Same sex marriage should be federally legalized.

My opponent is obviously a very formal debater. Unfortunately, logic is most important in my personal, humble opinion. So forgive me for not being as formal. My opponent's definition of marriage excludes homosexuals. But this could not be the definition, or same sex marriages everywhere would not be marriages at all. I think we should both be able to agree to "A union between two persons having the customary and/or legal force of marriage" as the definition of marriage. For the sake of this debate. I agree to your definition of legalized if by the state you mean the government powers and not only individual states. The PRO burden is not to prove constitutionality. It is only one point. The topic says that same sex marriage "should" be legalized. These are the dictionary's four definitions of "should" (and none of them include the Constitution): 1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note. 2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon. 3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I. 4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go. ========================================================================= I. CON: Since Marriage is a religious practice, legalizing gay marriage violates the 1st Amendment. A. Each marriage has legal benefits. If the church wishes to exclude itself from marriage, then they are obligated to abandon their 1,138 rights and protections from the government, which we can all agree they will not do. Some religions and religious leaders will marry two gay individuals. Marriage is a civil and religious institution or else there would not be over 1100 rights attached to it by the government. B. Marriage is, also, obviously not a religious institution. Atheists and Satanists get married, therefore, it is proven that marriage is not a solely religious institution. II. CON: Legalizing Gay Marriage [will] result in a slippery Slope. A. You cannot equate two individuals who love each other in a comitted, loving, lifelong relationship with cult rape, etc. This is a bizarre, unproven argument. B. Marriage has been changed before. Divorce has been criminalized, legalized. Interracial marriage has been criminalized, legalized. And 1100+ governmental changes have been made in these rights. Changes have been made to marriage. C. If a change to marriage is unbeneficial or particularly harmful, courts will rule it such and not legalize it. D. In places where same sex marriage has been legalized, this slippery slope effect has not occurred. It is unproven. E. This argument is also flawed in that these individuals in your slippery slope argument are causing harmful marriages and can live in a normal two person, loving marriage. Most gays, if not all, cannot find happiness in a heterosexual relationship. They have no desire to have a heterosexual marriage. To bar two gays from marrying is not showing them an alternative (heterosexual marriage), but is rather barring them from the institution of marriage altogether. This is not only discriminatory. This is unconstitutional and un-American. CON 1: This amendment is superseded by the "general will." A. This is ridiculous! If society as a whole disapproves of something, then it should not be done. However, a significant portion of Americans want same sex marriage to be legalized. B. In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry. When interracial marriage was legalized nationally, 72% supported it. (www.religioustolerance.org) C. Many polls also show gay marriage to be favored. This should not be basis for a Constitutional decision. CON 2: The 1st Amendment is not violated. Religions can still practice their disagreement with marriage. But states can marry gays. And religions and religious leaders that do want to marry gays can marry gays. If a religion wanted to marry gay couples, their right to express their religion should not be infringed. The Lutheran Church is tolerant of gays. I have proven that gay marriage should be legalized. The Constitution ensures equal protection under the law for all individuals unless convicted of a crime. My opponent tried to present that that would block religious expression but I have proven that marriage is ont solely a religious institution because marriage is given 1100+ governmental rights and allow Athiests to marry. My opponent tried to say that the general will was against gay marriage but 30% advocates gay marriage and the interracial marriage disapproval was 90% when it was legalized. My opponent also presented the infamous 'slippery slope' argument, but this has ZERO basis and would not happen and has been disproven in places where gay marriage has been allowed. There is absolutely no reason to ban same sex marriage. He also dropped my immigration and hospital visitation arguments. Therefore they are conceded unless he negates them. Same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, stop gays from visiting their partners when dying in the hospital, force them to be split up with immigration laws, and cause deep unhappiness in gay couples. Gay marriage bans are discriminatory. They also don't allow couples who want to get married to marry, this reduces families, reduces adopted children, and promote adultery.