Same sex marriage should be federally legalized.

There are two huge reasons why marriage cannot be only defined as between a man and woman in this debate. A. In this debate we are talking about same sex marriage. If you do not count same sex marriage as marriage, then there is no debate. It's like saying the Iraq War should be stopped. And you define war as something that cannot be stopped. In our debate, we are trying to see whether same sex marriage should be legalized. It is obvious that we must allow same sex marriage into the definition or else there simply is no debate. B. Same sex marriages are legal in Massachusetts, the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, etc. Same sex marriage already exists, therefore you cannot exclude same sex marriages from the entire spectrum of marriages== The PRO burden is not solely based on constitutionality. The government obviously does not solely make decisions off of what "should" happen based on the constitution. There are many other factors. The definitions of should have nothing to do with the constitution. I provided 4 counter definitions in round 2 that are from the actual dictionary and define should accurately. Should implies moral obligation and logical obligation. Should and ought are practically synonyms but the topic uses the word should, not ought. Homosexuality does not conflict with natural law. Nobody knows why people are made gay. Perhaps to adopt or perhaps those people were not meant to have children. But the fact is that gay people have sexual desires for people of the same sex. There is no reason to fake this and millions of people are this way. No study can prove that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral. Besides, there are other reasons besides morality to legalize same sex marriage , therefore, it "should" be done. CON 1: You can't punish a church or religious institution if they refuse to marry gay people, it's their right of 1st Amendment. The government would not force religions to marry gay people. Legalizing same sex marriage is done by the state, willing religions, and willing religious leaders. Same sex couples could be denied marriage by churches if they wish, but they could be wed by the state and willing religions. Nobody is forcing any religion to go against its practice. Satanists and Atheists get married. The same laws regarding marriage will be extended. Nobody has to marry anybody they do not want to. CON 2: I concede, some religious leaders will marry gays. Thats fine, but that doesn't justify the state regulating ALL marriage in all religious institutions. Forcing a religious institution to do anything against their will would be a hindrance of freedom. But if anybody wants to marry gays, they will be allowed to. And the government will be made to marry gays. CON 1: Satanism is a religion. That is not under Christianity and supports same sex marriage. No Christians are forced to marry Satanists. CON 2: Atheists have civil unions. This debate is about the federal government. Atheists get married, not civilly united. The government calls it marriage. And if a religious leader wants to marry Atheists for whatever reason, they are allowed to. CON 1: Once you claim that marriage is open to interpretation, then polygamists would claim that right as well. Interracial marriage has changed marriage. And the many rights given. No slippery slope happened. The UK, Australia, Massachusetts, etc. have legalized same sex marriage. No slippery slope happened. Therefore, it is disproved. Courts get to rule what marriage is right and what is wrong, which will eliminate the slippery slope. Homosexuals have a biological need for same sex love. A cult rapist or polygamist does not. Forcing somebody not to engage in cult rape, etc. is not barring them from marriage. It is presenting a law to stop them from doing harmful behavior. Homosexuals will not engage in heterosexual relationships because that is biologically unnatural and undesired. To bar same sex marriage is to bar gays from marriage, which is discriminatory, which the 14th Amendment disallows. (. http://www.washingtonblade.com...) CON 2: Universalizing the 14th Amendment will lead to a slippery slope. The Constitution cannot be used and not used according to the preference of the Conservative right. The Constitution is a document that our government has to go by. Despite some wacky theoretical philosophy. CON 1: Yes, I agree. But look at your given examples. All are missing one component. All your examples still are between the fundamental value of a marriage, A MAN AND WOMEN. In the 60s, people believed social class was part of marriage. This was partially determined by race in their minds. Race is no different. To discriminate by sexual orientation is the same as discriminating from interracial marriages. CON 1: Court rulings will be affected by the slippery slope. The Court will determine what is constitutional or best for America. If something is harmful, non consentual, or constitutional, the court will not allow it. CON 1: In California, where gay marriage is legalized, polygamists, etc. try to claim their rights. This statement is untrue. The Conservative right is concerned about this but this has not happened. I looked it up and found no case of polygamists trying to regain their rights. CON 1: Gays should be barred from marriage. Gays should not be barred from gay marriage. That would be denying equal protection under the law, which is unconstitutional (14th Amendment). CON 2A: The constitution never said that gays have the right to marry. 14th Amendment, Section 1, Equal Protection Clause: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. .. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. CON 2B: The majority believe it shouldn't be done, therefore the people have a right to have their will imposed. 30% believe otherwise. General will is not for same sex marriage. General is defined as: "concerned with, applicable to, or affecting the whole or every member of a class or category" by the dictionary. CON 1: Gay marriage undermines the very root of marriage, interracial marriage was not. Many believed otherwise in the 60s as I showed earlier. CON 2: No polls show gay marriage to be favored. This site shows polls that include both outcomes: . http://www.religioustolerance.org.... CON: **MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNION ARE DIFFERENT. MARRIAGE IS SOLELY A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION** This is untrue. Atheists marry. It is not religious but is still marriage. If an Atheist wanted to marry a Theist, the Theist could request a religious marriage. They would get all the rights. And if two Atheists wanted to marry, this is still marriage. (mutiny. in/2007/12/17/atheism-law-and-marriage/) 1) Marriage is not strictly religious. The state and willing religions can marry gays. Atheists and Satanists can marry. 2) Marriage has been changed thousands of times and no slippery slope has occurred. Marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, Australia, the United Kingdom, etc. and no slippery slope occurred. Courts will decide which cases to hear and overturn. (. http://www.washingtonblade.com...) 3) The 14th Amendment says that you cannot discriminate. When America opposed interracial marriage, the Supreme Court unanimously legalized it in Loving vs. Virginia. A) The first two statements explains why marriage can be defined as two gay people. It has been in the UK, Canada, etc. It must be for the sake of debate. B) Morality does not show should or ought. Should or ought are not only moral, they are logical. Homosexuality is just as moral as heterosexuality.