Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

Introduction: I would like to sincerely thank Tarzan for his relentless kindness. I much appreciate his willingness to take matters slowly. ************* 1. Will of the people Certainly there is nothing disingenuous about wanting proper evidence to show that Tarzan's comparison is truly an analogous one. I also hope that my opponent does not expect us to accept his analogy on the weak pretense that he truly knew 1950's public opinion. Though, like I said in my last response, this has no bearing on my argument, I would at the very least like my opponent to furnish proper evidence to support his comparison. My opponent goes on to state that a fundamental problem with the utilitarian model is that majority opinion could come to support something that is immoral (e.g. wanton murder). But this is a classic case of begging the question (the proper definition of the term). My opponent's premise actually depends on the very matter in question! My opponent presupposes a transcendental morality to prove the utilitarian model wrong. My opponent has even stated before that things are wrong qua wrong. But this is neither obvious nor evidenced by our seemingly evolving morality. I hope that my opponent does not expect us to accept that morality is transcendental because many people believe it to be so. My opponent does not understand that proving his transcendental morality is absolutely fundamental to his case! If he cannot prove the utilitarian model to be wanting then he cannot prove that banning homosexual marriage is wrong. If he cannot prove it to be wrong then he cannot prove that any such injustice exists! If there is absolutely nothing unfair about legislating against what the majority of people feel to be immoral, my opponent's case cannot stand. My opponent MUST prove this transcendental morality beyond the weak pretense that it is wrong qua wrong. We find that the concept of morality differs between cultures; even within a given culture there are sub-cultures who fight against the unspoken agreement and try to redefine moral terms. Different cultures have different moral codes. Which culture is right, and by what objective standard do we judge them by? My opponent has furnished no such standard. 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 Like I said, the article I gave negated the studies in question and sufficiently determined that there is insufficient data to prove that homosexuality is genetic. There is however, evidence to the contrary. For instance, there exists a substantial amount of ex-homosexuals. This would clearly be a hard feat to accomplish when it is genetically hardwired into your system. But – let me repeat myself – we simply do not have adequate information to support either side. My opponent makes the claim that if homosexuality is genetic, then a terrible injustice is occurring. But it was my argument that the mere fact that something is genetic cannot determine its rightness. Pedophilia was the example. If merely being genetic was enough to substantiate the rightness or normality of something, than pedophilia and zoophilia would necessarily follow suit. First, incest is not tied directly to birth abnormalities (1). Swedish psychiatrist Dr. Carl Olstrom states that, "There is no evidence to support the assumption that children resulting from incestuous relationships run a greater risk of being malformed than other children." But even if this were a compelling argument, there are possible incestuous relationships in which procreation is not possible (like a homosexual one). Moreover, heterosexuals who procreate run the risk of abnormalities (especially if they genetically carry it); I hope my opponent wishes to stop this unruly and dangerous philandering as well. An argument for same-sex marriage simply cannot be made on genetic grounds. 3. On the imbalance of rights My opponent's definition is self-refuting. My opponent's definition renders all legislation discriminatory when applied. There is no such thing then, as a nondiscriminatory law. If all things are not permissible, then somebody is not getting what they want. There are laws that burden only pedophiles; laws that burden only zoophiles; laws that burden only the polygamous; laws that burden only the in-breeders; laws that burden only men; laws that burden only women. Laws are formed based on what is right and proper and what is right and proper is determined by the people. Such legislation is then distributed equally. My opponent's argument fails ad absurdum. 4. On the meaning of marriage My opponent has not answered whether or not he believes the problem can be resolved by simply eliminating the idea of marriage all together. Therefore legal benefits would not be conferred to either party. This would of course lose him the debate, but solve the supposed problem. Also, incest can very well be a relationship between two consenting adults. The difference in situation is null. Health concerns are not enough, nor are they all encompassing of incestuous relationships. The point with pedophilia was that if rights are conferred based on genetics, one may rightly have to claim pedophilia to be a legitimate right. ************* A. Consequences I reaffirm my previous consequences as they were not adequately (or at all) refuted. B. Tendencies - > Rights My opponent never answered: does a mere tendency confer rights? Moreover, animals do a lot of things. A compelling argument cannot be made that since animals do it, it is right for us to do it. If that were the case we would see some mantis style eating of our mates after intercourse – fortunately my wife does not adhere to mantis morality. Eating our own feces would be a normal practice too. It is not enough to say that since animals do it also that the practice is either normal or right. C. Marriage vs Choice My opponent concedes polygamy. Incest does not necessarily increase the proclivity to genetic disorders and most certainly not all incestuous relationships have the capablility of procreating. D. Christian Values Christian values and normative secular values converge. 1A. marriage as a fundamental right Citing a court decision does not prove that marriage is a fundamental right (let alone that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right). If quoting court decisions was enough to prove a point, then my opponent must understand that under the constitution of California same-sex marriages are strictly prohibited. 2A. Gooddrige v. Massachusetts Again, there are plenty of individuals who cannot choose the partner of their chose. If the quoted section were taken to its logical conclusion, we would have a complete fulfillment of my "slippery slope" argument. Choices are regulated. ************* "It would be easy to change a law so that it simply said that marriage was between two individuals." Yes. But would it be right to do so? What logical reasons do you have for barring it – current laws notwithstanding? Homosexuals are not politically impotent and homosexuality has not been adequately proven to be genetic. IT Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.gateway.org...