Legalize gay marriage.

AcceptanceI accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!ArgumentBefore beginning my argument, it is essential to point out that my opponent is arguing in favor of "gay" marriage as opposed to "same-sex" marriage. There is a key difference, as we will see.In 1996, the United States Supreme Court"s decision in the Romer v. Evans case prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. As a result of the finding that this sort of discrimination was unconstitutional, the United States government must be blind to sexual orientation (among other things) when enacting policy.But the concept of "gay" marriage proposes to do just the opposite. In the case of traditional marriage, the law is blind to sexual orientation. A heterosexual man is legally able to marry a heterosexual woman, a homosexual man is legally able to marry a heterosexual women, a heterosexual man is legally able to marry a homosexual woman, and a homosexual man is legally able to marry a homosexual woman. In no way does the traditional idea of marriage discriminate based on sexual orientation. This traditional idea is consistent with the 1996 Supreme Court ruling.In contrast, if "gay" marriage were to be enacted into law, it would mean that only homosexual (I'll use this term when referring to the orientation and the term "gay" when referring to the marriage idea) men and women would be allowed to be joined in a "gay" marriage with other homosexual men and women. This means that while a homosexual man would legally be able to marry a homosexual man, and a homosexual woman would legally be able to marry a homosexual woman, a heterosexual man would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man, and a heterosexual woman would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual woman. The orientation-based discrimination in this case is clear. The idea of "gay" marriage would unconstitutionally discriminate against a heterosexually-oriented individual"s right to the same type of marriage that would be given to a homosexually-oriented individual.Thus, by its very definition, "gay marriage" is inherently discriminatory.Rebuttal"Everyone should be treated equally no matter where you are from, who you are or in this case, who you love."I agree. It seems to me that all parties are being "treated equally" here; homosexual men are legally able to marry a woman in the very same way that heterosexual men are legally able to marry a woman."Being gay is not something you choose, but something that happens and you cannot change it."While I disagree with those who say that homosexuality is completely a choice, I would argue that one certainly could (if he or she wished) choose to be a homosexual. As is often the case, homosexuality is likely the result of some combination of natural and environmental factors. That being said, I think it's strange for my opponent to argue that one couldn't possibly choose to be a homosexual or to not be a homosexual. "No one can change this, so there is no reason for it to be illegal."This is an absurd line of reasoning. Let's apply the logic my opponent uses here to a situation involving pedophilia. Suppose a man is a pedophile (he can't choose not to be, he just is) and he has sexual relations with children. Is it right to say, as my opponent does, "No one can change this, so there is no reason for it to be illegal"? Certainly not.SummaryI have shown that "gay" marriage inherently discriminates based on sexual orientation and thus is unconstitutional. Moreover, I have refuted each of my opponent's points in defense of gay marriage. As it stands, it seems to me that it can be reasonably concluded that "gay" marriage ought not be legalized.Thank you.Sourceshttp://www.law.cornell.edu...http://www.merriam-webster.com...