It should be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender.

My opponent alleges that I have made assumptions about his resolution. He now appears to be saying that his resolution seeks to advocate on behalf of all people and not merely of non-religious homosexuals. Let us consider that. The resolution seeks the legalisation of a certain type of marriage in the USA. At present such marriages are not uniformly legal in the USA. In fact, they are only legal in 4 states. Thus the resolution can be restated as "the law should be changed so as to allow non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender in the USA". It is perfectly clear that by changing the law in the manner proposed by my opponent a discriminatory outcome would result. If my opponent wanted to resolve "same sex marriages should be legal in the USA" he would have done exactly that. Let us consider an example. I resolve "white heterosexual males should pay 50 percent less tax in Spain". To support that resolution I contend that people pay too much tax and many are struggling as a result. Would anyone be blamed for challenging the above resolution on the grounds of prejudice? Of course not. Taking my opponent's line I would then argue that I'm really trying to resolve that all people everywhere should pay less tax and since white heterosexual males in Spain are a subset of all people everywhere that resolution necessarily would extend to them. The question immediately arises "why did I not say so in the first place?" It must be noted that my opponent appears to be a person of high intellect. He is also thorough. He included definitions for nearly every concept in the debate. And yet he claims that when saying that non-religious homosexuals should be able to marry people of the same sex he really meant to say that same sex marriage should be legal for everyone. That simply cannot be sustained. He now says that I never addressed his argument. To the contrary. I have specifically shown that his argument does not support his resolution. His contention 1 directly contradicts his resolution as presently stated. Could it be that he is simply unhappy with my constitutional challenge and now seeks to redefine the scope of his resolution? Indeed, in his 2nd post he has done just that. He has restated his resolution to now say "it should be legal for non-CHRISTIAN homosexuals to marry persons of the same gender". He seeks to justify that on the basis that Christians constitute the majority of religious people in the usa. It is clear that my opponent is shifting the proverbal goal posts while the ball is already in flight. My opponent contends that the issues have nothing to do with religion. The question then springs to mind as to why he included religion in his very resolution. And why he subsequently sought to further narrow that down to apply only to Christians. One last note. My opponent did specifically say that he does not wish to have a semantic argument. I respectfully say that this is not a semantic argument. His resolution was stated clearly. There are no issues with any of the definitions. There is however a very real and substantial difference between his stated resolution and that which he now says he seeks to prove. Finally I will point out for clarity. I have no obligation to refute any specific contentions put by my opponent. It is enough for me to say that they do not support his resolution and that indeed is what I have done.