Gay marriage should be legal.

My opponent's arguments will be addressed below. Paragraph 1: "Making only gay marriage legal would open up a door to multiple other parties. I never said that polygamous and incestuous marriages would be made legal, I am saying that by making gay marriage legal you are violating there rights as well because according to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more. If that is the underlying premise, then any other person should marry whom they love. This is flawed. Thus a definition of marriage must be heterosexual." 1. How do you know that it will open up a door to other parties? Even assuming that it did, how would heterosexual marriage also not open up a door to other parties? And even THEN, like I said originally, each group looking for marriage rights must be considered on their own merits. It isn't as if once gay marriage is legalized, every other kind of marriage that the imagination can think of will also be made legal instantly. 2. My opponent said "According to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more". I never said that or even implied that, so this is an assumption on his part, making the rest of this paragraph based on an assumption. Paragraph 2: "Turn this argument against my opponent. Essentially, then, my opponent is basing marriage off more then love, which inherently collapses his idea that gay marriage should be legal. He is now basing a marriage off of economics, not just love. This attacks the very premise of his argument." 1. My opponent was the one who brought up polygamous marriages (" .. If this was true, why isn't polygamy allowed? .. "), so I listed some reasons against it that cannot be used against gay marriage in response to that sentence. This was to illustrate how gay and polygamous marriage are different. 2. Again, my opponent makes an assumption that I said that marriage should be based on love and nothing more. Even if I had said that, my argument differentiating the merits of gay marriage and polygamous marriage does not collapse or discredit my position that gay marriage should be legal, and certainly not inherently. 3. I also did not base the idea of marriage "off of" economics. I simply listed reasons that people have used to be opposed to polygamous marriage that cannot also be used to be opposed to gay marriage. I also did not claim it was MY position; rather, I said that "One can plausibly argue that..". However, my original claim still stands: Gay marriage must be evaluated and considered on its own merits, not on the merits of a seemingly endless variety of paranoid possibilities. Paragraph 3: "The term gay animal is intrinsically flawed. An animal is not "gay." An animal could possibly be pan-sexual. Pan sexual is the sexual tendency towards sex itself rather then the agent helping. Furthermore, I am arguing against gay marriage, not homosexuality itself. When the natural law and marriage is intertwined, then the result is a family. Gay marriage undermines this natural order of family making. " 1. My opponent claims that animals are not gay and that the term itself is intrinsically flawed. A couple of sources that I will provide to argue his claim are the August 2008 issue of Scientific American Mind ( "..Animal homosexuality has been documented in as many as 1,500 species, including insects.." ), which reports on a study spearheaded by University of Oslo zoologist Petter Bockman. Another source is "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D. ( "..In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality.." ). 2. I understand that my opponent is arguing that animals who engage in homosexual activities are probably pan-sexual - the desire to have sex regardless of the partner's gender. While it is true that not every sexual act has a reproductive function, some scientists have also proposed that being gay may serve its own evolutionary purpose - it could be a way to strengthen bonds. As proposed by biologist Marlene Zuk, gay individuals could contribute to the gene pool of their community by nurturing their relatives' young without diverting resources by having their own offspring. Regardless of the explicit reason, the fact still exists that homosexual animals exist in nature. 3. My opponent says he is only arguing against gay marriage and not homosexuality. However, the two are obviously closely related. I will clarify my position about why gay marriage SHOULD be legal at the end of this response. Paragraph 4: "Yes, but the old people had the ability to make children. Yes, they may not be able to anymore. This, is irrelevant because the possibility and the natural organs are all there. That doesn't violate the natural law. Gay marriage violates the natural law because 2 men/women are purposely getting married when it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children. The opposite sex is necessary for this." 1. My opponent said that older people should still be able to marry because organs necessary for reproduction exist. He solidifies his position by saying "it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children". This implies that reproduction ability should be a prerequisite for marriage, which still means that straight people who are medically unable to have children (perhaps they're missing an organ - maybe it had to be removed or due to a defect?) should not be allowed to marry, under this philosophy. 2. Regarding natural law in relation to homosexuality and ultimately gay marriage, natural law is premised on an observation of nature and homosexuality clearly exists within both human and animal nature. Paragraph 5: "I never said they had too. The possibility is there. In gay marriage, there is no possibility for it is impossible with two people of the same sex. That's where the difference lies." 1. If my opponent claims that two married people do not have to have sex - only the possibility to have sex has to exist, I will assume that my opponent is again trying to say that straight people can reproduce while gay people cannot through sex. This weak argument was disputed above. Affirmative Burden: "My Opponent has yet to make a case fulfilling the affirmative burden. For this reason an affirmation is impossible regardless of my arguments or not. If my opponent doesn't fulfill this, then you must negate. " It is sad that I could still be "forced to negate" if I don't clearly state my position as to why gay marriage should be legal, regardless of the fact that I've argued all of your contentions. Please, let me be more clear. Gay marriage should be legal because gay people should be allowed to marry as long as straight people are allowed to marry. I believe that they should be afforded this same right because the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution states: "No state shall .. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Not offering equal protection to gay people under marriage laws is unconstitutional. Since there are many arguments against gay marriage which, as we have seen from above, are really about homosexuality at their core, it is important to argue the merits of those as well. This is a complicated and controversial issue and all sides need to be carefully considered.