Gay Marriage should be Illegal (6)

I applaud my opponents rich and engaging thoughts. These are certainly profound and inspiring appeals. However, I believe my opponents initial contention of freedom may be slightly misguided. Please, allow me to explain. 1)I will agree with my opponent. The creation of laws in nature are, most often, to protect people, thusly preventing harm. But as food for thought, there are different types of legalities, criminal and civil. However, my opponent is objectifying nonrecognition of marriage as harmful and portraying it into a legal criminal outfit. In this, the state does no direct harm to homosexual couples, and this is a civil matter. In times of slavery in the USA, African-Americans would marry by jumping over a broomstick, because they were not recognized legally as a couple. However, in their eyes, they were married. What my opponent is fighting for is legal recognition of homosexual couples, therfore I recognize that marriage as a religious reason is invalid. In this, we can operate under the premise that this is an entirely legal debate and not a moral code. Whether or not it is moral or immoral for homosexual unions, there is the law, which my opponent seems to hold in high reguard. Currently, it is the law of the US Constitution that states regulate marriage laws, and this can not be a federal mandate. Legally, the state retains the right to recognize marriages, and the Defense of Marriage Act explicitly defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. Government has the right to recognize or not recognize relationships, but still do not have the right to (dis)organize relationships. Since the state does not interfere with the relationship and operates under the basis of legal definition and code, it does not legally harm the couple. If the homosexual couple has a problem way with the government is run, they have a long line of straight/gay/bi people as well. There are people who only get involved in legal matters when they feel it affects them somehow. They aren't the only ones with a legal opinion, but as far as legality goes and until the Constitution changes, the government has this right, no question. 2) Gay marriage is not a criminal offense, therefore it is not a crime. Texas tried to make this law at one point and the Supreme Court overturned it. It is illegal in the sense that it is not a legal right to everyone. There are definitions of what marriage is that makes it a legal union. Homosexual couples do not meet these legal definitions (where it is illegal). It's not nessicarily that they have a good reason to illegalize it, but they have good reason in the sense that the couple has not met the qualifications set. Whether this should be changed or not is the purpose of this debate, but I feel this contention was a little bit off. There is no law illegalizing or saying a gay couple can't get married, there is only definitions for marriage. 3) I know the Harm Prinicipal well, and defer this to my first argument whereas "Since the state does not interfere with the relationship and operates under the basis of legal definition and code, it does not legally harm the couple." Once more I point out that it is opinion that they should be married, and personal opinions can create emotions that are up to the person to handle. If they do not handle them constructively, then it may harm them, but that can't be blamed on the state(s) After the principal, my opponent says "According to the harm principle, if gay marriage doesn't cause harm to others, then there is no grounds to make it illegal." Once more, it's not illegal in the sense of criminality, and there's no ban on it. The state sets definitions for it, and this is where I establish my points. Contentions: In the order of establishing licenses (namely marriage) the state has right to regulate how these licenses can be attained. These rights can not be infringed upon because of discomfort or dissatisfaction by an outside party. They must have legal precedence. As such, no legal precedence has been provided to the non-providing states. Therefore, the legal precedence of rights to regulate license production lies herein with the state. The legal structure of the area surrounding marriage is not faulty, despite opinion. It currently mets all legal standards and regulations, and therefore should remain in effect. Compulsion on opinion and not legality is not a stabilized law. CONCLUSION: My opponents contentions are disproven. 1) Freedom- Gay couples have right to be together. However, freedom is met both ways. Gays don't have the freedom to force recognition. The state has the freedom to create it's definition for ascertaining and distributing licenses. 2) Good Reason For Making It Illegal- Marriage is a civil union. Marriage, by legal definition, is not a criminal matter, but a civil one. My opponent seeks a marriage license for gays, but attaining this license is regulated by the state. It is not legal fault that gay couples do not meet these definitions. 3) Harm Principal- It is not harmful what is currently in affect. The state is not harming gay couples. 4) State has right to regulate license distribution. My opponent has not, with all respect, established where freedom is infringed, that gay marriage is illegal, and that it's harmful. My arguments have legal precedence and my opponents arguments are speculative, and do not pertain to the situation. I thank my opponent and look forward to his/her response. http://answers.yahoo.com... http://wikipedia.com... (search gay marriage)