Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

1. Will of the people My opponent has not given any literature to make his prior comparison of segregation and homosexuality analogous. I presume he wishes to retract his claim. It is particularly amusing to see that Tarzan cannot give an adequate substantiation for his supposed transcendental morality. If everyone in the world can agree that wanton murder is right, but for some reason it remains wrong, then there exists a transcendent and objective standard for morality – it is my opponent's burden to identify and prove this objective standard. Because if we have a transcendent morality, someone is wrong - and it is probably the person who has no basis. What is YOUR basis Tarzan? I am not talking about God in this debate; my opponent's points in reference to God are irrelevant. Tarzan makes a rather novice mistake in assuming that legality = morality. I am not defining morality in terms of legality; I am defining morality in terms of the utilitarian metric. The majority of people in the united states see homosexuality as an immoral action and it is, therefore, an immoral action – the provinces in which it is legal notwithstanding. No such ridicules paradox exists. Tarzan is still begging the question. He cannot prove the utilitarian model wrong by presupposing the very thing he wishes to prove. The considerations are completely ill founded. 1) A paradox can only exist if you conflate terms – which my opponent has done. 2) Moral relativism CAN account for things that are universally accepted. There are absolutely no evolutionary or cultural benefits for wanton murder (Tarzan should come up with a few more and we'll see how they differ among cultures past and present). The utilitarian ethic does not suppose that people will come up with demonstrably different moralities. It still stands 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. 3) Prove it. 4) Strict Scrutiny is irrelevant if you cannot prove that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, that they are politically impotent, or that gay marriage is a fundamental right. ********** 2. It is genetic - My opponent admits that genetics do not determine the rightness of something. - My opponent concedes that logically incest would follow suit. No further discussion on this point is necessary. ********** 3. On Imbalance of rights I very much understand the said notion. My opponent does not understand that virtually ALL laws are discriminatory when applied. Laws barring children from marrying excessively burden pedophiles. Laws barring multiple spouses excessively burden Mormon fundamentalist. Laws barring sexual intercourse with animals excessively burden the zoophile. Taxes on gas only burden those who consume gas. Taxes on alcohol and tobacco only burden those who use those products. A law barring the use of cell phones when driving only burdens those with cell phones. Laws barring inbreeding only effect the incestuous. Affirmative action burdens only those who are not minorities. The list could go on and on. I suggest my opponent consider the logical inanity of his argument. ********** 4. On the meaning of marriage Elimination of marriage would stop the problem all together. My opponent already admitted that the meaning of marriage is achievable without conferred rights. I would not have to divorce my wife, we would just cease being legally recognized – it would not change my relationship with my wife in the slightest. If this is an adequate solution then my opponent cannot win. A. Consequences My opponent is shifting vested power to the right of the federal government and not the state. If gay marriage is to be legal in all states, it needs to be ratified in all states. Proposition 8 makes it fundamentally clear that California is against the notion of gay-marriage (it was made a constitutional amendment precisely because judges cannot touch it). Furthermore, the Supreme Court overturning the will of the people does not mean the action was right. My contention is that only things that are right and respect the will of the people should be legalized. My opponent must contend that things that are wrong and do not respect the will of the people should also be right – but the confirmation of this does, by logical necessity, open the doors to other less debatable vices. B. Tendencies -> rights I do not believe animals are capable of homosexual desire; I do believe they are driven by desire. And instant gratification seems characteristic of many animals – including our own grandiose species. My dog humps chairs, plants, legs, stuffed animals, and empty pizza boxes – but the moment he humps another male dog we presume it is evolutionary? Just because they do it, does not mean it is either evolutionary or beneficial. C. Marriage vs. Choice "The right to choose one's partner is couched in the right to marry." Mostly. But a father is legally barred from marrying is 18 years old and consenting daughter. A brother cannot marry a sister. Your choice of partner is already regulated – including the amount of partners chosen and the age in which they must be. D. Christian Values Wanton murder is a Christian value. Do you suppose that congress should not pass any laws regulating this? My point was simply that sometimes Christianity and secularism agree on what is moral and immoral. Furthermore, marriage is a right of the state so that amendment is not applicable. I am glad my opponent brought up ancient Greece and their lax sexual mores. My opponent has revealed some ignorance in terms of history. I am very familiar with the particular period in Ancient Greece's history – and to my opponent's surprise, he will find that homosexuality was actually emphatically denounced and discouraged – despite those who practiced it in spite. Homosexuality has not been gaining acceptance until our current era. ********** 1A. Marriage as a Fundamental Right. Show me where it says gay-marriage is a fundamental right. 2A. Goodridge v. Massachusetts But a father is legally barred from marrying is 18 and consenting daughter. A brother cannot marry a sister. Your choice of partner is already regulated – including the amount of partners chosen and the age in which they must be. Incest necessarily follows suit. But it seems you have already conceded this. ********** - Tarzan has failed to classify gay-marriage as a fundamental right - Tarzan has failed to show that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic (and indeed admits that there is not adequate information to do so). - Tarzan has failed to show that homosexuals are politically impotent. He has only asserted without evidence. - Tarzan has failed to show that laws that are against the will of people and are morally wrong should be legalized. - Tarzan has failed to show that marriage is a federal power that does not need to respect the sovereignty of the state. - Tarzan has failed to show how a state supreme court could legally alter California constitution. ********** Conclusion: If Tarzan cannot prove his transcendental morality then he cannot prove that it is wrong to bar homosexuals from marrying. Indeed, he cannot prove that people do not form morality using the utilitarian model (which seems to be the case when we study different cultures). If the utilitarian model stands then homosexuality would be wrong in the United States – this means that my opponent would have to contend that things that are both wrong and overwhelmingly rejected by the people should be legal, a position that seems completely untenable. It