The government should be required to recognize domestic gay marriages.

My opponent concedes that no entity should be required to do something without reason. My opponent's main error here is that he does not realize that there is a difference between having something legalized and having something recognized by government. Let's say that gambling was illegal, and government decides to legalize gambling. Does that mean that the government should formally recognize the bars that permit gambling as gambling bars? No. High-fiving is perfectly legal in the United States. Does that mean that the United States formally recognizes whether or not you high-five? No. Underhand serving in tennis is perfectly legal in the United States. Does that mean that the United States formally recognizes whether or not you serve underhand? No. Watching NCIS is perfectly legal in the United States. Does that mean that the United States formally recognizes whether or not you watch NCIS? No. Nose-picking is perfectly legal in the United States. Does that mean that the United States formally recognizes whether or not you watch NCIS? No. Let's say that gay marriage is legal in the United States. Does that necessarily mean that the United States formally recognizes whether or not you are in a gay marriage or any marriage in general? No. Naturally, in order to affirm a resolution, one must first address the subject of the resolution. In this case, the subject would be government. My opponent's only argument relating to government is that gay marriage should be legalized. As I have shown, there is a substantial difference between allowing something to be legal and having something formally recognized. "I made it blatantly clear what I was arguing for - that gay marriage should be legalized. This is just another way of requiring the government recognizing domestic gay marriages. " My opponent is sadly mistaken in his connection between legalization and recognition. All in all, my opponent gives reasons why government should not arrest or fine people who participate in gay marriages. However, he does not give reasons why government should recognize the people who participate in gay marriages as people who participate in gay marriages. Therefore, his argument is incomplete, and therefore irrelevant to the resolution. As this is the last round, my opponent cannot make an argument as to why gay marriage can be formally recognized. He can only try to make an argument that legalization and recognition are different. Therefore, I shall take active steps against this. "recognize" - "to acknowledge formally" (From Round 1) legalize - "to make legal" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... legal - "conforming to or permitted by law or established rules" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... So, to legalize something that was previously illegal, a government would have to abolish whatever law made that something not permitted. That does not mean that they then formally recognize the gay marriages. The only argument I can think of that my opponent would have left is pointing out that by legalizing gay marriage, government has already formally recognized them. However, government would only be recognizing that gay marriage is legal. However, any domestic gay marriage between any two people would go unnoticed and unrecognized by government, as there would be no reason to recognize them. In conclusion, my opponent has never affirmed the resolution at all. He's been arguing the same thing over and over. This last round, he made the argument that legalizing something and recognizing it are the same. I have shown this to be false, putting him right back where he was: nowhere. Therefore, there is no reason that my opponent has actually presented by which government should be required to recognize domestic gay marriages, and by the value that has not been contested and has been accepted, that "no entity should be required to do something without reason," the resolution is officially negated.