Gay marriage should be legal

"I have already explained why defining current rights regarding marriage as both sexes having the right to marry members of the opposite sex (as opposed to a man having the right to marry a woman and a woman having the right to marry a man) is insufficient. One has to define and then get everyone to agree upon what makes a man a man and a woman a woman in order to enforce the idea of an opposite sex." My Response: Ok, my opponent makes a hidden contradiction with this statement. He said that something [government] must get everyone to agree, what makes a man a man and what makes a women a women. Essentially he is saying that this will answer the marriage question. First, he is disregarding culture as a factor in this. Secondly, he makes the assumption that sex has to do with marriage. BINGO. He has found it. The role of marriage is not simply being in love with each other. Its to raise a family, which would be put into society. Man with man and women with women don't reap natural children. It undermines the natural law of marriage. I.e. Man + Women = Children. Now, coming to the end of my response. Link this to my opponents argument. He wants someway of defining sex and correlating it with marriage. My above formula does. Therefore, marriage is between a man and women. Thats how the government must define it. "Number 2 is quite a leap. I never said anything of the sort. I was merely trying to get you to define sex. Furthermore, you are getting dangerously close to an appeal to emotion. Polygamy and incest are not the topics of debate." My Response: He ignores #1, so extend this. He then says #2 is a leap. He doesn't get my argument then. If my opponent defines marriage based on sexual orientation, which according to him is a natural process, then if im born naturally violent, then the government must make special rights for me as well (Universalize). He then says I'm using emotion for my 3rd response. Not at all, again I'm universalizing my opponents action. I.e. legalizing gay marriage. As I have previously said, incest is a sexual disorder. Therefore, if you universalize my opponents action, the government must make provisions/rights/privileges to them as well. "I just don't understand how you can fail to see that the 14th amendment applies here. I'll make it a syllogism for you: 1. The 14th amendment prevents states from abridging the privileges of citizens. 2. Marriages is one of the aforementioned privileges. 3. Laws banning gay marriage abridge that privilege and are therefore unconstitutional." My Response: You have a faulty syllogism. You try to use privileges and rights as the same thing. They are different. [Define - Privilege] 1. a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all 2. prerogative [Define - Right] 1. A legal or moral entitlement (Some arbitrary other inalienable) Now, going back to my response. Looking at these definitions. A privilege is an advantage given to SOME not all. On the contrary a right is. Therefore, my opponent uses a messed up syllogism. However, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and I'll pretend he used right. Now, according to the 14th Amendment, no one shall be denied rights, without due process of law. Ok, 2 thing wrong here. A) Look back to my universalize argument. If marriage is a right, then polygamists, incestuous people, etc. also have the right as well. B) The 14th Amendment, also has due process of law. According to British Common Law, i.e. the Basis for US law, Due Process is the Court's decision, or populous vote. Therefore, leave it up to the State courts, or have a vote. If done by vote, the majority is against gay marriage. *Refer to stat in previous round* Now, I theorize that marriage is NOT a right, but as my opponent said, a privilege. Privileges are given if some good is reaped from it. This would be my marriage formula. Man + Women = Family (If wanted). MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT, ITS A PRIVILEGE. Therefore, civil unions shall be kept and used instead of gay marriage. ============================================================================== Negative Back Up Plan: If, we go on my opponents idea of a federal definition of marriage, then my plan would be this: A) Marriage: Heterosexual Institution B) Gay Marriage is therefore illegal C) Civil Unions shall be kept If, we go on my 1st round idea, i.e. state power, then my plan would be: A) Marriage: Define by the State B) Gay Marriage is NOT DEFINED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT C) States can keep civil unions is desired =============================================================================== Thank you ladies and gentlemen.