Gay Marriage

DefinitionsI accept all of his definitions, excepting a modification to the first one and the last one. I would like to define marriage as "A social and legal union between people called spouses that creates kinship. "In the United States" was not intended to mean anything more than it says. I would like to suggest that the definition should not refer to a specific level of government, but rather any jurisdiction within the United States. The location was included in the resolution in order to allow the debate to be set within the framework of the Constitution, Supreme Court rulings, etc. Of course he may argue that "in the United States" should mean the federal government if he wishes. PRO CASEIn this round I will be presenting several reasons that gay marriage should be legalized. C1: Legalizing same-sex marriage has a positive impact on society. The logic behind this contention:P1: Legalizing something causes happiness without causing harm has a positive impact on society. P2: Legalizing same-sex marriage causes happiness without causing harm. C1: Therefore, legalizing same-sex marriage has a positive impact on society. The first premise is pretty self explanatory, but just in case there is any doubt that happiness is not good, I will point out that being happy has many benefits [1]. Additionally, if no harm is caused, then the impact is solely positive. The second premise too is self evident: Gay people want to have legally recognized marriages, so doing so would cause same-sex couples to experience happiness. Not only would same-sex couples experience happiness, but a surveys of 350,000 people in almost a hundred countries show that allowing gay couples the freedom to marry could lead to happiness for more than just the gay community because countries with more freedom tend to be happier, according to an article in the L. A. Times [2]. The part of this premise that may come under attack is the statement that same-sex marriage would not cause harm, but I see no reason that legalizing same-sex marriage would cause harm, so I until my opponent is able to prove that it would, the premise holds true. The conclusion very clearly follows the premises which I have shown to be true using both scientific evidence and an extensive, world-wide poll, along with common-sense. C2: Denying same-sex couples legally recognized marriage is a violation of civil rights. My logic is that marriage is a civil right, therefore denying marriage is a violation of civil rights. Civil rights can be defined as "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U. S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination" [3]. The first part of the definition explains that civil rights are rights that are gained by being a member of a certain society, in contrast to natural rights which are gained merely by being a member of humanity. While there is no natural right to a legally recognized marriage, the United States does recognize marriage for its citizens, therefore in the United States, marriage is a civil right. The Supreme Court has acknowledged this in its decision in Loving v. Virginia, the decision that abolished bans on interracial marriage, by saying "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man. .. '" [4]. We can also see the the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" [5]. In other words, all people are entitled to the same privileges and equal protection of under the laws. It can be argued, and it often is, that all people are offered the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The definition of marriage provided by my opponent, however, describes marriage a union between people called spouses that creates kinship. According to this definition, it is possible for same-sex couples to enter into a such a relationship, therefore, it is it is discrimination to deny marriage to people who are able to fulfill all of the qualifications to enter into a marriage as defined by my opponent. To say that all people have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying that all people have the right to marry someone of the same race. Talk like that was ended by Loving v. Virginia. The Justice C. J. Warren wrote in the Court's opinion:"Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose" [4]. This statement can easily looked at in terms of same-sex marriage. Just as the notion that "a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment proscriptions of all invidious racial discriminations" is rejected, so can a statute containing sexual orientation classifications be rejected. C3: Legalizing same-sex marriage is beneficial to the economy. Does it make sense from an economic standpoint to legalize same-sex marriage? Well that question can be answered very simply by looking at the statistics from a place that legalized same-sex marriage: In the first year with legal same-sex marriage, New York City's economy got a boost of $259 million dollars [6]. In addition to that, a study conducted in Ohio found that same sex marriage could add 126.2 million dollars to the economy over three years if same-sex marriage were to become legal [7]. The reason this economic impact would occur is quite simple: Marriages use a lot of economic services: planners, catering, etc. Legalizing gay marriage would mean that more weddings would be happening, so these services would receive more business, thus stimulating the economy. We can conclude that legalizing same-sex marriage has a positive impact on the economy. CONCLUSION In this round I have shown there are many reasons to legalize same-sex marriage:1. Legalizing gay marriage benefits society by causing happiness.2. Not legalizing gay marriage denies people their civil rights.3. Legalizing gay marriage is good for the economy. In order to meet his BoP, Con must prove that the reasons not to legalize gay marriage outweigh the reasons I have presented to do so. Sources:[1]- . http://news.bbc.co.uk...[2]- . http://articles.latimes.com...[3]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4]- . http://www.law.cornell.edu...[5]- . http://www.archives.gov...[6]- . http://www.latimes.com...[7]- . http://www.bizjournals.com...