Gay Marriage

In this round I will address the definitions, then offer some rebuttals to Con’s case, and finally I will defend my case against his attacks. Definitions There does seem to be a bit of a disagreement on what “in the United States” should mean. Con argued that it ought to mean the federal level of government, I argued that it should merely mean any specific jurisdiction, but rather any level of government, be it municipal, state, or federal. In the end it is up to the voters, but I will point out that Con has not offered a reason why “in the United States” implies federal government, and not any jurisdiction within the United States. The other possible area of disagreement is whether marriage ought to constitute a legal union, or merely a social one. Con has not offered a reason to think marriage is not a legal union. It does not make sense for this debate to center around a purely social union, because that sort of union is already allowed to occur without government recognition. Even if we determine marriage is a social union, he has not offered a reason that such a union should not be legal. CON CASE He begins by saying that legalizing gay marriage gives the federal government authority to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. To begin with, marriage was already defined by the federal government to exclude gay couples and I have presented reasons why marriage should be made legal for heterosexual couples. Since the government defined what constitutes a legal union in the first place, they have the authority to change that definition. A1: Government should not be allowed to define personal relationships. The beginning of his case illustrates the flaw at the heart of my opponent’s argument. This flaw is the difference between a purely social union without legal implications, and a legal union that has legal effects. Con argues that marriage ought to be a purely social institution, and the government should not be involved at all. I disagree with that notion (more on that in a minute), but it should be noted that even if we allow marriage to be free of government regulation, my argument still stands that gay people should be allowed to get married. My opponent really offers no strong opposition to the ideas of gay couples receiving equal marriage rights, he simply argues that marriage should not be controlled by the government. At this point I do not even need to disagree with my opponent’s first two arguments in order to win, but I will address them anyway. He says that we are allowing the government to define personal relationships, but that is not really what occurs. What occurs is government recognition of an already existing relationship that allows a couple to receive certain benefits through legal recognition of their union. These benefits include such things as inheritance rights, the ability to visit a sick spouse in the hospital beyond visiting etc [1]. If marriage were not a legal institution, spouses would not be legally recognized as a family member of their partner. A comprehensive list of legal benefits resulting from marriage is available at the source I previously cited. Not only have I explained why marriage should be a legal institution, I have shown that if marriage were not a legal institution, gay people would be allowed to get married and the resolution would be affirmed! A2: Marriage would benefit all parties involved more if it were a strictly private institution. My opponent states that we ought to have contracts setting up the terms if a marriage were to terminate, however a contract is a legal document. This is basically what legal unions boil down to: a type of contract that is recognized by the government as signifying the legal joining of two unrelated people as family. Even though his point is irrelevant to gay people being allowed to get married, as his scenario would affirm the resolution, he is arguing for a legal contract recognizing a couples, which is basically what exists right now. A3: Gay marriage is simply a concession of defeat for the gay community. Here it is argued that rather than pushing for equality in marriage, gay couples should push for the abolishment of legal marriages period. I have already shown why legal unions are important, but if the gay community did push for no government recognized marriage at all, they would still be able to have marriages, and the resolution would be affirmed. I have shown that legally recognized marriage is important, but even if all of Con’s points were true, the resolution would be affirmed. PRO CASE C1: Legalizing same-sex marriage has a positive impact on society. Here my opponent attempts to undermine my conclusion by launching two weak and unfounded attacks on my premises. His attack on my first premise does not even address the premise. He writes: “P1 only legitimizes an immoral institution, which causes harm further down the road, not only for individuals that want to get married w/o meeting the criteria set by government, but for individuals that find themselves subject to other arbitrary standards set by a far away government. ” He talks a great deal about marriage, but P1 does not concern marriage in the least. P1 states: Legalizing something causes happiness without causing harm has a positive impact on society. It is easy to see that his attack does not come close to dismantling this premise as he has not offered any reason why something that causes happiness without causing harm would not be a good thing. P1 stands with virtually no challenge to it at all. The argument against P2 also misses the mark, as his “alternative” would still allow for gay people to get married, and this would not harm anyone. P2 stands with no challenge as well. P1 stands, P2 stands, therefore, C1 stands. C2: Denying same-sex couples legally recognized marriage is a violation of civil rights. I agree with my opponent that “If government were not involved in marriage, there would be no violation of civil rights, because everyone would be free to set their own terms for marriage. ” However, I have shown that marriage ought to be a legally recognized union, and even if it were not, the resolution would still be affirmed. C3: Legalizing same-sex marriage is beneficial to the economy. My opponent concedes that marriage is good for the economy, but says that marriage does not have to be recognized by law for celebrations to take place. I agree, but if a marriage had a legal weight, that would encourage more people to get married. There are same-sex couples that could be having celebrations recognizing their relationships, but they don’t because they would not be receiving the legal benefits that are awarded to straight couples. Legalizing gay marriage would encourage more gay celebrations, thus helping the economy. CONCLUSION Con never really attacked my argument that legalizing gay marriage is good for society. His other two rebuttals hinged on the idea that marriage should not be a legal union, but I have shown why it is should be. His case also revolved around the idea that marriage should not be defined by the government, but again, I have shown why it should be a legal union, and not just a social one. I have also shown that even if his arguments are true, the resolution is still affirmed. It is clear that there are benefits for society if same-sex marriage was legalized. Source: [1]- . http://www.nolo.com...