Gay marriage should be legal in the United States.

Thank you for your quick response. My opponent's first argument is that "marriage is a fundamental right of liberty." However, the context of the case itself is that people should have the right to choose who they marry. However, it does NOT say that people have the fundamental right to gain benefits from the government for being married. The Supreme Court case only stated that the government was having too much authority over marriage. In fact, it was a law limiting marriage rights that made the case necessary. Nowhere in the case is it implied that ending all government involvement in marriage would have any negative consequences whatsoever. So yes, marriage is a fundamental right of liberty, but to have government grant discriminatory benefits to marriages is not. Additionally, this is an example of appeal to authority [1], because he is claiming that because the United States Supreme Court ruled something to be so, then it must be so. In fact, the USSC is actually a biased entity, if we were to go by my opponent's interpretation of the Supreme Court being pro-government interference, because any government institution would naturally be in favor of increased government authority, making my opponent's appeal even more fallacious. Contention 2: The Utility Factor My opponent then argues that if government quit all involvement in marriage, "even more people would have their basic rights taken away." Not at all. People would still marry as they pleased. However, government would be unable to have a say in the matter. 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? 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. Contention 1: It is illegal for marriage to be legal in the United States. My opponent's next argument is that marriage is not a religious institution. However, it is. The story goes that marriage was solely a religious institution until John Calvin decided that his government would recognize religious marriages [2]. Since then, people with no religious beliefs decided that it was unfair that only religious people were getting unfair government benefits, so they started marrying, too. That is how government got itself involved in marriage, and it has refused to release its grip ever since. The question is, why continue its grip? There's no point except to discriminate. 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. Remember the definition of "legal": "Having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact" [3] If we remove the legal protections, government would no longer bother to give marriage any formal legal status, and therefore, gay marriage would not be legal. Additionally, here are a few quotes from my opponent: "Moreover, the government has a vested interest in helping marriage via tax cuts and other measures, because functional marriages are necessary in order to promote social stability." Now, this is an example of a non sequitur (does not follow) [4], because it assumes that marriages need "tax cuts and other measures" to be functional. However, marriages have existed for a long time without "tax cuts and other measures" [5]. Gays have lived in informal marriages, and have reportedly been doing fine without "tax cuts and other measures." Therefore, there is no reason to assume that we need "tax cuts and other measures." The rest of the paragraph continues to rely on the misconception that abolishing "tax cuts and other measures" will lead to the abolishment of all functional marriages. Now, for a final in-depth analysis of my opponent's conclusion: "My opponent's arguments are interesting and… well they're interesting." Thank you. "But they do not serve to refute any of my four arguments." I beg to differ. "And apart from a few slippery slopes and other fallacious contentions..." You have failed to explain why my argument was a slippery slope (especially when I gave examples of people wanting to marry multiple people or inanimate objects), and have not brought up any other fallacies. "...my opponent has not presented a compelling argument that gay marriage should be banned." Banned? No. What, would government install cameras in everybody's houses to make sure that nobody attempted an informal marriage? That would be ridiculous. What I am calling for is a lack of government recognition in gay marriage, and all marriage. "Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional..." First, let's assume that you mean "removing legal and discriminatory benefits from." Then, let's realize that I am advocating "banning" all marriage, not just gay marriage, so the 14th Amendment would not be infringed upon at all. "...and since the United States Supreme Court has declared that marriage is a fundamental liberty..." For one thing, this is an appeal to biased authority. For another, marriage being a fundamental liberty does not grant it formal legal status. "...it follows from this that gay marriage should be legalized." When the two premises collapse, so does the conclusion. "(Resolution affirmed)" Because giving legal status to any marriage is clear discrimination against those who are not married, and there is no valid reason for the recognition of marriage by government, and there would be less discrimination if government stopped messing with marriage altogether, gay marriage (and all marriage, for that matter) should not be legal in the United States. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...