It should be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender.

On the face of it, this debate may appear difficult to follow as much has been said in a fairly convoluted manner (by myself, I might add). To assist the observer/voter, I will now run a brief chronology of the debate: 1. My opponent makes the resolution and argument in support. 2. I reply in round 1. My response does not address my opponent's contentions on their merit. Rather, I challenge the Resolution itself by alleging that the proposed legal change would be unfair and unconstitutional. 3. My opponent replies (round 2) and confirms that his Resolution is in fact limited to non-religious homosexuals. He further contends that he is not opposed to legal changes that would allow religious homosexuals to marry persons of the same gender. He also attempts to change the Resolution by redefining "non-religious" to mean "non-christian". He again reiterates the contentions in support of his argument and emphasies (quite rightly) that I have not addressed any of them. 4. I reply (round 2). One might say that this is where the proverbial hits the fan. It is at this point that I attack my opponent for allegedly attempting to redefine his Resolution. I contend in round 2 (completely wrongly! ) that my opponent now wishes to broaden the scope of his Resolution to now apply to same sex marriage generally. By doing this I effectively waste a round (well, my part of the round anyway). 5. Within 30 minutes of posting my round 2, I realise that I have mistook my opponent's round 2 argument and I post a comment. In that comment I apologise for the mistake and invite my opponent not to bother addressing my argument to the extent to which it is based on a mistaken view of his round 2. This was a concession made by me to assist my opponent and the audience and to save my opponent the work of having to rebutt that which I myself agree was wrong. It was not a withdrawal of what I said. Once said, it cannot be unsaid. It was simply a concession "part of what I said was wrong, you don't need to show it because I concede it". 6. My opponent then makes his own mistake by (for some reason) thinking that I am conceding that I have misunderstood his FIRST round argument. He then asserts (incorrectly) that I am trying to change my argument half way. He further claims that I am not allowed to change my argument. He then asks voters to completely disregard EVERYTHING I have said in the ENTIRE DEBATE. 7. My opponent posts his round 3 argument. MERIT VERSUS RESOLUTION My opponent appears to be saying that I have an obligation to attack his resolution based on the merits of his contentions stated in support thereof. I strongly disagree with that. I am entitled to attack his resolution on any grounds I choose. In the end if voters are not satisfied that I have successfully attacked his argument then they will not vote for me. THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION My contention is, and always has been, that my opponent proposes a change to law to allow non-religious homosexuals to marry persons of the same gender. I contend that he has not refuted that proposition. In fact, he has supported it in round 3 ("I am advocating that non-religious homosexuals should be allowed under law to marry people of the same gender"). He goes on to say "However, I am not advocating that everyone else cannot marry people of the same gender". It should then be accepted that he is not setting out to advocate a law prohibiting religious homosexuals from marrying people of the same gender. Nor is he opposed to a braoder law. Indeed, I was never suggesting that my opponent is being intentionally biased. What I was (and am) suggesting, however, is that the resolution as it stands proposes the introduction of legislation that, due to its narrow scope, would by its very nature be unfair and unconsitutional. He says that he chose to argue for non-religious (now non-christian) homosexuals. He says that the issue of religious (now christian) homosexuals is an issue for another debate. In effect he is therefore saying "today I will argue that non-christian homosexuals should have the legal right to marry people of the same sex. It has nothing to do with religion but my argument is limited to non-christians. Tomorrow we can argue whether Christian homosexuals should be extended the same rights as non-Christians ones should". The question that comes to mind is WHY. WHY my opponent chooses to make that distinction. Clearly if he believed that religion and law are indeed separate things (as per the First Amendment), his Resolution would not be so narrow as to only apply to non-Christians. This is tantamount to me saying "Today I will debate that white christian women should have the right to abortion. We can debate Afro-American women's rights to abortion another time. Not that I'm saying that Afro-American women should not have that right". Peculiar as it is, this is not in itself a reason to reject my opponent's argument. He is entitled to hold views that tend to discriminate on the basis of religion. He is correct that wer are not Congress. He is correct that we are two people sitting at computers. Does that make a difference? His resolution is about making something legal. It's about making a law. Of course, he can't make that law (althogh, in Australia at least, any citizen can introduce what's known as a Private Bill. .. however my opponent is apparently a minor and would not be able to in any event). Given that the resolution implicitly but quite clearly states that a law should be made (to at least amend current laws), the entire debate is about the introduction of a law. A law that will allow non-Christian homosexuals to marry people of the same gender. A law that would be unfair and unconstitutional. One might find it interesting that my opponent's contentions (round 1) do not address the "non-Christian" part of his resolution. Why he chose to propose such narrow a resolution and why he chose not to argue that part of it is a question that remains unanswered. I suspect that he was worried that his opponent might be a fundamental Christian and would argue religion. Of course that would give my opponent an opportunity to run a First Amendment argument. All of this is moot and I may be incorrect in my assumption as to the reasoning behind the mystery. My final submission is as follows: Congress or not, discriminatory intentions or not, opposition to a broader law or not, the position remains the same. Pro has resolved to change the law to allow non-Christian homosexuals to marry people of the same gender. That's the beginning of it and that's really where it ends. Such a law as that proposed by my opponent cannot be sustained as it would discriminate against christians, bi-sexuals and heterosexuals. It would be unfair and unconstitutional. My submission is therefore that you should vote Con. Thank you