If marriage is legal in the USA, SSM should also be legal in the USA

mar·riage/ˈmarij/Noun - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law http://www.merriam-webster.com... I thank my opponent for offering such a unique resolution. I will first attack my opponent’s case and then present my own. Opening syllogism 1. Marriage is a fundamental right 2. All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights 3. Therefore, same-sex couples should have that right. Let’s see how my opponent’s syllogism works when we apply it to different situations. 1. Marriage is a fundamental right 2. All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights 3. Therefore, couples wishing to partake in polygamy should have that right. 1. Marriage is a fundamental right 2. All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights 3. Therefore, couples wishing to partake in pedophilia should have that right. 1. Marriage is a fundamental right 2. All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights 3. Therefore, then couples who are related wishing to partake in incest should have that right. I mean if all of the members in these relationships are willing it should be legal, right? My opponent makes the mistake of thinking that just because marriage is legal, then any type of marriage is legal and this just isn’t the case. To support my opponent’s logic, is to support marriage for several people in one marriage, for a minor and an adult to be married, and for family members to be married. They’re all natural born and willing so it should be legal, shouldn’t it? Contention 1: I contend that SSM should be legal because marriage is a fundamental right. http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...... The supreme court has ruled that marriage IS a fundamental right, therefore, to take away SSM is to deny the same-sex couples the right to a fundamental right. I ask you, if there is a ban on SSM, what is marriage then? Well my opponent goes on to cite certain cases where marriage has been defined as a fundamental right. Pro's argument begs the question. Marriage is a fundamental right, but what is marriage? Pro simply assumes that marriage is such that individuals of the same sex can participate in it. In other words, he begs the question by presupposing that same sex couples are under the definition of marriage -- but this is exactly what's being disputed by Con in this debate. After all, before we can say that someone has a right to X, we first must know what X is. So what did the courts actually mean when they were discussing marriage? Well the Judeo-Christian background of the U.S. has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. When you’re looking at anything written down you must examine the context before you make absolute statements about what the text in question really means, and my opponent has not done this. I am aware that this Loving v. Virginia case is referring to interracial marriage, but the US Supreme Court has ruled that marriage IS a fundamental right, therefore it cannot be taken away. If my opponent understands that this case is referring to interracial marriage then he shouldn’t cite it. He is taking the court ruling out of context, and he knows it. Contention 2 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."-Section 1, Amendment 14 In other words, anyone who is a citizen of the US have entitlements to life, liberty and property. No state can make or enforce any law that takes away those rights. Therefore, any attempt at a SSM ban, is unconstitutional. Because marriage is a fundamental right, it cannot be taken away. My opponent has once again taken the Amendment out of context because this is not even referring to marriage. My opponent has taken the first court case in his first contention, and this contention is based off his first so it is equally flawed. Conclusion In this round, I have shown evidence that marriage is a fundamental right, I have shown that all people are entitled to that right, and I have shown constitutional proof that it cannot be taken away. I agree, however, same sex marriage is not included within the parameters of that right. Final questions 1. Why should SSM be illegal? 2. What secular reasons do you have for the illegalization of SSM? 3. Where in the constitution does it say SSM is illegal? 4. Why shouldn't it be legal? My opponent’s questions 1, 2, and 4 are all the same question so I’ll address them all in my constructive case. And for my opponent’s third question I would like to say that the Constitution does not address marriage. It is left up to the states to decide how to define and deal with marriage which is why when former President George W. Bush tried to amend to Constitution by making SSM illegal, he was unable to do so. Also I would like to note that my opponent has cited Wikipedia which is an unreliable source because of the fact that anyone can change it. I’m not saying that this is what my opponent has done; however, I would like to see some more legitimate sources. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now on to my own case: My opponent asks me why should same sex marriage be illegal, and I’ll say for one simple reason. Contention 1: It is impossible for same sex couples to procreate with each other. No matter how many times you try, a man cannot get pregnant from a man and a woman cannot get pregnant from a woman. It’s basic biology. One reason that traditional marriage has been so valued is that it is the greatest contributor to the prolonging of the human species. There are several reasons why other marriages are not legal. For example, polygamy is illegal because of the legal issues of dividing the decease’s possessions after death. Incest is illegal because of birth defects. Pedophilia is illegal because one of the participants is a minor, who may not understand the entire situation. So as same sex marriage is illegal because there is no procreation. There is no secular reason why it should be legal, because Americans were never guaranteed this right. http://www.traditioninaction.org...(Evidence for homosexuals not being about to reproduce) For these reasons I urge a ballot for Con, and I look forward to my opponent’s response.