Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

Introduction: Thank you for a great debate Tarzan. I hope the readers enjoy it as much as I have. ******** 1. Will of the People My opponent cited an irrelevant source in hopes of making his past comparison analogous. His source says nothing about the segregation of the 1950's and the public opinion of that era (it was a measly abstract too). I would suggest that the readers disregard that which was asserted without proof. My opponent changes his argument of transcendental morality and seeks refuge in the idea of evolved morality and innateness. Self-preservation is an obviously innate characteristic – building morality around the idea of survival seems congenial to an evolutionary standard. But evolution cannot account for homosexuality because it has no practical benefit for survival. Moreover, evolved morality cannot account for acceptance of said behavior because of the very reason that it has no practical benefit (and even where it could have practical benefit it is not observed or evidenced). China would be seeing an increase in homosexuality due to the overwhelming majority of men (due to female infanticide) and the problems of overpopulation – but, what do you know, this is not the case. All evidence seems to point to the idea that people define morality. If this is not the case, my opponent would have had to prove an objective and binding metric of morality that exists outside of the nature of humankind. He has done no such thing and can therefore make no claim in regards to the wrongness or rightness of homosexuality. The unrefuted syllogism is as follows: P1 People are the ones who define morality if morality is not objective P2 Objective morality was not proven by my opponent C Therefore, morality is assumed to be defined by the people The majority of US citizens (and people worldwide even) agree that homosexuality is wrong. Therefore, my opponent stands in affirmation of legalizing that which is both against the will of the people and is indeed wrong. ******** 2. It is genetic As said before, heterosexual relationships are attested anatomically, evolutionarily, biologically, and, of course, genetically. Homosexual relationships are not. Rights should not be conferred solely on the basis of genetics. ******** 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." It is, it is called the Defense of Marriage Act. It defines marriage in federal law as a union of one man and one woman. It was passed by congress September 21, 1996. It does, however, leave the right UP TO THE STATES (like I have already stated) to individually legalize gay and lesbian marriages. ******** 4. Meaning of marriage My opponent has not refuted the claim that the problem could be virtually eliminated by not giving the state or federal government any rights to recognize marriage. Marriage then stands only by its meaning and not by the conferred rights thereof. ******** A. Consequences "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)." False: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. ï¿½ 7 (1997) And "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1738C (1997). Under the supremacy clause of the US constitution, it is perfectly legitimate for states to regulate same-sex marriage and not recognize the same-sex marriage of other states. Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act stand to negate the resolution. B. Tendencies -> rights This was covered in argument #1. C. Marriage vs. Choice Choices are already regulated and my opponent has not refuted this attested claim. D. Christian Values "I've been telling Christians that for years - glad to hear one admit it." Haha. This is a funny addition given my misspeaking, but, of course, irrelevant. ******** 1A. Marriage as a fundamental right The Defense of marriage act categorically states that marriage is between one man and one woman. The right to individually legalize gay marriage (without the requirement to recognize other states legislation on the matter) is given to the states. This right is protected under the 10th amendment of the United States constitution. ******** 2A. Goodridge v. Massachusetts Incest and homosexuality are deemed wrong for the same considerations. They are considered morally wrong by the majority of the US and the world's population. It is considered unnatural. Choices are regulated. ******** - Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman under federal law. The supremacy clause overrides any such claim to the contrary. My opponent has not shown that gay-marriage is a fundamental right – because marriage, by federal definition, is between one man and one woman. - Tarzan has not shown homosexuality to be an immutable characteristic. - Tarzan has failed to show that marriage is a federal power that does not need to respect the sovereignty of the state. Even though the power is given to the state under the 10th amendment of the constitution and the power to regulate gay-marriage under the Defense of Marriage act. - Tarzan has failed to show that laws that are against the will of people and are morally wrong should be legalized. Conclusion: Tarzan has failed on all accounts, both moral and legal, to show that gay-marriage should in fact be legalized in all states of the United States of America. Since my opponent has not fulfilled the requirements necessary to affirm the resolution, I urge all readers to vote Con. Thank you for reading and much thanks to my esteemed opponent Tarzan. InquireTruth Sources: http://www.usconstitution.net...