Gay Marriage

Hey all. First, I apologize if this is against some sort of rule, or if this isn't the sort of thing that should be posted here. I'm very, very new. Anyways, I'm giving a speech on why gay marriage should be legal in a conservative Christian speech and debate league, so it'll be a tough audience. Please rip the following speech apart as best you can. I definitely want to have some back and forth, too. "" I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." These words were written by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. Why was Jefferson so adamant about the separation of the church and state? The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state. Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in America since the founding of the republic. Indeed, James Madison, the father of the United States Constitution, once observed that [QUOTE] "the [religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."[UNQUOTE] Americans are still among the most religious people in the world. Yet the government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding religious institutions or religious beliefs. By maintaining the wall separating church and state, we can guarantee the continued vitality of religion in American life. Now, I like to think that everyone is on the same page about the separation of the church and the state, so I can"t persuade anyone of it, per se. What I do intend to persuade you of is that gay marriage should be legally recognized in the United States. First, I want to make it very clear what I am actually advocating. I am not advocating homosexuality in and of itself, and I clearly recognize that the Bible says it is wrong. Currently, in states where gay marriage is not legal, gay marriage is not actually illegal. Gays can get married in every state- they can have a wedding ceremony and have a stable, long-term, romantic relationship. What"s wrong is that? This marriage is not recognized by the state. This nonrecognition policy denies homosexual couples thirty-three rights and privileges that straight couples would get in their situation purely based on sexual orientation. I could go on, but I"ll spare you any more boring details. Just know that this is only about twenty five percent of benefits that gay couples are denied based purely on their sexual orientation, as heterosexual couples in their position would receive these benefits. It is my stance that while homosexuality is morally wrong, the state should abolish its nonrecognition policy of gay marriage. One thing I want to make very clear: freedom of religion goes both ways. Churches should not be required to marry gay couples, instead they may be married by the Justice of the Peace if a willing church cannot be found. Now that it"s clear what I"m actually advocating, I will present my three arguments in favor of gay marriage, and finish up by refuting all secular arguments against gay marriage. My first argument is that of no harm caused. As I have already pointed out, gays can already marry, it just isn"t recognized by the government. Because of this, recognizing gay marriage won"t actually do anything bad. My arguments for gay marriage are qualitative in nature, and hinge on constitutionality and the elimination of discrimination, whereas arguments against gay marriage are quantitative in nature and talk about the weakening of society, and thus won"t actually come about because of the recognition of gay marriage. My second argument is that of constitutionality. The defiinition of discrimination is treating two people differently in the same situation. Since a straight couple in the same situation as a gay couple is treated differently than the gay couple, the nonrecognition of gay marriage is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. My final argument is an appeal to democracy. I researched over 20 public opinion polls dating from 2012, to January 2015, and found that anywhere from 56% to 67% of the total population support gay marriage. While America is not a true democracy, it is a representative republic. The theory is that the law of the land reflects the will of the majority. While gay marriage is illegal, this is not upheld and is a violation of the fundamental ideals the United States was founded on. Keeping these points in mind, let"s talk about the five main objections people have to gay marriage, and why they are all invalid. First, I want to refute any arguments having to do with the wellbeing of children. I have three responses to all child-centric arguments: First, child-centric concerns cannot apply to all cases of same-sex marriage, as there is no guarantee a gay couple will decide to have kids. To deny the right of marriage to all homosexuals, even those who do not intend to raise children, on this rationale is unfair, discriminatory, and illogical. Second, these are not inherent problems with recognizing gay marriage. Why? Because unmarried gay couples can, according to US law, adopt children. What does this mean? This is not a unique argument against recognizing gay marriage, as gays will have kids regardless of if they can marry. Third, bad parenting should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There are plenty of straight couples who are neglectful, abusive, and straight-up bad parents. We don"t ban marriage because of that, instead we deal with it on a case by case basis, as we should with gay marriages. Moving right along, the second augment I wish to refute deals with gender roles in marriage. This argument states that straight relationships are inherently stronger than gay relationships, and thus gay marriage should not be legally recognized. While it may be true that straight relationships are stronger on average, this is an invalid argument against gay marriage, for three reasons. First, some statistics says that yes, marriages often work in certain ways when traditional gender roles are followed. What it fails to prove is that this is a reason to legislate against gay marriage. It is non unique, since gays can already get unofficially married and adopt children. Further, the non recognition of gay marriage does not cause homosexuals to suddenly turn into heterosexuals and start traditional families. What this means is that we gain nothing from not recognizing gay marriage. Just because one structure may be optimal, we cannot disallow other structures. Finally, we do not legislate against nontraditional heterosexual families, so to do so exclusively for homosexuals is blatant discrimination and logically inconsistent. Similarly, third argument I will be refuting is that the purpose of marriage is procreation. This argument claims that the sole aim of marriage is procreation, and reasons that because homosexual marriages do not bear children they should be disallowed. I believe this is incorrect for two reasons: First, since gays feel no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, disallowing gay marriage won"t make them go have children with the opposite gender, so legislating against gay marriage on this premise makes very little sense. Second, this thesis is blatant discrimination with no logical consistency. We let bot