Gay marriage should be legal

I'll attack my opponents case then move to crystallize my own. "Concerning your request for clarification, I am not saying that the federal government should make it explicitly legal for homosexual couples to marry. That is not what governments generally do. They don't say what is legal, just what is illegal." My Response: This is totally off base. My opponent says that the government only says what is illegal, not legal. It works both ways, if something is illegal, most the time the opposite of illegality is legality. And vice versa. "My argument is that not only should the federal government never amend the Constitution to bar homosexual couples from marrying, but that it is furthermore unconstitutional, unjust, and illogical for states to make gay marriage illegal or otherwise "define" marriage as between individuals of the opposite sex." My Response: I have 2 response: 1) Again, it's the decision of the state or the populous. Thats where the power lies. According to a poll taken by the Ny Times, 75% of Americans oppose gay marriage. That says something. The example I gave, Virginia already has a marriage clause in their constitution. Furthermore, if the federal government interferes they are throwing off the balance of power.However more importantly 2) My opponent never warrants the claim. He has just an assertion. Why is it unjust and illogical for states to make a clause defining marriage as heterosexual. Remember, culture comes into play too. My opponent tries to warrant this by claiming the 14th Amendment. However looking back to my round 1, I have shot down that argument and it has gone responded by my opponent. So you can extend that argument. Since my opponent has no warrant for his claim, then you can't look at his assertion. "I find it hard to understand how you could not see the connection in my syllogism. It is very simple. Men have the right to marry women, and women have the right to marry men. If you agree that men and women should have equal rights, it logically follows that men should have the right to marry men and women to marry women. This simply gives men and women the same rights. You try to say that the right is given to both men and women to marry individuals of the opposite sex. It seems to me that that interpretation is quite full of problems." My Response: My opponent never explains how it makes sense. My opponent jumps from simple rights to then gay rights. I have already explained that they have rights they can both marry the opposite sex. My opponent arrives at a conclusion, again with no warrant. "What about transgender individuals, both pre-op and post-op? How exactly does the government define sex? Is it defined by sex chromosomes, reproductive organs, or what the individual feels his/her sex is?" My Response: I have 3 responses. 1) The government doesn't define sex, it defines what MARRIAGE is. 2) My opponent seems to feel that since it's natural/of what he or she feels, then the government must protect it. This is totally false. If I was naturally born a violent person, does that mean that I get privileges from the government? 3) Ok, what about polygamists, should they get protection too. What about incest (which is a sexual disorder, probably linked to genes) should that be legal too. My opponents arguments lead to slippery slopes. If the government, according to my opponent, does not have the right to define marriage as between a man and women, then groups the above will look for "Protection" as well. "I realize that the 10th amendment states clearly that powers not specified by the Constitution as reserved for the federal government are for the states. I am not disputing this. States can make laws independently of the federal government. However, they can't make laws that are in violation of the United States Constitution. But by baning gay marriage outright, states have done just that. They are abridging specfic privileges of specific individuals (not couples), based solely on sexual orientation." My Response: My opponent doesn't seem to understand. Just link my attack response against his 14th amendment argument (Round 1). "I was actually looking for my opponent to make arguments as to why gay marriage to be specifically ILLEGAL." My Response: You did not put that in the topic, and you didn't define that in your first round. Therefore, as your contender I have a right to fix any gaps in the debate. I have obviously refuted/negated the topic of the legalization of gay marriage, because as your 1st round implies, as using the 14th Amendment, you are arguing for the federal government to: A) Ban states from making their own decisions on marriage (Thats why I use my state power argument) B)Making it legal everywhere, in every state. Therefore, my contention stands and it has gone un-refuted. =============================================================================== Extension: 1) Extend my rebuttal arguments, since he failed to address them. 2) Extend my contention 1