Gay marriage should be illegal

I'll start with a quote, from Justice Anthony Kennedy who best phrased the case against discrimination against homosexuals:"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were . . . [M]arriage embodies a love that may even endure past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. [We must] grant them that right." [16]Rebuttal(1) Harm principleMy mention of religion doesn't significantly impact my argument, since I clearly mentioned that "a gay couple marrying does not affect an individual's beliefs at all." Regardless of whether those beliefs are religious, the *same* standard applies. Just because a person doesn't like it does not mean it is actually harmful to that person. Also extend Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that an individual's conception of morality is not sufficient to implement law. The happiness caused by same-sex marriage easily outweighs this. Note that Pro concedes the application of the harm principle as a framework in this debate, and merely holds that gay marriage causes harm. As such, the lens of the debate as a whole is to see whether the harm caused by gay marriage outweighs the benefit. Through this debate, Pro has incorrectly held that the harms of the status quo outweigh the benefits. I've shown that to be objectively wrong, and will continue to affirm the mentioned position through this round. (2) DiscriminationPro entirely misinterprets my argument regarding his source. I agreed with his source insofar as the standard to judge discrimination is based on the irrationality of the same. And I have proven time and again in this debate that it is just as irrational to discriminate based on sex as it is based on race. Pro *drops* that heteronormativity enforces gender roles. Pro then brings up new evidence of infidelity (when all he talked about previously was open relationships). Don't consider because: (a) per debate convention, new arguments or evidence cannot be presented in the final round, and (b) Pro still fails to explain how infidelity or unfaithfulness is *bad* or in any way undermines the equality of same-sex relationships. I brought up the lack of coherence of such a claim in previous rounds, and Pro *drops* it all. Pro's rebuttal to my psychological argument is nonsense. Pro picks up a quote from my source, and the quote merely says, based on its results, it supports same-sex marriage. That is not bias. "Bias" is holding the conclusion and then finding justification for that conclusion. The study finds premises, and gains the *conclusion* to keep same-sex marriage legal. Pro doesn't explain how my source is biased, while I've shown that it is a reliable peer-reviewed studies. Pro also doesn't explain how believing in the idea that same-sex marriage should be legal undermines the conclusion that discrimination causes psychological damage to gay couples. (3) Economics(a) Pro's response to marriage privatization is entirely *new,* so it should not be considered under any circumstances. For the purposes of fairness and by debate convention, new arguments in the final speech aren't permitted. (b) Pro straw-mans my case. I'm not advocating marriage privatization. I'm saying Pro's *own* case seems to indicate that. Furthermore, just because Congress and the candidates haven't considered it does not mean it should be considered. This is a classic is/ought fallacy. Just because it *is* not considered doesn't mean it *should* not be considered. (c) Pro drops that he is arbitrarily applying the economics standard to same-sex marriage without doing the same to opposite-sex couples. Even banning opposite-sex marriage (i.e. privatizing it) would benefit the economy, but Pro is only advocating for the ban of same sex marriage (which is basically the same as privatizing it, i.e. not acknowledging government benefits to those couples). So Pro is actually advocating for privatization of same-sex marriage *alone* without applying the same standard to anything else. Vote Pro down on this inconsistency. (d) If you see my last round, you'll know that my source *also* addresses all other forms of weighing mechanisms, including housing taxes. Let's look at the definition of the term "marriage penalty." "A marriage penalty or bonus is the change in a couple's total tax bill as a result of getting married and thus filing their taxes jointly." [17] The usage of the term by Pro's source is merely the usual understanding of it, not the universal one. I was referring to it as any tax penalty caused by filing taxes together. (e) Pro *drops* the long-term economic benefits, including benefits to businesses and reducing unemployment, which link turn Pro's case. (4) Right to marriage(a) Pro, once again, *drops* that this is defense, not offense. Extend that it doesn't provide a positive reason to vote Pro. (b) I've clearly addressed Pro's bad arguments on psychological damage. His accusations of bias in my source hold no ground. Note that the bias accusation is also a new argument, since I brought up psychological damage earlier as well. (c) Pro largely drops my point about there being no relevant differences between men and women. The existence of women-only night clubs doesn't prove anything, since it is an is/ought fallacy. A women-only night club *is* sexist. It doesn't provide a reason for denying that sexism is a form of discrimination. Pro fails to prove there is a rational basis for basing different actions depending on one's gender. (5) Morality(a) Pro basically drops this, because "inferior love" has nothing to do with morality. Pro argued from morality without applying a clear moral standard by which to judge how coherent a claim of right or wrong is. (b) Pro says this is irrelevant. I'm perfectly fine if Pro thinks that, because it was *him* who argued this, not me. All Pro does to defend this is to re-assert his position, which isn't sufficient because I provided a clear refutation of his source and Regnerus's study. (c) I did make this point, but that doesn't make it relevant. It is irrelevant anyhow, and shouldn't imapct Pro's victory. Pro also drops this, and, therefore, concedes this by omission. (d) Pro hasn't proven any differences. This is clearly addressed above -- Pro's argument regarding night clubs is irrelevant, and other "proofs" have been substantially refuted by me. (e) Pro just *asserts* that his sources are right after dropping my elaborate refutations of those sources. He hasn't proven that his studies are valid. He offers a new source, which I shall analyze. This is merely a study that shows that homosexuality is not *entirely* genetic. This doesn't mean it is a choice. Furthermore, the study presumes that identical twins are genetically identical. It is a demonstrable fact that that is false. [18]ConclusionThere's no reasonable way in which Pro wins this debate. Pro has essentially dropped most of my case in this previous round, and has failed to address most of my points. Here's why I win this debate:(1) I've shown that not legalizing gay marriage promotes discrimination, both LGBT discrimination and general sexism by reinforcing the idea of gender roles. I've also shown that this causes severe psychological damage, including clinical depression. (2) Pro's economic argument is turned with both its links and impacts. It arbitrarily applies a standard to same-sex couples while not applying it to opposite-sex couples, and I've shown that the economic benefits of the status quo easily outweigh the harms to the status quo that Pro brings up. (3) I've torn down Pro's notion that marriage isn't a universally applicable right, and shown how discrimination isn't a positive at all. (4) Pro doesn't explain how same-sex love is "inferior" due to infidelity or open relationships, fails to establish a coherent moral framework, fails to demonstrate successfully that homosexuality is a choice, and fails to explain how homosexuals make worse parents (and even concedes my point regarding the latter). [Sidenote: per the rules of this debate, Pro must leave the last round blank except to post "no round as agreed." If he violates that rule, voters should not read that round of Pro's since it is in explicit violation of the rules. Even a small conclusion isn't allowed.] The economic benefits, prevention of psychological harms, and lack of discrimination in the status quo easily outweigh Pro's only standing, small impact of economic benefits which is also arbitrary and seems to argue against his own position. For those reasons, and for the reasons outlined above, Vote Con. [16] Obergefell v. Hodges, 567 U.S. ____ (2015)[17] http://taxfoundation.org...[18] http://www.livescience.com...