Gay Marriage

== RE: Opening Statement == 1. The Moral Right to Marriage My opponent points out that just because something will occur anyway, doesn't mean it should be condoned by government. I agree. The reason I note gay relationships and sex will occur regardless is to point out that his contention on gay STDs is not strong. Not only do lesbians account for very few of the population's STDs (so this argument cannot apply to gay marriage unilaterally -- and by the way my opponent has completely ignored this point on lesbians), but #1 we don't inhibit marriage rights on promiscuity or likelihood of disease; and #2 people who engage in risky or questionable behaviors still have rights, including the right to marriage. I pointed out that even alcoholics, KKK members and Hitler (etc.) had fundamental rights regardless of their moral or sexual pursuits. In fact, criminals have the right to get married while in prison [1]. Even Charles Manson was able to obtain a marriage license. If rapists, murderers, pedophiles, prostitutes and porn stars (despite being promiscuous and morally questionable) have the right to marriage - why shouldn't gay people? I look forward to my opponent's answer.2. The Legal Right to Marriage Con asks, "Why is not allowing gay marriage unconstitutional when marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution?" This question is an abusive waste of character space. I have already explained this answer in Round 2. For reference, I will direct Con and the audience back to Round 2 under the heading "As for the legal contentions..." There in this section, I explicitly outlined the constitutional reasoning. Not everything is explicitly referenced in the constitution; we have to interpret what's there. I justified constitutional protection for SSM per the 14th amendment, Due Process clause and Equal Protection clause. Furthermore I explained why the federal government's rights overrule the states here via the Supremacy Clause. == RE: Gay People and Their Kids Benefit from Marriage ==1. Con says that I cannot use statistical probabilities in my favor. Despite the fact that it is well known and not disputed by anyone in the science community that marriage is overall (on balance) beneficial, Jerry suggests we should disregard this. Meanwhile, he suggests we should accept the data and statistical probabilities for his arguments on gays with STDs.The audience will recognize this as both hypocritical and illogical. First, it makes perfect sense to consider the evidence that shows the MAJORITY of demographic X (married people) exhibit factors Y & Z (happier and healthier lifestyles). And second, if Con wants us to consider the majority with statistics for his arguments, then he cannot suggest the majority numbers do not work in my favor. I didn't say that all married people are happier, healthier and richer - but that the majority of them benefit from this institution. I've asked my opponent to explain how the benefits of marriage that affect straight people would not logically extend to gay people. Thus far he has failed to answer this, and going into the final round I will not be able to respond if he does try to answer. 2. The majority of people being happier and healthier absolutely matters when discussing what is best for society overall. That is why we have different governments reflecting different values for different populations: because we want to keep people happy. However, I have included many benefits to society in addition to the fact that gay people deserve to be happy.3. Con asks, "What does [parenting] have to do with legalizing gay marriage?" I have explained this multiple times. A) If married people are statistically likely to be happier, healthier and more financially well off, the children of married couples will also be better off. Many gay couples have kids. It is obvious why children benefit from having happy, healthy and more financially well off parents. B) In many cases, kids with gay parents have been hurt by their family not being protected in instances where adoption, the death tax and other legal issues arise. I have presented sources and citations of this already in Round 2, but here's another [2]. == RE: Govt. Has No Justifiable Reason to Inhibit SSM == 1. Con writes, "This debate is about homosexual behavior and about whether it should be legalized." That is wrong. Homosexual behavior can, has, does and always will exist. This debate is specifically about gay marriage. My opponent claims that in order to condone SSM, the government would have to condone same sex behavior. That is unabashedly false and ignores the numerous examples I have used to disprove this claim throughout the debate. Alcoholics, criminals, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, philanderers, polyamorists, prostitutes, promiscuous, mentally ill people, narcissistic and mean/awful/greedy people etc. all have the right to get married. I have repeatedly argued that just because we disagree with someone's lifestyle, morality or sexual preferences does NOT mean we get to inhibit their fundamental civil rights. We don't have to condone alcoholism to recognize that an adult alcoholic has the right to marry. Ergo, we do not have to condone homosexuality to recognize that adult homosexuals have the right to marry. 2. Con states, "The fact that homosexuals are citizens has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage. Homosexuals should have rights as citizens but this does not mean that homosexual behavior should be allowed." Both of these claims are false. First, citizens are afforded legal benefits and protections specifically on the basis of their citizenship. Thus the aforementioned arguments on constitutional protections we grant citizens are all 100% relevant to this discussion. Second, homosexual behavior should be allowed specifically because of the rights we afford citizens. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (regardless of how other people feel about our personal choices) among a slew of more specific legal protections. == RE: Legalizing SSM is Morally and Legally Righteous ==1. Con says that not everyone deserves the same rights just because they are citizens. That is a straw man of my argument. My claim was that gay people have the rights of citizens, which means the right to freely assemble and engage in sexual relations and relationships with other adults of sound mind. Then he uses a fallacious analogy to highlight that pedophiles, necrophiliacs, etc. should not have rights even though they are also citizens. Well first, this point is counterproductive to his position -- even pedophiles and necrophiliacs have the right to marriage. Secondly, they don't have the right to marry children or dead people. The slippery slope argument put forth by Con has been thoroughly debunked. What if we said that we shouldn't eat meat, because eating meat will inevitably lead to eating humans? After all, if we can eat meat then surely we can eat all meat, right? Or what if I said having sex with humans must lead to having sex with animals. After all, what's to stop us? Of course this is ridiculous logic. Just because we recognize the right for gay people to marry doesn't mean we must therefore recognize every demographic's right to marry. 2. My opponent contends that the Supreme Court is not always right. That is correct and that was not my position; I did not appeal to its authority. Instead, I explicitly outlined the legal reasoning to support SSM. My argument was shared by SCOTUS, highlighting that constutional provisions such as Due Process, Equal Protection and the Supremacy Clause logically conclude to the legal support of SSM. My opponent must explain why the court's reasoning was wrong; he cannot just say that the court is not always right. Of course the court is not always right and my argument wasn't that the court is never wrong. If Con cannot explain how the court was wrong here, then my/their legal contentions completely stand. == CONCLUSION ==Gender is not a significant factor in marriage. A male and female stranger could get married and never have kids -- would that benefit society? Arguably not. The purpose of marriage is to foster legally binding romantic relationships that make people happier, healthier and more secure. Those families coming together and raising kids is also a benefit for society. Gay people can benefit from all of this, and society can benefit from gay marriage.Throughout this discussion, I've shown that it's unwarranted to disregard the rights of gay people based on the rights they have as citizens. I've shown that it's unfair to allow society's most vile people to marry while prohibiting gays. And finally I've shown that it would be unconstitutional to ignore gay people's rights.Moreover, Con wrote "My opponent is going to have to provide actual reasons to why homosexual behavior should be legalized to do well in this debate." I have explicitly outlined the "actual reasons" many times throughout this debate. Once again he is forcing me to waste character space copy and pasting the actual reasons I have highlighted at the end of each and every round. They include: - Gay people benefit from validating their identity and experience the benefits of marriage- The children of gay people benefit from marriage's legal protections and tax breaks- More people benefitting from SSM = a net benefit for society overall- SSM generates significant economic benefits - Gay people deserve benefits and legal protection- Validating SSM represents how a majority of citizen's see civil rights- SSM upholds constitutional guarantees of Equal Protection under the lawThere are more, but I don't have the character space to continue - nor do I have the character space to respond on sources (I wish I did, so I can elaborate on his use of Infowars...) but for the record, all of my links work. Thanks to all for debating/ reading/ judging! SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...