Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.

“Regardless of what my opponent thinks, at the end of the day, I have been more punctual than he has for this debate, meaning that I am already winning the conduct point as a result of my opponent's forfeit.” It is correct that my opponent has been more punctual in this debate, and that increases the likelihood of him getting the conduct point. If my opponent had waited until the final round to make this argument, I would not have contended it so much. However, he made it at the beginning of Round 4, when either of us could have been forced to FF another round, making us equally tardy. Also, either of us could have flown off the handle in round 4 or 5, and that might trump punctuality to most voters. I was not about to concede a point which I still could have won, even if my opponent did ask politely. My opponent says that I do not provide sufficient reason why religious morality is the at the base of our founding, and “...he only provides the ideals of one Founding Father on religion. He doesn't provide an overarching view of all of the Founding Fathers on such an idea as to placing religion into government. “ In lieu of going through the beliefs of all the Founding Fathers one-by-one, I went to a document that 56 of them agreed upon enough to all sign, one that they all knew was their death warrant (as Ben Franklin said), and one that was the official declaration of the Revolution in which the Founders believed. The Declaration of Independence, a basis for foundation apart from the British government. If there's one thing that the Founders would agree upon, it should have been this document. It famously states self-evident truths: All men are created equal... Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights Among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ...and goes on to list grievances the colonists have against the Crown which remain unresolved. The ideals are of 56 Founding Fathers, not just one. My opponent cites 3 quotations from 2 Founding Fathers that don't really back up his argument that well, have no citations, then articulates a popular but fallacious interpretation of Separation of Church and State. Quotations: The quote from Benjamin Franklin can be found in it's entire context (which was a letter to Rev. George Whitfield) on Google Books.[1] When read in context (p.128-129), you can see that Dr. Franklin was most certainly NOT disparaging of Biblical morals, but rather religiosity for show. Ironically for Pro, the book containing the letter is Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic. As for the Jefferson quotes, the second is neatly dispatched as a misquote[2] by Ed Brayton, a liberal journalist. The first Jefferson quote merely praises Separation of Church and State, which is not what my opponent apparently thinks it is. This civil doctrine can be accurately understood with historical context. King Henry VIII famously created the Anglican Church when the Pope refused to annul one of his marriages. At that time, the civil government (British Crown) was beholden to an “establishment of religion.” (The Catholic Church) When he created the breakaway Anglican Church, it was a religious establishment beholden to the civil government. The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church.[3] If you fell out of favor with the Catholic Church, the State would think twice before supporting you, since they are beholden to the religious establishment of the Papacy. If you fell out of favor with the Anglican Church, you also fell out of favor with the Crown, since items like the Book of Common Prayer were also legal items.[4] Puritans famously fled to the Netherlands and the Colonies to escape religious persecution. The founders wanted to separate human establishments of power as much as practical, as we can see in the Separation of Powers, 10th Amendment, and small state/big state separation of the two Houses of Congress. My point in all this is that a basic understanding of the Founding documents, historical context, and skimming of the book in [1] will show you that religion in no way was meant to be left out of government. Religious morality was “self-evident truth,” and it was establishments of religion, not religion, that were separated from civil government. Equality, other unanswered arguments, and clarification of my last statement in Round 4: I did not leave these arguments unanswered. Rather, I showed logic that bypasses them. “All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.” “All men” includes children, but excludes age. “All men” includes plumbers, but excludes plumbing. “All men” includes black and white men, but excludes ethnicity. “All men” includes thieves, but excludes theft. “All men” includes homosexuals, but excludes homosexuality. You have rights because you are human, and I wish homosexuals, etho-centrists, and all sorts of other people would quit trying to exclude themselves from humanity and recognize their worth because of HUMANITY. “All men” are created equal, but do not act equally. All have certain rights (not any right they want). Homosexuals have a right to get married, as do I, but no one, including myself, has the right to redefine marriage. It was defined by God in the Bible, along with the other rights all of us were endowed with. These rights were recognized by the founders, and clearly listed as endowed by Him. When you throw out God's definition of marriage because you want to, you act with the same mindset as those who want to throw out other inalienable rights defined by God. Life, freedom, property. If you throw out the guiding principals the Founders used, you must completely start over with new basic rights, if you can determine any, because they are no longer self-evident, and we don't know what's been endowed to us, or who, if anyone, endowed it. It would not be beneficial to society to set a precedent approving the throwing out of our basic rights. Homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical principals upon which the Founding is based, and therefore incompatible with the Founding. Gay marriage is an institution of homosexuality, it is incompatible with the Founding principals. Homosexuals or any other sub-grouping of Americans do not have special rights because of their profession, action, appearance, or belief, but all have the same rights because of their humanity. [1] http://books.google.com... [2] http://scienceblogs.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...