Same sex marriage should be federally legalized.

I do not concede my opponent's new definition. Reasoning: My definition is the traditional interpretation of marriage, which I claim for the round. Here u can add an A Priori to the round: Since marriage is the union between a man and a women it is impossible to affirm this resolve. My opponent loses the due to topicality. ================================================================================= However, let's get back to the contentions and rebuttal. I believe the pro burden is to prove constitutionality on the fact that what the government should do is based on the constitution. However look at my opponent's obligation definition of should. Here, the term would have to be "ought". Ought implies moral obligation. You can negate right here, if you use the "should/ought" reasoning. Reason: Morality means in union with the natural laws. Marriage, in terms of the natural laws means, sexual intercourse, therefore leading to children. Gay Couples cant make children of their own. Thus, gay marriage violates the natural law. Meaning, it ought not to be done. "Each marriage has legal benefits. If the church wishes to exclude itself from marriage, then they are obligated to abandon their 1,138 rights and protections from the government, which we can all agree they will not do. Some religions and religious leaders will marry two gay individuals. Marriage is a civil and religious institution or else there would not be over 1100 rights attached to it by the government." I have 2 responses: 1) You can't punish a church or religious institution if they refuse to marry gay people, it's their right of 1st Amendment. 2) I concede, some religious leaders will marry gays. Thats fine, but that doesn't justify the state regulating ALL marriage in all religious institutions. If a church wants to marry gays, fine, but that action cannot be universalized. "Marriage is, also, obviously not a religious institution. Atheists and Satanists get married, therefore, it is proven that marriage is not a solely religious institution." I have 2 responses: 1) Satanism is a religion. 2) Atheists get "married" legally, but that marriage is a CIVIL UNION. Today's society uses them interchangeably, but they are different. Marriage is strictly a religious institution. Civil Union is a government stamp on a legal bond between two people. "You cannot equate two individuals who love each other in a comitted, loving, lifelong relationship with cult rape, etc. This is a bizarre, unproven argument." I have 2 responses: 1) I specifically mentioned polygamy as well. Once you claim that marriage is open to interpretation, then polygamists would claim that right as well. 2) Once you universalize your argument about the 14th Amendment, here you can include cult prostitution, polygamy, etc. Universalizing the Pro's side will be terrible to both society and the institution of marriage. "Marriage has been changed before. Divorce has been criminalized, legalized. Interracial marriage has been criminalized, legalized. And 1100+ governmental changes have been made in these rights. Changes have been made to marriage." I have 1 response: 1) Yes, I agree. But look at your given examples. All are missing one component. All your examples still are between the fundamental value of a marriage, A MAN AND WOMEN. "If a change to marriage is unbeneficial or particularly harmful, courts will rule it such and not legalize it." I have 2 responses: 1) Let's not get to that point because then it may be too late. 2)Allowing it to be legalized in the first place only diminishes the social contract, I will refer to this later. "In places where same sex marriage has been legalized, this slippery slope effect has not occurred. It is unproven." I have 1 response: 1) This is completely inaccurate. Take California for example. Since the court's decision, an increase of polygamists, and sexual offenders have entered the State. It is only a matter of time till they claim they're own rights. "This argument is also flawed in that these individuals in your slippery slope argument are causing harmful marriages and can live in a normal two person, loving marriage. Most gays, if not all, cannot find happiness in a heterosexual relationship. They have no desire to have a heterosexual marriage. To bar two gays from marrying is not showing them an alternative (heterosexual marriage), but is rather barring them from the institution of marriage altogether. This is not only discriminatory. This is unconstitutional and un-American." I have 2 responses: 1) Your essentially saying that gays need more then one option, and that we shouldn't bar them from marriage. I argue yes we should, i.e. for my above reasons. 2) It's unconstitutional and un-American; Last time I checked the constitution never said that gays have the right to marry. Un-American, last time I checked America was a democracy, not a judicial dictatorship. The majority believe it shouldn't be done, therefore the people have a right to have their will imposed. "A. This is ridiculous! If society as a whole disapproves of something, then it should not be done. However, a significant portion of Americans want same sex marriage to be legalized." Stat: 70% of Americans are against gay marriage. "In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry. When interracial marriage was legalized nationally, 72% supported it." Again, I argue that in these cases the inherent value was not in debate. Gay marriage undermines the very root of marriage. Union between a man and a women, "Many polls also show gay marriage to be favored. This should not be basis for a Constitutional decision." This is indeed false, as I have pointed out. =============================================================================== Overview: My opponent believes that marriage is not solely a religious institution. Reasons why it is: A) Traditional Definition: Marriage is between a man and a women. B) Religions define it the same way. **MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNION ARE DIFFERENT. MARRIAGE IS SOLELY A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION** Ladies and Gentlemen this leads me to my voting issues: 1) Marriage is strictly a religious institution. Therefore, by affirming this resolution then the government would be violating the 1st Amendment. 2) Marriage needs to be defined traditionally to avoid slippery slopes. 3) My opponent has failed to actually prove this resolve under both ways of resolve definition: A) Traditional Definition: impossible to affirm for A Priori reasons. B) Using should as an obligation. Ought/should implies morality, therefore we must look at natural laws. Gay Marriage violates this natural law because it undermines the purpose of nature in the plot of marriage: sexual intercourse that results in children. This is a clear Con Ballet.