the Constitution grants legal protections of Due Process and Equal Protection. I agree that all people should have equal rights. The problem is that my opponent has not yet established that gay marriage is an actual right that exists. My opponent can say that the Supreme Court recognizes it as a right. But my opponent also notes that "we have made many adjustments throughout history; recognizing black people as free citizens and giving women voting/property rights are just some examples. " This is because the United States has made mistakes regarding rights. I agree that these specific adjustments were good. But the question is, should homosexual behavior be legalized? Is this an actual right that exists? My opponent has yet to argue that it is. She has given her own opinion on the matter, and has provided the Supreme Court's current opinion on the subject, but she has not argued that it is an objective right that exists. And for that sole reason, her whole case falls apart. My opponent is relying only on authority and her opinions to make this case for gay marriage. 5. Sources I very rarely address the sources that my opponents use in debates. But since I am going to have to defend my sources in the last round, I decided that I wouldn't let my opponent get off so easily. My opponent's 2nd and 3rd sources do not work. Furthermore, my opponent cites a book (source seven) named Lesbian Psychologies that is, as my opponent would say, "laughably biased. " In the debate, my opponent claimed "that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success. " Yet, the book they cite, on the very next page, claims that "There are some premises upon which I base my work, assumptions that I should make explicit for the sake of clarity and honesty. I quite frankly consider the average lesbian and gay male relationship to be generally more advanced than the average heterosexual relationship" (102). So the supposed facts my opponent cites are really the opinions of authors. 6. Conclusion My opponent commits several fallacies in her case. I have shown that she cannot effectively establish gay marriage as a right. My opponent"s argument is not really an argument at all. It is just an essay that provides her opinions regarding gay marriage. I happen to respect my opponent, and her opinions. But they have nothing to do with objective rights. In order to win this debate, my opponent must show that homosexual behavior benefits society in some way and must show that gay marriage is a right that exists.