Gay Marriage Ought To Be Permitted

From my reading, I have concluded that my opponent's arguments tend to focus on the conflict between religion and the state, the state being willing to legalize gay marriage but the religious community rejecting gay marriage as sacrilegious. Although, I admit this could be a bit misrepresentative, given that the arguments my opponent presents are a bit difficult to interpret. My opponent claims that marriage as recognized by the state is infringing upon those who hold contrary religious values. He also mentions that two forms of marriage, marriage "under the state" and "under the law", are being conflated. Therefore, my opponent claims, gay marriage should not be permitted. Here is my opponent's first premises:P1. Marriage has historically been a religious matter. P2. The state has declared marriage in its own interest, arbitrarily. P3. The church does not support gay marriage. P4. Therefore, the state legalizing gay marriage would be an unjust imposition of opinion. I agree that marriage has been a historically religious matter. I would like to point out, though, that religion has no reason to impose its view on the populace either. My opponent's argument that the state has arbitrarily stepped in and set boundaries for marriage can be flipped as well; if the state was not involved in the manner, gay marriage would not have been illegal in the first place. It is the law, written by the state, that makes gay marriage illegal. An opposition to state interference can be read as an argument in favor of permitting gay marriage as well. So, in essence, state involvement in marriage does not advance Con's position one bit. To move on from the matter of state interference, let us consider religion. As I have already established, it is the state that controls marital law. The state justifying a ban on gay marriage by using religious principles would be a gross violation of a central tenet of American government: the separation of church and state. Any justification of a ban on gay marriage based in religious principles runs into this problem. Also, my opponent considers this problem whilst assuming that allowing gay marriage would be violating the "majority rules" principle. As my opponent puts it, "instead of doing what most people would do and leave people to believe what they wish, you would force them to change their culture and their beliefs to suit you. It is not moral to force your view upon others. .. ". This assertion is blatantly false. According to the Pew Research Center, a steadily growing majority of Americans support gay marriage, polling at 55% in 2016. [1] Therefore, using the very same principle my opponent seems to be ardently advocating, that "majority rules", gay marriage really should be legal. The second argument my opponent makes regards social norms. Since a nuclear family with same-sex parents deviates from the social norm, my opponent claims, a child grown up rejected and deficient in values instilled by heterosexual parents. Despite being utterly false, this strays far from the resolution. This debate is not about same-sex couples having children. It is about same-sex marriage. The resolution makes this clear. The third argument deals with a slippery slope, where my opponent claims the legalization of gay marriage could easily justify the legalization of bestiality and incest. This is, as my opponent makes clear, a slippery slope argument. The government makes the decision on a case-by-case basis whether to allow gay marriage and whether to allow bestiality and incest, among other things. It is not as if gay marriage opens the door for these things to be legalized; the door is as open (or as closed) as it ever was before. There is simply no logical basis for this assertion. The fourth argument deals with what my opponent calls "blanket acceptance". Well yes, I agree (partially). In our society, legalizing something on the federal level means that it is blanket legalization, but not blanket acceptance. People can continue to not accept gay marriage; that is their decision to make. Government employees have to comply with the law when doing their jobs. If gay marriage is legal nationwide, employees who issue marital licenses ought to issue licenses to same-sex couples. As we've seen in the Kim Davis case, the court orders clerks to do so. [2] However, I'd like to point out that clerks issuing these licenses to same-sex couples does not mean they endorse same-sex marriage or morally agree with it. My opponent fails to distinguish between legalizing gay marriage and imposing its moral weight upon the American public, and as I have pointed out, there is a difference. Given that all of my opponent's arguments stand refuted, I ask you to vote Pro. I await my opponent's response. [1] . http://www.pewforum.org...[2] . http://www.cnn.com...