Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

You claim I have the burden of proof for a few things, so here it is: a) Same-Sex marriage does not hurt anyone, because a marriage ceremony does not hurt anyone physically, or psychologically. b) Change the status-quo by making a federal law stating that no place which performs marriages can discriminate against homosexuals. c) The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grants equal rights to all citizens of the United States of America. It was created to stop segregation, 'Black Codes,' and other laws from discriminating against minorities. If no state is allowed to make discriminating laws against minorities, then that should also apply to sexual orientation. My opponent goes on to claim same-sex marriage can hurt people, but confuses same-sex marriage with homosexual intercourse. 'Same-Sex Marriage involves homosexual activity' A marriage ceremony and a legal document do not involve homosexual intercourse, and married homosexuals may even chose not to engage in homosexual intercourse. Also, homosexuals can engage in homosexual intercourse without getting married. 'Homosexual activity carries a comparatively high risk of AIDS/HIV' Though homosexual intercourse has a higher risk, heterosexual intercourse also has a risk. The risk of HIV/AIDS can be reduced by using protection, and it is the partners' choice to take the risk of getting an STD, but that is beside the point because homosexual intercourse is not the same thing as same-sex marriage. 'I contend that to verify a universal negative, which this preposition is, one must have universal knowledge of the subject. This is impossible in such a broad, subjective subject; there was even one Same-Sex Marriage in all of history that caused "hurt" to anyone, this preposition is false, and negates my opponent's argument. ' It may not be possible to examine every same-sex marriage in history, but it is common sense that a marriage ceremony does not physically, or psychologically hurt anyone. 'I would challenge this statement, and provide an impossibly vague definition for "hurt;" however, I am not here to fight with semantics. As so far I have provided all the definitions used in this debate, I challenge my opponent to provide a definition for "hurt" that will clarify his ambiguous statement. ' The rights the Fourteenth Amendment protects are 'life, liberty, and property. ' A marriage ceremony obviously does not hurt anyone's life, liberty or property, and legalization would actually increase one of those: Liberty. 'Thus, in areas that the US Constitution leaves open, the states and local governments may limit the rights of their citizens. Examples of these limitations would be gun control laws, traffic regulations, safety regulations, waste water controls, littering prohibitions, and so on. ' It is true that individual states can make limit some things, but a state cannot decide to discriminate african-americans from voting. The basic freedoms such as freedom from being discriminated based on race/religion/gender etc. are enforced in all states, and can not be restricted by individual states. Discriminating based on sexual orientation would also apply, so that would have to be a federally enforced law. To summarize: 1) Same Sex Marriage is not the same thing as homosexual intercourse. While homosexual intercourse does carry a risk of STDs, so does heterosexual intercourse, so it is up to the consenting partners to take the risk. 2) My opponent's arguments contain fallacies. 3) The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits discriminating based on race/religion/gender/and sexual orientation in all states.