Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

========================== The Definition of Marriage ========================== "The entire point of the gay marriage debate is to CHANGE the definition of marriage to accepting gays." If the entire point was to that we ought to CHANGE the definition of marriage, perhaps my opponent should have made that the resolution. But even still, my point stands that definitions only change when we, and I'll quote my opponent here, "somehow g[et] most of society to agree." Since most of society does NOT agree that the definition of marriage permits my opponent's use of it, it stands to reason that the definition of marriage should indeed NOT change. If the definition of skepticism, as my opponent asserts, can only change if most of society agrees, why should the definition of marriage change when most of society agrees that it should not? There would have to at least be some relevant difference between the forming of the two definitions, skepticism and marriage, which ensures that one is defined by humans and that the other is not – my opponent, has not done this. Since both words are defined by humans, it stands to reason that both words must meet the same criteria before being changed. Since my opponent admits that words should only change when most of society agrees, it stands to reason that marriage should NOT be redefined to include the union of same-sex couples. This point has not been refuted. ========================== Nature of Laws and Morality ========================== My opponent quotes Christopher Hitchens in his profile. Since my opponent asserts Moral realism without evidence, it stands that it can be disregarded without evidence. My opponent expects us to accept that some intangible (nonmaterial) moral facts simply exist, though they are completely inaccessible via the scientific method. Lets take for example Justice. How can justice exist independent of humans? Are we really to believe that, absent of people, justice still simply exists (a theist has an answer this). Can abstractions such as justice really exist independent of people, or are they actually things defined by humans? My opponent has given absolutely no reason to believe the former. "Showing that rights exist is the point of the meta-ethical argument I made in favor for realism." See my opponent has missed my point! He has not shown that rights exist at all! He has only shown that they POSSIBLY exist. Given that there is no evidence that they actually do, it was my opponent's burden to show that the probability that rights objectively exist is at least over 50%. Since it seems entirely more probable that since justice is actually a property of persons, that it should be defined by people. Since people uniformly agree that same-sex marriage is not a right, than it is not a right. "He seems to describe situations of people who are acting immorally. However, the people who are acting such have their own reasons, whether it be valid or not, for doing so! So while they are committing immoral acts, they themselves are not evil. However, if they were to realize that the actions they are doing are evil, and yet still go on to commit it, then that's another story." If moral realism asserts that some things are prima facie wrong, then they must be self-evidently wrong. There should not be ANY people who believe that infanticide, gendercide, sororicide, fratricide, genocide, homicide, or anything that we consider wrong are right. But the fact of the matter is that anthropology tells us there is no one moral code that is deeply entrenched within the human mind as to be universal and unquestionable. We find that the concept of morality differs between cultures; even within a given culture there are sub-cultures who try to redefine moral terms. My opponent has not given even ONE example of something that is prima facie wrong in every culture – that would, as it seems, be a requirement of something being self-evident. 1. My opponent has not shown that Moral Realism is a correct moral theory or that rights objectively exist. 2. My opponent has not shown that, if rights DO exist, that same-sex union is among them. "This is completely false. Moral nihilism and moral relativism are meta-ethical theories" There is no relevant difference here. The fact of the matter is that wide disagreement exists, and that is a HUGE problem for a moral realist. I have presented the evidential argument against moral realism – insofar has the evidence against it far outweighs the evidence for it (if we can even say there is any for it). So the question should not be is it possible (though even here I would say it is not), but rather is it PLAUSIBLE that moral realism is true? And as it seems, it is not. "I never stated that I don't know whether or not gay marriage is wrong." Compare this to: "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." My opponent contradicts himself. Since he admits that same-sex unions are an in-between scenario in which we have thus far not answered, he admits that we do not know whether such unions are good or bad. Therefore he is subject again to my criticism: should laws be passed in favor of things that are, by my opponent's own admission, possibly wrong? ========================== Legal Reasons ========================== "My opponent's objective is to show that gays don't have a right to marry" And I have. (P1) Rights, like all definitions, are defined by humans (P2) the Majority of humans say that legal union of homosexuals is not a right (C) Therefore, from (P1) and (P2), the legal union of homosexuals is not a right. This adequately refutes the resolution. "Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment." There is no right that heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not have. All persons are receiving equally distributed rights – insofar has both parties may marry ONE persons of the opposite sex. ========================== Should the government be involved at all? ========================== My opponent states that I have given no reason to show that legal marriage is NOT a right. Why would I need to? It is my opponent's burden to prove that the government has the right to regulate human relationships. My opponent has given no reason aside from saying that we do not HAVE to let the government regulate our relationships – but we really ought to if we want 1000 other arbitrarily conferred rights… It is no consolation to say that the government has the "right" to regulate relationships if we want more "rights," when the whole issue hinges on whether or not these "rights" really exist at all. ========================== Conclusion ========================== A valorous attempt by my opponent, but his case has been shown empty and void. Now do what is prima facie right and good, vote CON. Thanks, InquireTruth