Gay marriage should be legal.

"How do you know that it will open up a door to other parties? Even assuming that it did, how would heterosexual marriage also not open up a door to other parties? And even THEN, like I said originally, each group looking for marriage rights must be considered on their own merits. It isn't as if once gay marriage is legalized, every other kind of marriage that the imagination can think of will also be made legal instantly." My Response: The door has already started to open. E.g. In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. You then ask, wouldn't heterosexual marriage do the same thing? No. Why? Because heterosexual marriage is already seen as the traditional value of marriage. Anything that steps out of this, like gay marriage, would open up the door to non-traditional views of marriage. Furthermore you claim that it won't lead to the automatic legalization. This is true. However you fail to see the big picture. Once gay marriage is established and a non-traditional view of marriage is adopted other people who are polygamists, etc, would say that their owns rights are being violated. Look at above example. "My opponent said "According to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more". I never said that or even implied that, so this is an assumption on his part, making the rest of this paragraph based on an assumption." My Response: First off, you never cited a case that defends homosexual marriage. Secondly, you claim that family making isn't the main reason. If that isn't? Then what is? This leads to my conclusion that gay marriage is upheld by only love. "My opponent was the one who brought up polygamous marriages (" .. If this was true, why isn't polygamy allowed? .. "), so I listed some reasons against it that cannot be used against gay marriage in response to that sentence. This was to illustrate how gay and polygamous marriage are different." My Response: My opponent didn't understand my attack. If economics is the reason for marriage then heterosexual marriage should be the sole one. By claiming economics he devalues his own stance. "My opponent claims that animals are not gay and that the term itself is intrinsically flawed. A couple of sources that I will provide to argue his claim are the August 2008 issue of Scientific American Mind ( "..Animal homosexuality has been documented in as many as 1,500 species, including insects.." ), which reports on a study spearheaded by University of Oslo zoologist Petter Bockman. Another source is "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D. ( "..In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality.." )." My Response: What I am saying is that animals aren't gay for the fact that it doesn't wish to "love" their gay partner. They look to indulge in mere sex. That's what makes us different then animals (Most of the time). Saying that animals are gay cannot be linked to human homosexuality. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear. Extend this for his responses about homosexuality and animals. "My opponent says he is only arguing against gay marriage and not homosexuality. However, the two are obviously closely related. I will clarify my position about why gay marriage SHOULD be legal at the end of this response." My Response: I am not saying that gays are evil people. I am saying that they shouldn't not have the right to marry. Some friends of mine are gay, I don't hate the. I just feel for consequentialist reasons that gay marriage should not be legal. [Affirmative Burden] My opponent finally says a case, however I believe too late in the round. However, that's for the voters to decide. I don;t think he has given me adequate time to respond. But still, I will. His case: 14th Amendment: Equal Protection Clause This is a good point, however has a flaw to it. the Power of Marriage was given to the states rather then the Federal Government. (10th Article) Furthermore, this amendment only applies to laws under federal statue. My opponent will likely claim the Virgina Court Decision. In this case the court did go in favor of love, or w/e her name was. Some people take this as a point that marriage is federal. This is not the case at all. Nowhere in the court decision did it make marriage a federal "umbrella". Therefore, you can drop my opponents argument.