The United States of America should legalize Homosexual Marriage

I will now refute everything my opponent said in her speech "It is morally unjust for two people of the same gender to marry for "fun's"" This is blatantly offensive and implies that homosexuals are marrying as a joke, or as a game. As Slate notes, "In study after study, biologists have found that homosexuality, at least in men, is clearly, undoubtedly, inarguably an inborn trait." http://www.slate.com... This clearly refutes R2 and most of R3. The rest of RR3- My opponent has asked, "If marriage is a fundamental right that the state cannot abridge, why don't we hold ceremonies for gay (the word that means 'happy') observances of animals marrying? Or how about I marry my cat--I'll sue you if you don't let us wed!" If I read that correctly, my opponent compared a homosexual marriage, in which two humans of the same gender are married, to a bestial marriage, in which a cat or other animal marries a human. Besides the many literal flaws to this analogy (So one of the married homosexuals is like an animal?), I will refute this argument as the slippery slope contention (AKA the What if? contention). Anyhow, homosexuals feel biological attraction to each other. Unless your cat and you have something kinda strange going on, I highly doubt that's the case for you two. RR4: " Back when interracial marriage wasn't allowed, it wasn't just segregation and discrimination, it was disallowing a fundamental right. Interracial marriage is a fundamental right because all "races" are human, and different skin colors of guys should marry different skin colors of gals." I would like to switch around some words in that quote to show you how easily you can apply that logic to homosexual marriage. "Back when homosexual marriage wasn't allowed, it wasn't just segregation and discrimination, it was disallowing a fundamental right. Homosexual marriage is a fundamental right because all "genders" are human, and different genders should marry whoever they want." As said, the comparison to skin color is another example of an arbitrary rule society made to discriminate against certain people. "And if I have the urge to have sex with someone of the same gender as me, there is something wrong with me." Wow. She called ME racist? RR5: My opponent hasn"t actually given any evidence that shows gays have only existed since the 1950s, and RandomHistory notes, "Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom." http://www.randomhistory.com... RR6: "Gay sex spreads the risk of disease. They can sue anybody who opposes their point of view for big money." First, this doesn"t change if homosexual marriage is legalized, making it irrelevant to the resolution. Second, homosexuals usually wouldn"t have sex with a heterosexual person, meaning that STD"s that gays/lesbians have wouldn"t actually affect heterosexuals. Finally, yes, any time that a civil right of someone is being violated they will and deserve to sue. This is how my case looks after rebuttals. Observation 1- The bible is an unjust way to judge morality in a legal setting. Observation 2- Gay marriage is not a choice. As Slate notes, "In study after study, biologists have found that homosexuality, at least in men, is clearly, undoubtedly, inarguably an inborn trait." Contention 1-It is unfair to have homosexual marriage not be officially recognized, as this implies homosexuals are inferior and their marriages are illegitimate Remember, even if homosexuality is a choice, which it isn"t, religion and diet are also both important "lifestyle" choices. Additionally, if children should be the outcome of a marriage, as my opponent contends, then why are 70-year-olds allowed to marry? Extend this point. Contention 2- Homosexual couples are affected in real and significant ways by not being able to legally marry My opponent has not disputed that homosexuals would gain many significant rights from marriage, but that homosexuality is a disorder. Extend this point. Contention 3: Homosexual marriage improves the economy This has not been contested at all. Weighing: My opponent has called homosexuality "Unjust". What is the moral framework for this? I would like to use utilitarianism as the moral philosophy to judge the ethics of this debate. Carnegie Mellon University defines Bentham"s principle of utility as," (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure')." http://caae.phil.cmu.edu... Therefore, whatever does the most good for society should win this debate. Legalizing homosexual marriage would do many good things for society. It would help the economy, which get many people out of unemployment, obviously a good thing. It would show that US provides equal rights for all, which prevents future discrimination. Finally, it would provide huge benefits for homosexuals. None of my opponents points are unique to legalizing gay marriage, they are just standard anti-gay tangents. We should legalize gay marriage if it does the most overall good for the community, and it clearly does.