Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

Thank you, Tarzan, for the challenge. I hope we can have a wholesome debate. Since you are more logically minded than my previous opponent – coterminous to myself – hopefully you will have no trouble following all things to their logical conclusions. I reluctantly accept this debate, not because I am leery of the topic or my opponent (although Tarzan is a formidable opponent), but because it will be tough for me to spend an adequate amount of time writing my responses. What follows are my rebuttals to the first four numerical counterarguments: 1. Will of the people This has no bearing on the forthcoming argument, but could my opponent please furnish some literature that properly informs us that segregation was practiced in accordance with the majority opinion, AND was abolished in accordance with the minority opinion. I would first like the readers to recognize that my opponent is obviously against the utilitarian method of morality. The emotional argument presented in regards to segregation illustrates this. But let us consider the logical implications of Tarzan's reasoning. Consider that all people in the world believe that occasional child sacrifice to Molech is right. Indeed, there is not a single person who disagrees. Would the action of child sacrifice be right or wrong? If my opponent affirms that it would be wrong, then he is appealing to an unspecified and objective standard of morality that is apart form human reasoning, intellect, and sovereignty. This morality, as it seems, transcends humanity. This is precisely what Tarzan is doing. He is assuming that morality is defined apart form human will. Therefore, what objective standard of morality is he appealing to? Why is this standard obligatory? If all people in the world can agree that gay-marriage is wrong, but, because of some transcendental edict it really ought to be right, then my opponent would have a point. But my opponent has given no reason as to why we should presume that morality is anything more than an idea. My opponent has not done anything to lend credence to this unidentified and transcendental standard for morality. He has given no reason why the utilitarian approach to morality is wanting. If morality is not a fixed standard, then certainly there is no error in saying that segregation WAS right and now it IS wrong. If morality IS fixed, then, as is apparent, we could be wrong about what is right or wrong at any given moment. Thirty years from now – our current feelings notwithstanding – pedophilia may be nationally condoned. Would this mean that pedophilia would not only be right, but would have ALWAYS been right? The point stands – until my opponent can furnish his presupposed standard – the allowance of things should be determined by the will of the people. 2. It is genetic The source that I supplied Synd describes that there is currently no evidence that sufficiently supports the notion of a genetic precursor (it includes, among many others, the study in question). Evidence of correlation should not be construed as evidence for genetic causation. Moreover, the mentioned study offers no related correlation for lesbianism. There is currently insufficient data to determine the nature or cause of homosexuality. We simply do not know. But it is certainly dangerous to presume that genetics determine either normality or rightness – which is precisely my point with pedophilia. The current war cry of the NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love association), who rally in many gay pride parades – is remarkably similar: "we were born this way (1)." 3. Homosexuals inherently have less rights This is simply false. Whatever rights are not given to homosexuals are not given to heterosexuals. No one is receiving special treatment. Moreover, states are in the regular practice of regulating what we can choose. They equally distribute regulation in terms of age (pedophilia), number (polygamy), and familial relationships (incest). Since we already give the right to the state to regulate our choices (a right that Tarzan believes is imminently dangerous), perhaps we should remove the artificial right to marry all together. 4. The meaning of marriage "It seems to me that the meaning of marriage is far more about the love and joy that a couple share in spending the rest of their life together than about making sure a penis and a vagina share the same bed." If this is the case, then why in the world would same-sex marriages need to be sanctioned. The meaning of marriage can be achieved without the need of government sanction. If we eliminate the whole idea of marriage, it's meaning would still remain. I wonder though, does my opponent see the inherent contradiction in his assertions: "If the state has the power to regulate who people can marry, then the state would have the power to refuse marriage licenses between two stupid people or any other arbitrary, even innate, distinction." And "The 'dangers' of polygamy/polyandry...are regulated by other concerns for tax laws and the familial unit, as well as laws concerning the age of consent." Laws regulate the former, but for some reason he still believes it to be an immanent danger. Laws regulate the latter, but of course, he sees these laws as insuperable, inalienable and cast iron mores. Certainly if danger exists in one of them, it exists in both. What logical reasons - if the logic used to permit same-sex marriage is granted - does one have for barring polygamy and/or incest? - - - - Response to latter counterarguments: A. What are the consequences The consequences, as I pointed out in my previous debate, was that it would undermine the will of the people, it would necessitate a revamping of our sex-education systems, and it would give new impetus to the rally for polygamy, pedophilia, and incest - as is already evidenced (2). B. "But a sexual tendency towards heterosexuality should be given the right to choose who to marry and to have social benefits like tax breaks and solemnization conferred upon them? This position is simply not salient." This assumes that it is the mere tendency that confers rights. It is the fact that it is a biologically, anatomically, and evolutionarily attested match. Therefore, all people are alloted the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex. C. "This is the same way as choosing your partner how?" A pedophile cannot choose a child. A polygamous can choose but one (at a time). A traditionalist pure-bred cannot choose to marry his sister. But all people can choose one partner who is of the opposite sex. It seems pretty straightforward. D. "The notion that homosexuality is a sexual perversion is a Christian value. It's very clearly outlined in Leviticus." I am not sure why this is considered a counterargument. It is completely irrelevant. But, for the sake of answering, no it is not "clearly" outlined in Leviticus. They had no understanding of the homosexuality we refer to nowadays. - - - - "1) The right to marry the partner of one's choosing is a fundamental right. 2) Homosexuals are suspect class." What makes marriage a fundamental right? Furthermore, the question is not whether marriage is a fundamental right, but whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right (this is an entirely different question). I could easily ask the same thing of polygamy and incest. Moreover, it is my opponent's burden to prove that homosexuality is a suspect class. This necessitates fulfilling all of the following categories: 1. History of Purposfull discrimination 2. Political Powerlessness 3. Immutable Trait 4. Grossly Unfair IT Sources: 1. http://www.narth.com... and http://www.inteldaily.com... 2. http://www.cwfa.org... and http://www.boston.com...