Gay marriage should be legal

Thanks Pro for this debate! Debate meaning and purpose: I would also like to clarify that the title of this debate is, 'Gay marriage should be legal' which is a positive claim by my opponent with the burden of proving it true. My opponent never stipulated that the definition of marriage was not relevant in determining if marriage should or should not be legal. Let's note that my stance is in legal standing by our government and Pros isn't. It is up to the one making the claim to provide undoubted evidence to justify the claim. "It is very important that the resolution is worded properly. The general custom is that an instigator that makes a positive claim, must provide evidence that the claim is true. Unless explicitly stated, CON does not have to prove that the resolution is false. Before any debating begins, the criteria for who has the burden of proof and how the winner of the debate is determined should be established beforehand."[1] Pro however did make a specific burden on Con in his first round acceptance. Pro said, "burden of proof lies on Con to provide any (non-religious) reason that gay marriage should be illegal. My first contention would fulfill the burden placed on me by Pro which is, 'Same-sex marriage doesn't fulfill the definition of marriage.' This contention alone provides a (non-religious) reason that same-sex marriage should be illegal which is all that Con had to do. Marriage meaning & No right: I have determined that same-sex marriage has no right for marriage according to our governmental definition of marriage. My opponent can play this contention off as invalid but it implies legal and non-religious evidence to not allow same-sex couples to marry. Same-sex marriages were debated about at the establishment of the definition but were discredited. Nine states prohibit same-sex marriage by statue but 30 prohibit it completely in their constitutions. By Washington recognizing same-sex marriage nationally would infringe on at least 30 states decision and right to not allow same-sex marriage. The point is we can not know what will be legal or illegal in the future and by current definitions and majority there is more than enough reason to keep same-sex marriage illegal. The only reason the state has ever had an interest in a relationship between two people, is because their union could create another human being as a supreme responsibility to civilization. It has also never been understood as an exclusively romantic relationship. Only in recent history has romance come to be seen as the reason for marriage. My opponent mentioned that America is about freedom, liberty and rights of the people and I agree. We see that the out spoken voice of the people in America since its inception has not been for recognizing same-sex marriages. In fact not until recently after 2000 has same-sex marriage sought change by legal means. Before this, same-sex marriage were never even thought about as being legal or a rights issue. It has never been a issue because same-sex marriages can not be equal to traditional marriages. Same-sex marriages can resort to definitions of marriage that could allow polygamy, incest and other forms of relationships. Should we risk a change that could allow these to have freedom to marry? My opponent has never addressed this problem. The status quo and Pro show that past definitions on the institution of marriage have been rightly placed. Right Infringements & Norms: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." My opponent commits to a slippery-slope here by thinking that because homosexual discrimination is wrong that not allowing same-sex marriage is also. The 1st amendment gives the right for the religious to exercise their religion. Many states have religious people who have voted against gay-marriage in their state. These 30 states are a majority to 20 and yes it is against rights to reject that majority even if these states are religious states. It is these states free right to determine through law how they want their state to conduct its state laws. These forced laws would also detach the understanding of heterosexual importance. If this importance is lost then humanities basic survival instinct is then gone. Since the dawn of human development the role of mother and father as male and female have been essential to our society. Hetero and Same-sex relationships are not equal in many standards. Inadequate parenting: I never attempted to fight homosexuality itself because I did not see the need too, I just focused on marriage itself. My opponent said that homosexuals are born homosexuals but most studies show that children do not develop the stage of sexuality until after ages 2 thru 3.[2] Also my opponent never argued pre-birth homosexuality until the 5th round. His rebuttal here is also a fallacy of generalization by using small amount of cases and test to make a final determination for all. My opponent brought up earlier that marriages were arranged and that is interesting indeed. We have no documentation that same-sex marriages were arranged. Even then they recognized marriage as a institute and profitable for the society with children and the combining of families into civilizations. My opponent seemed to fight hard for the (AAP) but they have just as a recognizable advocate against them. The American College of Paediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative association of paediatricians and other health care professionals specializing in the care of infants, children and adolescents in the United States. The College was founded in 2002 by a group of paediatricians including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the (AAP), as a protest against AAP. The organization's view on parenting is at odds with the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities. The American College of Paediatricians argues that mainstream health organizations have taken public positions based on their own social and political views, rather than the available science.[3] As we see, (AAP) is not the sole authority. In fact (ACPeds) stands by the view that same-sex parents do produce more homosexual children. Divorce has been bad for children, second marriages have been, and adults just living together also. Though when it comes to re-defining marriage, we are now supposed to think that the gender of the parents makes no difference at all is just nonsense. Conclusion: My opponent addressed my sources more than his resolution. It could be viewed that focusing on attacking your opponents sources instead of focusing on the argument at hand as a insult. I do not think my opponent meant it this way but instead focused on them because that was his only way to leap over the definition of marriage. Pro gave us no adequate explanation why only both male and female can make children and guarantee the survival of humanity. While homosexuality decreases the survival of humanity. We never was told that current laws, definitions and majorities can not be used beforehand. The point is that homosexuality can not continue the human race and my opponent shrugs it off. My burden has been meet by numerous contentions and my opponents opening contentions were extremely weak and refuted. Same-sex marriage infringes on religious rights, state rights, it does nothing to further society, and is not the ideal situations for raising children. On top of the overwhelming fact that it does not fit the current definition of marriage. Thanks, I rest my case. Good job Pro! Sources: 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://kidshealth.org... 3. http://www.acpeds.org...