Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

Responses: 1. Will of the People Morality is conceptualized as objective by the VAST majority of people. They will hold that moral "laws" or "rules," if you will, are completely independent of authority. Consider the following question-response pair: 1) Is wanton murder moral or immoral? IMMORAL. 2) If God said wanton murder was permissible, would it be moral or immoral? IMMORAL. Only those completely disillusioned with the nature of morality would hold that God could make wanton murder into a moral action (especially since he told us it was a mortal sin...). The sort of moral relativism exercised in the will of the people leads to the notion that homosexuality could be IMMORAL in Indiana, yet somehow MORAL in Ohio. This is obviously nonsense. Consider that the ramification of this is that in a place such as Union City, homosexuals on West Main St. can be legally married, yet homosexuals on East Main St. cannot. Really? That is complete nonsense. There is no MORAL change in either the homosexuals themselves or the moral standards of the people in between East Union City and West Union City. Philosophically, the notion of moral relativism runs into a problem when trying to account for why some things are wrong regardless of factors like culture, social standards, etc... for example - wanton murder is wrong everywhere. Moral relativists must hold that there was some standard that EVERYONE appealed to in order for these universally accepted notions to be "relative." Whatever this standard is would be an acceptable standard for evaluating morality in objective terms as well. So IT has some considerations here to address: 1) Moral relativism leads to the Union City Homosexual paradox. 2) Moral relativism cannot account for universally accepted moral standards. 3) People do not conceptualize morality is authority independent, suggesting there is an objective sort of "authority." 4) The morals of the people are immaterial under Strict Scrutiny. 2. It is Genetic. We seem to be in agreement that solid genetic evidence either way is lacking. The slippery slope argument towards pedophilia and zoophilia is completely immaterial. This is a normative legal debate. Children and animals cannot give legal consent. It is not a case of genetics substantiating the rightness or wrongness of something - it is about the preconceived notion that whatever is unnatural is wrong. When Ben Franklin began working with electricity, people admonished him for negating God's will - he asked if they had roofs on their houses. Incestuous relationships between individuals that carry a defect, even dormantly, are guaranteed of perpetuating the defect. Granted, if there is no defect, inbreeding will not produce defects. The moral approbation of incestuous relationships stems from one place - Leviticus 20. 3. On Imbalance of Rights. My opponent clearly does not understand the notion of facial and applied discrimination. A law regulating the consumption of wine in Church on Sunday would be facially nondiscriminatory, but in practice excessively burden Catholics. It is exceedingly clear that the laws restricting same-sex marriage burden only homosexuals (or those attempting to cheat on taxes...). If excessive burden solely on the basis of a difference in sexual preference is not an imbalance of rights, I suggest my opponent look up a definition of "imbalance." 4. On the Meaning of Marriage. Elimination of the notion of marriage is akin to curing the disease by killing the patient - I'm surprised IT even wanted me to entertain the silly notion. Surely he won't divorce his wife if homosexuals are allowed to marry... There is no contradiction between the power to regulate things that bear a rational relation to a sufficiently important government interest and the lack of power to regulate things based in willy-nilly differences in kind. In fact, there is no logical bar to polygamy other than current laws regarding the extent of social benefits (i.e. how do you file a joint return with 15 people?). And no bar to incest other than Leviticus. A. Consequences. My opponent asserts that allowing homosexuals to marry undermines the will of the people - this is completely refuted by the fact that every time the Supreme Court declares legislation unconstitutional, it does the exact same thing. He asserts that it requires modification of sex education - apparently he would rather children learn that some people prefer to put their penis in "strange" places on the street instead of in a classroom. There is nothing wrong with changing sex education. He also asserts that this gives new purpose to other rallies - Ok... and? Political dissidents are not allowed to parade around the street??? Really?? B. Tendencies -> Rights. IT asserts I never answered whether or not a tendency confers rights despite the fact that I stated in the first round that the position that sexual tendencies confer rights is "simply not salient." He calls the argument of animal homosexuality not compelling, regardless of the fact that humans ARE animals. I'm not suggesting that since animals do it we should also do it (negating his mantis example). I suggest that if there was no evolutionary precedent for homosexual behavior, it would not appear in animals. Unless, of course, IT believes that animals are capable of homosexual desires... C. Marriage vs. Choice. We seem to have strayed from the issue. The right to choose one's partner is couched in the right to marry. Otherwise, the right is nonsense. Consider a right to hold religious beliefs, but not to choose which beliefs to hold. D. Christian Values. >> "Christian values and normative secular values converge." My opponent has apparently not read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Absorbing Christian values into law runs afoul of this tenant. Furthermore, Homosexuality (and even pedohomosexuality) was perfectly acceptable in ancient Greece. Thus, one can see that this is not historically a normative secular value. 1A. Marriage as a Fundamental Right. >> "Citing a court decision does not prove that marriage is a fundamental right " Once again - this is a LEGAL DEBATE. Supreme Court case precedent supersedes your assertions AND state constitutions. 2A. Goodridge v. Massachusetts Again, IT seems to miss the difference between the choice of WHO and the choice of HOW MANY or HOW OLD. There is no fulfillment of the slippery slope argument. ******************************* >> "Homosexuals are not politically impotent" This is simply false. Blacks are a suspect class, and thus politically impotent. There are far fewer homosexuals than blacks. >> "Yes. But would it be right to do so [changing marriage to "two individuals"]? What logical reasons do you have for barring it – current laws notwithstanding? Barring what? This begs the question of what reasons YOU have for barring the change? Is marriage somehow NOT between two individuals even though current definitions recognize a marital relationship as being between individuals, regardless of legal consideration (see R1) ?? ********************************** - IT has failed to declassify marriage as a legal fundamental right. - IT has failed to entertain the possibility of genetic homosexuality despite evidence of evolutionary drives towards it. Thus, the burden is STILL on him to fulfill strict scrutiny for laws regulating one's choice of marriage: 1) Concerning a compelling government interest. 2) Narrowly tailored to effectuate only that interest. 3) The least restrictive means to the end. IT has provided ABSOLUTELY NO legal argument, despite the fact that the burden has been on him to do so from Round 1. AFFIRMED.