Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

Thanking my opponent for his swift response, I would like to remind the voters that my opponent stated the premise of this debate: "Same-Sex Marriage should be legalized in every state because there is no reason for it to be illegal, as it doesn't hurt anyone. It is also a right given from the fourteenth amendment." He had the burden of offering a clear, persuasive case for this, but never did so. He confined almost all of his remarks to attacking twisted versions of my arguments, and never gave a source or detailed argument for any of his contentions. It is not a question of what I "want," it is the point of the debate. http://www.ddofans.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... It was never my responsibility to "prove why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized." For the purposes of the debate, my entire burden, as stated in my opening remarks, is to show that Same-Sex Marriage can hurt people and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect the supposed right to the same. As he based his contention on the absolute statements "doesn't hurt anyone" and "is also a right given from the fourteenth amendment," and he stated in his first response: "I would like my contentions to stand together;" to negate his entire contention I merely have to prove one of these two absolute statements is not necessarily true in all cases. I have done this for both. To recap my refutations: 1: Same-Sex Marriage involves homosexual activity, Homosexual activity carries a comparatively high risk of AIDS/HIV, Therefore Same-Sex Marriage carries a comparatively high risk of AIDS/HIV. Same-Sex Marriage may give people AIDS/HIV,* AIDS/HIV is harmful (e.g. "hurts people"); Therefore, Same-Sex Marriage may harm people. *(as in, "carries a comparatively high risk of AIDS/HIV") My opponent's remarks about the potential for STD's in heterosexual relationships are off topic, as are his speculations about protection and choice. Whether they choose a risk, whether it should be legal for them to choose that risk, and whether they were at risk before, all are not part of this debate. Only whether Same Sex Marriage can cause harm is relevant, and he completely ignores this. He conceded that homosexual relationships carry a high risk of AIDS/HIV. It is only reasonable to assume that some Same-Sex marriages contain homosexual activity; therefore putting the members at risk from AIDS/HIV. In other words, Same-Sex Marriages can indeed hurt people, and his contention is negated. His contention is also automatically false, as it depends on an unsupported universal negative. He made no attempt to support this, or refute that it is a universal negative; but such a statement must have comprehensive proof to be valid. Again, my opponent's contention is negated. 2: The Fourteenth Amendment is concerned with the states making laws infringing on the rights peculiar to American citizens. http://www.law.cornell.edu... There are rights spelled out in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, which pertain to all American citizens; but as the Tenth Amendment provides: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." http://www.law.cornell.edu... Thus, in areas that the US Constitution leaves open, the states and local governments may limit the rights of their citizens. Examples of these limitations would be gun control laws, traffic regulations, safety regulations, waste water controls, littering prohibitions, etc. http://www.law.cornell.edu... More succinctly stated: The 14th Amendment protects equality rights for citizens, but it does not confer any rights relevant to this debate, and it leaves open all rights not specifically stated to the states discretion. My opponent claims: "The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits discriminating based on race/religion/gender/and sexual orientation in all states." He gives no sources to back up this claim, and expects us to take us unsupported word. I have linked a reliable source that gives clear examples of the Supreme Court's interpretation of this amendment, and specific cases where it was applied in a way consistent with my contention. He also claims that making a federal law to enforce same-sex marriage in churches would not be violation of the First Amendment, because it would "not limit the practice of religion, it just ends an unfair practice done by churches: discrimination." To back his defense, he gives a list of sourceless accusations against christianity. This is a red herring, as the protection of the First Amendment from government "prohibiting the free exercise" of a religion says nothing about a religion requiring any merit to warrant protection. http://www.law.cornell.edu... As my interpretation is the only one that is supported by anything other than bald claims, and my opponent's attempted refutation was a statement, not an argument, I hold my opponent's second contention is negated. ~~~~~ Because my opponent took the time to answer my response, I will address the remaining points of his final response. "The reason I think it [gay marriage] should be legalized is because I see no reason why it shouldn't be, I see it as an unnecessary law restricting the freedom of minorities. I see no reason why minorities shouldn't have the same rights as the majority." He gave no evidence, here or elsewhere, that homosexuals are a minority, or that they deserve consideration in the law. All he gives us here is his personal opinion. "I'm sorry, but this made me laugh. I wasn't referring to people WITH a sexual orientation, I was referring to discrimination BASED ON sexual orientation." I'm glad that I lightened his day! He clarifies his stance on this point, which I just dealt with. "What my opponent claims to be a straw man, is that - essential what a marriage is - a ceremony and a legal argument doesn't hurt anyone, when he has failed to provide proof that it can hurt people." I provided proof. He has failed to defend his contentions against my evidence, or refute my argument other than by attempting to change the definition of marriage used in this debate to only include the ceremony. I urge the voters to examine the definition accepted for this debate (it is in my first post); if they find that is only speaking of the ceremony, then I concede that my opponent's refutation is valid. However, if it is speaking of the whole marriage, from the ceremony (if there is one) onward, then my arguments hold and my opponent's contention is negated. ~~~~~~ I have addressed all the remaining remarks in my recap. All that remains to be done in this debate is to thank my opponent one last time for posting this debate, and allowing me the pleasure of debating him. I strongly urge a CON vote.