Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.

“...he will without a doubt agree that I should deserve the conduct point for actually being punctual to the debate.” I wouldn't jump to that conclusion just yet. The debate is not yet in the final round, and while my forfeit gained my opponent an advantage toward getting the conduct point, the final decision will be made by the voters, not the opponents. Either one of us may yet do something to lose the conduct point. “My opponent is absolutely right...saying that, but when it comes to actually proving that gay marriage would be negative in any way, shape, or form, that's where the flaw begins...” My opponent is attempting to shift the burden of proof. While both of us may have some burden of proof, the greater falls upon Pro for insisting that our nation change it's laws and even our society. If someone were to go to the Capitol and insist that a law be passed to change the definition of a basic societal and legal institution, the burden of proof would be upon that person as why it should be changed, not so much the rest of society to tell him why not. More simply put, if you were sitting on your porch, and someone walked up to you and told you to dig up a large tree in your yard, you would probably refuse, especially if he told you you should, unless you can give him a good reason why you shouldn't. But backing up a little, what Pro is responding to is my response to his “Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce,” argument. My contention there was that his specific point is incomplete. Saying something is beneficial to society because it increases commerce leaves out so many dynamics of society. I gave examples of things that could be, or are legalized, that are generally not seen as beneficial to society, yet do increase commerce. My point is that my opponent must drop this argument and show that legalization of gay marriage would aid society in ways other than commerce, as increased commerce can be a poor indicator of societal worth. The Founding Fathers arguments: “...he needs to prove that an overwhelming majority of them were in support of having religion as a foundation for this country, and as other Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin have explained...they didn't want religion in any way being part of government.” My opponent insists that I need “to prove that an overwhelming majority of them were in support of having religion as a foundation for this country...” I can supply evidence of this, but I don't know why “an overwhelming majority,” would be necessary, nor do I know what percentage my opponent requires as a threshold for “overwhelming.” “...Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin have explained...they didn't want religion in any way being part of government.” Pro insists that I provide evidence for a requirement he arbitrarily came up with, then in the same sentence, makes a claim about specific beliefs of specific people who are very well documented in history, but supplies no evidence to back up his claims about their beliefs. “Second, even if he is right, he's making the assumption that the Founding Fathers were 100% correct in how they built the country...” I am not making that assumption, and among other things I do have a major contention with “pursuit of happiness” being declared and inalienable right in lieu of “property.” But that's an entirely different subject. Furthermore, considering how many debates and disagreements happened during the founding (see Federalist Papers, Jefferson vs. Hamilton [1]), and afterward between founders for elective offices, I wouldn't even say that the Founding Fathers would claim they got everything right. After all, our bicameral legislature is a compromise between the conflicting interests of small and large states.[2] “What about slavery, which had been a part of the 3/5 Compromise within the original Constitution directly discriminating against black people?” There is a huge misunderstanding about the 3/5 Compromise in many people's minds. The Southern States who legalized slavery wanted slaves counted as whole persons for the census. The Northern States who abolished slavery did not want slaves counted at all. If the Compromise was discriminatory, were Southern States noble for insisting slaves be counted as whole people, and the abolitionist Northerners discriminatory for wanting them not to be counted? No on both counts. The original purpose of the census was to apportion representatives in Congress. The South wanted their whole population counted, but refused slaves the opportunity to vote, for obvious reasons. The North saw this as getting an unfair advantage over them at the expense of their slaves. The more power the North had, the more likely their policies (including abolition), would become national. And unless that compromise was reached, and all 13 Colonies broke away from Britain, there seemed little hope slavery would ever be abolished since even the freemen were denied basic rights, like taxation only by representation at the time. [3] “He states that legalizing gay marriage would jeopardize all essential freedoms, but he doesn't explain how...” I certainly did. Let me repeat what John Adams said. "...we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Without the Constitution, we have no other legal recourse to defend our basic human rights. Remember the prerequisite Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”[4] These basic rights are “Endowed by [our] creator.” This document was signed by no less than 56 men, Founding Fathers. At the signing, the aforementioned Benjamin Franklin, who according to my opponent wanted government and religion completely separate, remarked “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”[5] So much did he believe that the creator was integral with government, that he knowingly signed his own death warrant that stated that fact. The Founders based our freedoms and documents on Inalienable rights given to us by a specific Creator. Those rights acknowledged by the Founders were known to them only because of the Bible. If God's moral law is void, those rights taken from the Bible and laid forth in the Documents are void. Promoting homosexuality and it's unions is a breech of God's moral law, and therefore incompatible with the Constitution. [1] http://countrystudies.us... [2] http://www.netplaces.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.ushistory.org... [5] http://www.ushistory.org...