Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

1. Will of the People. >> "My opponent has not given any literature to make his prior comparison of segregation and homosexuality analogous." I assume this will do: http://www.allacademic.com... As far as objective morality... evolution provides an innate capability to make moral judgments. This does not indication anything about the CONTENT of moral judgment. However, evolution has also given a criteria by which the utility of an action can be judged - survival of the organism. This led to the rise of "helping behaviors" like we see in chimps when they groom each other, keep track of who grooms who, and make basic political structures. In humans, these behaviors and prohibitions on other behaviors can be traced back to their utility for the species, yielding an objective consideration of an action (R. Joyce, "The Evolution of Morality"). 1) A real life paradox - In Cogamond Massachusetts/Connecticut, homosexual marriage is LEGAL in the 199 block of Point Grove Road, but ILLEGAL 10 feet away in the 799 block of the SAME ROAD. 3) S. Nichols, "Sentimental Rules" - references studies proving this point. 2. It is genetic. >> "My opponent admits that genetics do not determine the rightness of something." Leading us to conclude there is no basis for calling homosexuality "wrong" and heterosexuality "right." Interesting implication for the morals of the community. 3. On Imbalance of rights. Yes, all laws are discriminatory when applied, but that discrimination must be based on some sort of legal footing. In this case it is not. I'll get into this later. 4. On the meaning of marriage. >> "My opponent already admitted that the meaning of marriage is achievable without conferred rights." I actually said: "The meaning of the concept itself can be achieved without government interaction, but the corollaries of the concept cannot be achieved without the government's approval." Zablocki v Redhail holds these to be "multi-faceted personal interest[s] of "fundamental importance."" A. Consequences >> "If gay marriage is to be legal in all states, it needs to be ratified in all states." False - "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (A4, S1 - US Constitution). >> "Proposition 8 makes it fundamentally clear that California is against the notion of gay-marriage" "A strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of [effecting] the change." (PA Coal Co v. Mahon). >> "My opponent must contend that things that are wrong and do not respect the will of the people should also be right" Slavery is wrong and did not respect the will of the people in 1800... B. Tendencies -> rights >> "Just because they do it, does not mean it is either evolutionary or beneficial." This says absolutely nothing about whether or not the possibility exists that it IS evolutionary or beneficial. Have you not heard of Roy and Silo (http://en.wikipedia.org...), two male penguins raising a child as their own? Sounds like they are exercising their evolutionary drives in a homosexual way... C. Marriage vs. Choice >> "[The right to choose one's partner is couched in the right to marry.] Mostly." We're not concerned with incestuous regulations or those concerning minors... we're talking about the right to chose which other adult you can marry. D. Christian Values >> "Wanton murder is a Christian value." I've been telling Christians that for years - glad to hear one admit it. >> "marriage is a right of the state so that amendment is not applicable." It obviously is - if it were not, the state could bar all Catholics from marrying. >> "homosexuality was actually emphatically denounced and discouraged [in Ancient Greece]" Except that in the Symposium (Plato) Pausanias states that when a boy and a man have sex, if the purpose is so that the boy "is hoping to become wise and virtuous" the act is not "offensive to human decency." Sounds like PedoHomosexuality in relationships to me. 1A. Marriage as a Fundamental Right. >> "Show me where it says gay-marriage is a fundamental right." The classification of marriage as gay presupposes the right to marry exists. As IT has already stated, homosexuals can marry those of the opposite gender - the classification "gay" only arises when they attempt to marry someone of the same sex. Thus, the nature of marriage as a fundamental right remains. 2A. Goodridge v. Massachusetts >> "Your choice of partner is already regulated – including the amount of partners chosen and the age in which they must be." Yes, yes, we heard all this... those restrictions are based on completely different considerations than homosexuality. And it is your burden to show that they are not... I'll show that in a minute... ************************************ >> "Tarzan has failed to classify gay-marriage as a fundamental right" I have classified marriage as such - the sub-classification of "gay" must stand up to Strict Scrutiny. Con's Burden. >> "Tarzan has failed to show that homosexuals are politically impotent." False - impotent means "lacking power or ability" - homosexuals cannot effect political change on their own. >> "Tarzan has failed to show that laws that are against the will of people and are morally wrong should be legalized." That is a normative claim... the legal precedent exists to do it. It is LEGAL - normative values don't matter anyway, according to IT... >> "Tarzan has failed to show that marriage is a federal power that does not need to respect the sovereignty of the state." Any action by the state running afoul of a federal law - in this case, the 14th and 5th Amendments - is under the purview of the federal government. >> "Tarzan has failed to show how a state supreme court could legally alter California constitution." The Supremacy Clause gives the branches of the federal government power over all state legislation. ********************************** Marriage has been shown to legally be a fundamental right - this triggers Strict Scrutiny. The burden is on CON to show that laws regulating marriage and the classification of "gay" as a subset of marriage are: 1) Concerning a compelling government interest; AND 2) Narrowly tailored to effectuate only that interest; AND 3) The least restrictive means to the end. He cannot. There is no compelling government interest in prohibiting homosexuals to marry - it creates more family units, solemnizes existing relationships, and there is no indication that same sex couples would render lesser care to a child. My opponent cannot show that current laws are tailored ONLY towards that interest, AND the least restrictive means to the state's interest, even if it is compelling. Once again - despite his burden to do so, he has provided absolutely no legal argumentation. AFFIRMED.