Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

I thank my esteemed opponent for taking this challenge, and I'm sure it'll turn out great. Please bear no attention to my side note of me wishing this debate not turn into religion. It wasn't because I was challenging you in particular, but because I do realize that a "last turn argument" for opponents of gay marriage is to argue that the government should be a Christian theocracy (Dominion Theology), something quite off the intended topic. On a personal note, I want to remind the audience that my argument for moral realism, which you will find to be the main focus of this round, is not something I believe in. In other words, I'm playing devil's advocate. Why, you ask? Because it's fun to try new ideas :) ========== Definition of Marriage ========== My opponent's argument concerning the definition of marriage is seemingly convincing, but a red herring. Yes, the definitions of words are determined by the majority of the public. This is why we can see words that get different definitions as the decades past (attic used to mean vagina), and why we see new words pop into the English dictionary (to 'Google' is in the dictionary now). Simply put, definitions are determined by the consensus of the people. If my opponent wished to define skepticism as meaning "very gullible and accepting all things", then he possibly could if he somehow got most of society to agree with him. Because that's all what words are - vehicles for human communication. But when does the definition of a word or phrase become more important than simple communication? When the law is involved, especially when involving rights. Because of how marriage is defined by many states and the federal government, gays have less rights than heterosexual couples. This is when the definition of marriage, under the context of law, becomes VERY important. Anyone who is a lawyer or a political scientist should know that simple definitions can change an entire court case, even an entire debate (abortion - the definition of a human). So it basically boils down to whether gays deserve equal rights under marriage, and we have to ask, has my opponent's argument concerning the definition of marriage relevant or constructive at all? No. At the core, this argument ties in with the issue of rights - which can be argued in the following argument. [quote]"...perhaps my opponent was trying to say that union between homosexuals should have conferred rights exactly equal to marriage. Civil unions or domestic partnership would make more sense...As it stands, the very resolution is nonsense, for the definition of marriage itself does not permit my opponent's use of it."[quote] Or the legal definition of marriage can be changed. This is, at best, a play on semantics. ========== Nature of Laws and Morality ========== This particular argument somewhat deviates from the focus of the debate (pushing into meta-ethics), but I will gladly trod on with my opponent's case. He basically asks of me to provide evidence for the nature of rights (obviously in the pretext of a naturalistic worldview). If I can show that rights exist, then I do have the ground to argue that gay marriage should be legalized. So in accordance with this burden, I will argue in favor for moral realism: It seems quite evident that there are a few moral statements that are prima facie true. For example, "Hitler was evil" or "intentionally kicking pregnant ladies in the tummy" look obviously true. Given that all moral theories agree that some things are totally and obviously "good", and given that all moral theories agree that some things are totally and obviously "bad", it must follow that we have a continuum - picture a line segment with two ends. Therefore, it must follow that there are in-between scenarios or cases of which things are "good" or "bad", such as gay marriage (as discussed here) that we don't know the answer so far. Thus, rights can be grounded. ========== Legal Reasons ========== [quote]"If my opponent appeals to the law in order to trump the law, he must show why the law he refers to is trumping. If his legal reasons against the FDMA and other state ratifications are predicated on rights, he must show where these rights originated, how they are quantified, and why they are binding."[quote] This quote sums up my entire argument - making null the entirety of my opponent's argument. Of course I'm not saying something illegal has happened during the signing of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). No one tricked the system, and there wasn't any filthy scandals. However, laws are inextricably tied in with rights, and if a law were to violate a right, then should it stay? Of course not. My opponent asks of me where these rights come from, and all I simply need to do is to redirect him to the previous argument concerning the nature of laws and rights. ========== Should the Government be involved at all? ========== An interesting fall back my opponent has proposed, perhaps marriage should just be discarded? Or as my opponent puts it, "why should the government be involved at all"? I'm certainly not arguing that everyone be married if they want to live together until death do they part. I'm certainly not arguing that they are morally bound to being married if they are in a relationship. However, I am certain that the government shouldn't simply ditch the concept of a legal marriage. Marriage brings many benefits to couples who decide to go through with it. One of the most important benefits is the obtainment of rights. As stated before, being married grants you slightly more than 1,000 federal rights, and many state rights (around 600 from California, for example). Thing such as tax rights, hospital visitation rights, the list goes on. Marrying can be a benefit for both heterosexuals AND homosexuals. You don't have to get married, but this doesn't mean others should be barred from marriage. ========== Conclusion ========== My opponent's main, and arguably only, argument is whether or not objective moral values can exist in a naturalistic worldview. Seeing as how I have put that to rest, the rest should be clear.