A Good Debate on Gay Marriage

Unfortunately, InVinoVeritas has forfieted, which is a violation of the rules as established in Round One. THIS ROUND. .. Since Con has not provided any arguments to rebut, I will simply do a final, brief analysis of the round. Firstly, extend all of my last round arguments. They were all DROPPED. IMPACT ANALYSIS The resolution asks a question of what the U. S. should do. Should has been defined as indicating "desirability or rightness;" therefore, I shall show in this round that legalizing gay marriage should happen within the U. S. I will do this by reviewing and impacting my arguments back to the "should" question. 1. Marriage's purpose is not necessarily biological; it is instead to rexpress love and commitment between to people. This was argued in Rounds 3 and 4. It was dropped in both rounds. 2. Marriage is a legal right granted to all humans, even gay couples. This is evidenced by the ICCPR evidence dropped by Con. 3. It is wrong to descriminate between consenting individuals. It is illegal to descriminate between a consenting homosexual couple and a consenting heterosexual couple acording to the DOMA Supreme Court ruling and Hollingsworth v. Perry. This was all dropped. Also dropped were the facts that Civil Unions are more separate than they are equal; i. e. Civiual Unions do not give gay people equal rights. 4. Gay couples would help reduce the large number of orphans in need of adoption. This argument was raised in rounds 3 and 4, and Con dropped it both times. 5. Being biologically related to both parents is not needed to form a stable family unit. This was dropped last round. 6. Consent is a reasonable place to draw the line for mariage. It also prevents the sillpery slope Con was attempting to construct. This was dropped last round by Con. 7. Gay marriage is popular here in the U. S. This was never contested by Con. 8. Granting homosexuals the right to marry does not deprive straight people of their right to marry. Therefore, no one loses rights, but people gain rights. This was dropped by Con when he misunderstood my Libertarian argument. 9. Marriage, historically, was never solely restricted for heterosexual couples. Con concede this. 10. Con stated: "same-sex households are very beneficial and pro-stability. " Therefore, if you buy none of the previous 9 points, and if you accept Con's framework (that the government must have a reason to incentivize marriage), then you can still vote Pro based off of this concession. Inasmuch as gay marriage has any tangible benefit to society (Con has never said the it harms society, but he has said it helps society), the government does have a reason to incentivize gay marriage: it helps stability. Consequently, because gay marriage is right granted to all people--with a purpose and goal more than simply procreation--and because the government has no reason not to allow it (it's popular and harms no one), gay marriage should be permitted in the U. S. The resolution is affirmed. OTHER REASONS TO VOTE PRO My three-pronged Overview gay three dropped reasons why Con's case was based on a non-sequitur. It was constructed on a logical fallacy, and therefore should be summarily rejected. Thus, only Pro has a viable case, meriting a Pro vote. I have also presented far more sources in this round than Con, and have included sources of reputable quality (e. g. the UN, Reuters, Washington Post, Pew Research Institute, etc. ) Thus, I would request the points for sources. ROUND 5 NOTE Con, as per Round One Rules, is prohibted from making new arguments or responses in this last speech. This means he may not craft new rebuttals to things I said last round, nor may he try to expand on his core case by making new arguments. He may only summarize, impact, and extend things he has already said. CONCLUDING REMARKS I would like to thank InVinoVeritas for accepting this debate, and for engaging in this disucussion with me. I feel like I have gotten the frustration about this topic out of my system, and I am glad I had an opportunity to do so. Thank you. Judges, thank you for reading this debate! I know you may have your own opinions on this controversial topic. However, for fairness's sake, I ask that you set those feelings aside as you judge. Please vote on the technical facets and arguments presented in this debate. Please only consider things that have been mentioned in this debate as you fill out you ballots. Thank you very much--I ask you for your vote. A sincere thank you to everyone!