Gay Marriage

Definitions Me and my opponent are at a disagreement on definitions, therefore I will leave it to the voter to decide which definition is closer to the truth. CON CASEIn practical terms, making gay marriage legal essentially means giving the federal government authority to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. I will be making three basic arguments against allowing the federal and state governments to have the authority to define marriage. Those arguments are: A1) Government should not be allowed to define personal relationships. The heart of the marriage debacle that our country is currently facing lies in the fact that our government has the authority to define what marriage is. Marriage has always been a cultural institution, which celebrates the moment when two individuals begin sharing their lives together. If we redefine marriage to include same-sex couples we are, in essence, legitimizing the immoral act of allowing a third party to define the terms of our personal relationships. The issue here is much larger than who can get married, the issue here is whether or not we should let the government enforce an arbitrary moral and often religious code onto our society. Society as a whole would benefit, because in the absence of government deciding the terms and definitions of personal relationships, individuals would be able to set those terms and definitions for themselves. A man would be able to marry another man and call it a marriage, but the man next door that does not approve does not have to consider that personal relationship to be a marriage, and it won't matter because there is no government forcing arbitrary rules upon either party. A2) Marriage would benefit all parties involved more if it were a strictly private institution. Just as every individual is unique, so too is every relationship. The government has provided a vast and arbitrary set of rules for both marriage and divorce, which has in the past lead to the government deciding who wins and who loses when a relationship comes to an end. One-size fits all policies seldom work, and they seldom have the intended results. If government were to completely divorce (pun) itself from marriage, we'd have contracts replace the government institution of marriage. When two people enter into a personal relationship with the intent to have children, or where property is involved, they should be able to set their own terms for divorce. For example: a man enters a marriage with a house, under the current system he has a very good chance of losing that house to his wife if he ever gets a divorce; if he set his own terms for marriage he could simply file the house under his own personal property when he enters the marriage, which would ensure that it isn't taken away from him in a divorce. [1] [2] This would not solely benefit the individuals getting married either, it would also benefit the religious institutions in our country as well. If there is a religion that believes in polygamy, they'll be able to practice polygamy through private contract. If a church doesn't believe in gay marriage, they do not have to provide the ceremony for gay couples. The integrity of religion would be upheld, because they would be free to practice their religion w/o consent from a government authority. A3) Gay marriage is simply a concession of defeat for the gay community. By lobbying for the definition of marriage to be changed, gays are submitting to and legitimizing the authority that has belittled them and persecuted them, i. e, government. Imagine if during the Civil Rights Movement, interracial couples lobbied for the abolishment of the government practice of defining what personal relationships were and what terms they should be entered under; if they had been successful we wouldn't be talking about gay marriage today, because everyone would have been free to define their relationships in whatever way they wanted to. We would be naive to think that homosexuals are the last group that we'll ever discriminate against. We would be naive to think that there isn't a possibility that we'll slide backwards into bigotry and hatred of our fellow man based on race, creed, or sexuality. If we recognize those truths, then we can objectively agree that removing the tools that bigots use to oppress their fellow man would be a far better goal than to simply give one group of people immunity from those tools. RebuttalsC1: Legalizing same-sex marriage has a positive impact on society My opponent uses a logical equation to argue that the legalization of same-sex marriage will have an overall positive impact on society. What he does not address is the underlying issue that led to homosexuals being excluded from the government institution of marriage, which is the fact that we've allowed the government to give itself the authority to define marriage. Because this is a logic based argument and because he admits that P1 + P2 = C1, I only have to disprove P1 or P2 to negate C1. P1 only legitimizes an immoral institution, which causes harm further down the road, not only for individuals that want to get married w/o meeting the criteria set by government, but for individuals that find themselves subject to other arbitrary standards set by a far away government. P2 states that legalizing same-sex marriage would create happiness w/o causing harm, but it fails to recognize the alternative, which is the ability to set your own standards for your personal relationship with another person. Since P1 and P2 are both wrong, C1 is also wrong. C2: Denying same-sex couples legally recognized marriage is a violation of civil rights. My opponent admits that the 13th and 14 Amendments do not mention marriage, and that marriage was arbitrarily added by the Supreme Court at a later date. This is an example of the government simply granting itself more and more power over time. Another prime example is the DOMA Act, where the federal government gave itself the power to define marriage for the entire country. [3] If government were not involved in marriage, there would be no violation of civil rights, because everyone would be free to set their own terms for marriage. C3: Legalizing same-sex marriage is beneficial to the economy. Since it is the marriage celebration itself that generates the money, I contend that you'd still have a boom in the wedding planning industry if you let people set their own terms for their personal relationships. [1] . http://family.findlaw.com... [2] . http://www.divorceinfo.com... [3]. http://www.gpo.gov...