Same sex marriage

Equality"All men are born free and equal. " The term equal is so broad and has so many different possible meanings as to be almost completely useless in this context. If you really think about this, no one really believes that everyone is born completely equal. Differences between males and females, between races, and even genetic differences among members of the same sex are quite obvious. I recommend reading Walter E William's (Economics professor at George Mason University) article entitled Are We Equal? . (1) He points out that the ratio of men to women geniuses is 7:1, but that men are also going to make up the majority of idiots. Blacks are disproportionately represented in Professional Basketball at 80%, but only 2% of Hockey players. Jews are 3% of the US population, but 39% of US Nobel Prize winners. If my opponent wants to establish that all men are born equal, I would need to know the context. I will assume for now that he means not all men are born equal, but that they should be treated equal under the law. So if this is the case, lets define what the law should be, how it should be phrased, and how it should be applied. This is specifically important because it is highly likely that a Supreme Court ruling will happen or a Legislative Bill will be implemented in relation to this subject. My opponent argues there is a natural progression from allowing interracial marriage to allowing same sex marriage. If my opponent is going to argue for a natural progression, then he has to allow me the same. This will be completely based on the wording of the legislation or court ruling allowing same sex marriage. I ask my opponent to phrase that legislation or ruling in such a way that does not allow polygamy or incest. I am not arguing marriage to animals or under-age persons because due to age of consent being necessary. Polygamy: My opponent states "Marriage has and always will be a contract between two parties. " This is definitely not true. It is currently not true in multiple countries outside of the United States, and is not true amoung some Fundamentalist Mormon groups and some American Muslims. (2) Furthermore, my opponent argues that marriage is a legal contract. US law allows legal contracts between multiple parties. Furthermore, there is nothing in general contract law that says one person can only be a party to one contract at a time. Using my opponents own argument about equality, if all parties are of consentual age, why is Person A allowed to marry Person C, when Person B is not allowed to marry Person C. By definition, that means Person A and Person B are not treated equal under the law. Incest: My opponent argues that incestual relationships between consenting adults will not be allowed because of age difference and that one may be a role model to the other. First, it is completely possible that 2 closely related persons uncle/nephew, brother/sister, cousins, are very close in age or the same age. Also, as long as all parties are of consentual age, is my opponent arguing that non-related persons should not marry if their age is of sufficient difference? Second, my opponent also argues that marriage should be disallowed if one party is a role model to the other. Is this legal grounds to not allow a marriage? How would this be worded in legislation or a court ruling? Furthermore, if both parties are of consentual age, wouldn't this be placing one person on unequal grounds to another person. Both persons are of age, in love, and making their own decision. What legal grounds are there to allow one person who is not marrying a relative, and another person who is? I am against incest for my own moral reasons. If my opponent opposes incest on moral grounds only, he should argue why it is OK to write laws that make people unequal based on his morals. If he opposes incest on legal grounds, there needs to be a clear legal argument. Child Care My opponent gives many speculative points but no factual data. I will give points below from an actual study. (3) Section 3, tables 2, 3, 4) Children raised by a lesbian mother exhibit the following, as opposed to those children raised by an intact biological family: 4 times more likely to be on public assistance Less likely to be employed full-time 3 times more likely to be unemployed 3 times as likely to have had an affair while in a relationship 10 times more likley to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" 4 times more likley to have been forced to have sex against their will Use marijuana more frequently More often pled guilty to a non-minor offense Attain a lower level of education Higher depression rate It will not destroy the instituion of marriage Destroy, maybe not. But it will severly impact the traditional institution of marriage for the worse as many gay marriage opponents see it. I covered some of the points in this section in my response to the Equality section above. What I would like to do here is illustrate that there are real world examples that show that people who believe in the traditional institution of marriage will be forced to act against their beliefs or face consequences. (4) Catholic adoption agencies in Massachussetts ended their adoption services after being ordered to adopt out to gay couples. The Catholic church is opposed to gay couples adopting children. When they refused to do those adoptions, the government pulled money that they give to all adoption agencies. Without that money, the Catholic Church was forced to close their adoption services. My opponent may argue that the Catholic Church was wrong to abandon those children rather than adopt out to gay couples. But I could just as easily state that the government was wrong to let all those children be abandoned rather than allow the Catholic Church to do the adoptions they were currently doing. (5) A floral shop in Washington State was sued because they refused to service a gay marriage, against their religious beliefs. (6) A colorado bakery was sued because they refused to sell a cake for a gay marriage, also against what their religious beliefs were. (7) Ocean Grove religious group in New Jersey lost their tax exempt status after refusing to rent their property out for gay marriage ceremonies. What is going to happen is that once gay marriage is made legal federally, religious organizations are going to be told to also perform gay marriages, or lose tax exempt status, fines, lawsuits, or other consequences. ConclusionThere are multiple definitions and contexts of the word equal. For my opponent to use that term, he will have to explain the definition and context. I do not see how the term equal can be applied to homosexual couples, but not to polygamist and incestuous persons. To show that children would benefit just as much or more with homosexual parents, he should offer proof or facts other than speculation and opinion. (1) . http://www.creators.com...... (2) . http://www.npr.org...... (3) . http://www.sciencedirect.com...... (4) . http://www.catholic.org...... (5) . http://www.nydailynews.com...... (6) . http://www.foxnews.com...... (7) . http://www.catholic.org...... P. S. I apologize for the spacing on this round. The formatting got off and I just could not get it fixed.