Gay marriage should be legal in the United States.

Appealing to a Supreme Court decision for a legal precedent regarding the Constitutionality of an issue is about as far as you can get from making a fallacious appeal to authority. If Stephen Hawking says something about cosmology and I use his work I'm not appealing to authority because he is an expert on cosmology. Supreme court justices are all experts on constitutional law and appealing to their decisions is not a fallacious appeal to authority. But, all of this is irrelevant because when you actually read the constitution it falls in line with their decision. People have the right to liberty and equal protection in the 14th amendment and part of this entails the freedom to marry people of the same sex. ---> "However, it does NOT say that people have the fundamental right to gain benefits from the government for being married. " This argument is beginning to bore me and I've only dealt with it twice. Even if I were to grant that you are right people still have other rights in marriage that aren't related to gaining benefits. If one member of a lesbian couple gets seriously ill they may not be able to visit their loved one because technically they aren't "family". [1] By allowing gay couples to get married they would get to enjoy this right along with the other legal protections that straight couples enjoy. =================== Defending The Argument =================== Contention 1: The Harm Principle My opponent has said absolutely nothing about this argument so allow it to carry over into this round. I firmly maintain that gay marriage harms no one. Contention 2: The Utility Factor ---> "People would still marry as they pleased. However, government would be unable to have a say in the matter. " We have a constitution to guarantee us certain rights. It is therefore the responsibility of the government to make sure that those rights aren't violated. Furthermore, rights mean absolutely nothing unless they are legally recognized. There is a reason lawyers require people to sign legal documents as opposed to just relying on the good intentions of someone. ---> "The people would simply lose their discriminatory tax cuts, which they had no "right" to. Or, we could just eliminate a few unnecessary government projects and say that everybody gets tax cuts, rather than just the married. Now, how can anybody complain with that situation? " Even if I were to grant that tax cuts for married people was discriminatory I've already pointed out that we could legalize gay marriage and still eliminate tax cuts for married couples. Your argument therefore consists of a false dichotomy. [2] There are more than two options. Gay marriage can be legalized and we can also take away tax cuts from married people. Secondly, your saying that tax cuts for married couples are discriminatory without giving a reasonable explanation as to why this would be the case. But, even if you presented a great argument it's rendered irrelevant by my previous contention. We could still allow marriage and strip that institution of its tax cuts. Contention 3: Gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. "My opponent's arguments against marriages involving animals, walls, and abstract ideas are valid, but he ignores polygamy and pedophilia. " Before I'm even tempted to reply to mongeese's fallacious argument please notice how he is trying to distract you from the fact that he has said virtually nothing about my core constitutional arguments. Once again he has decided to trot out his tired slippery slope fallacy. Mongeese argues that by legalizing gay marriage we would inevitably have to allow pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality. However, he does this without showing why gay marriage would lead to pedophilia or bestiality. Children are incapable of entering in marriage or independently entering into legal contracts, because they are, by definition, incapable of giving consent. [3] A child is simply too young to give informed consent. I'm not completely closed to the idea of polygamous marriage, but for now I'm only advocating for gay marriage. We can evaluate other claims to marriage rights one at a time as people make them. Contention 4: Gay marriage bans violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment. My opponent has ignored this point in his first and second round. Perhaps its because he has nothing to say regarding this issue? Allow my original argument for this to carry over into this round since my opponent has decided to ignore it. ======= Case Pro- Rebuttals ======= Contention 1: It is illegal for marriage to be legal in the United States. In the year 2009 Marriage in the United States is definitively not a religious institution. This entire argument is nothing but a falsehood. Marriage is a purely legal agreement that can be done in a courthouse without the involvement of any religion. [4] Contention 2: It is discriminatory for marriage to be legal in the United States. "My opponent suddenly switches his arguments from government-recognized marriages to not-government-recognized marriages. This is fine and all, but it completely kills any chance for him to affirm the resolution. " I did no such thing. And in case you have become confused let me once again state that I'm advocating for government recognized gay marriages. I've never switched my argument in favor of non-government recognized marriages. Your right about me committing a non sequitur with respect to marriage and tax cuts. I should have written that tax cuts and other financial benefits can help foster marriage stability. These things aren't entirely necessary for functional marriages. But, this whole point is of no relevance at any rate to the rest of my argument, so I concede it with that in mind. Whether or not tax cuts for married people is abolished is orthogonal to the issue at hand. We could agree that married people should not receive tax cuts and my arguments would still stand. Marriage rights consist of legal protections apart from just tax cuts. [5] Contention 3: "The United States lacks the power to legalize gay marriage. " –mongeese My opponent has entirely dropped his third argument and probably hopes that you won't notice. Allow my previous arguments to carry over. Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional therefore the federal government does have the power to legalize gay marriage. ======== Conclusion: ======== Up until this point my opponent has ignored both of my arguments regarding the constitutionality of gay marriage. And has instead decided to respond to them by creating a fallacious slippery slope argument which states that if we were to legalize gay marriage we would also have to legalize bestiality, pedophilia, and marriage to inanimate objects. From there he decides to abandon his third argument about the United States lacking the power to legalize gay marriage. Consequentially, the outcome of this debate should be obvious. People have the right to marry the person of their preference and enjoy the legal protections that go along with that marriage. I have conclusively shown this using both the constitution and teleological ethics. And by granting marriage rights to everyone gay or straight our government helps foster the social stability that is overall beneficial to children and their parents. [6] (Vote Pro) Sources: [1] . http://www.commondreams.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.ehow.com... [5] . http://www.nolo.com... [6] . http://www.city-journal.org... Good Luck :)