Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the legislation to Legalize Gay Marriage

First of all, Roadmap for this round: First I will be addressing my opponents arguments as they relate to Ethical/Moral Implications, then I shall be going over my own set framework for the round. First, a point of order in regards to my opponents arguments: They are merely statements, and while there is a grain of common knowledge contained within those statements there is little to no evidence of any proper analysis or research into the topic and I hope that the audience takes that into consideration when judging this debate. The only source offered is a blog site, which is both of ill repute and likely to be extremely biased. Now to move onto my opponents main points: 1. "All Around men and women are completely different and same sex couples would destroy meaning in a relationship" this statement is invalid because of the fact that men and women in reality are extremely similar to one another. Aside from minuscule differences in the genetic code the main determination of what makes a man and what constitutes a woman is the simple layout of the sex chromosome package: Women are XX and men are XY. This is a minuscule difference and, all in all, Men and Women are extremely similar biologically. However this is not the main flaw in my opponents argument. That is that the supposed differences between men and women in a relationship would destroy any inherent meaning. This is a direct contrast to my argument. The lack of differences doesn't change the fact that all relationships are meaningless. The human mind has developed a complex unlike any other biological organism in the world and thus feels a need to form complex social patterns. Biologically, no "relationship" has any meaning. People are essentially animals, directly descended from the African Ape and animals mate purely for the purpose of survival. (Darwin, Origin of Species). In fact, I turn my opponents argument and say that meaning in a relationship is a purely human phenomena and thus is to the discretion of those involved in said relationship. 2. "No offspring=unnatural" this argument is directly correlated with point 1. The truth is the entire concept of marriage is "unnatural" and is an exclusively human phenomena. Humans do many unnatural things such as driving cars and debating issues on the internet. This argument is inconsequential to the issue at hand. A further point is that their are many heterosexual couples who also cannot produce offspring due to genetic deficiencies- this would imply that those relationships are also unnatural. 3. No role model for child without opposite gender This statement could really use some further development to clarify understanding. It would be helpful for you to define what a role model is. The only lack of role models that is possible in this house hold is a "gender role" that you feel is inherent to human development. However, that role is addressed in media and in the basic patterns of human social life. The child would have plenty of exposure to heterosexual relationships through watching television, attending school and doing other basic social activities. You also make the erroneous assumption that the gay parents would encourage their adopted child to be gay. The final strike against this argument is that it is once again irrelevant to the topic: we are not debating adoption by gay parents, we are debating homosexuals right to form civil unions with one another. 4. Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts and traditions of many religious groups. I will cover this argument further in one of my own contentions but in basic this argument is irrelevant because of the separation of church and state and the fact that relativism and subjectivism dictate that different people have different faiths. Not every tradition in the bible is followed to the letter and God means many different things to many different people. 5. Conservativism This is mainly for part 3 but in general: Liberalism has integral to the social development of this nation and achieved benchmarks such as the annihilation of slavery, the rights of women and minorities to vote and workers rights. Now to my main arguments: Value: For this debate I will be upholding the value of nihilism. Nihilism as defined by Merriam-Webster as: a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless; and, b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths Voting Criterion: To uphold the value of nihilism I will be using the secondary voting criterion of Pragmatism. Defined by Merriam-Webster as: a practical approach to problems and affairs. 1. Establish that many of the barriers to gay marriage are essentially meaningless in any case. We live in a chaotic and meaningless world and human kinds have forever been trying to discover meaning where none exists. UNder these circumstances it is more prudent to merely be pragmatic in our approach to ambiguous topics such as civil unions. a. Moral Values - Morality means different things to different people. There are very few things that one can truly say are inherently right or inherently wrong. For example in Muslim nations women may be stoned to death for committing adultery and "infidels" are doomed to execution at the hands of radicals. This is an extremely different religious opinion than that of other branches of faith. Another clear example is the interpretation of rape and genocide. The Vikings and some african tribes today considered raping and pillaging a necessary part of true conquest. b. Definition of Marriage - Languages are essentially an invention of mankind made to fit the circumstances under which the words were created; for example, the Inuit have numerous words for snow, which people in more tropical climates do not require. Languages can die and be born and are hardly a universal standard for defining what a civil union (the revised, proposed definition of marriage) really is. This was covered in countering my opponents first short argument. c. Religious - To this end I once again argue that civil unions are CIVIL, as in part of civilization, not a part of religion. Marriage was not even in existence during the writing of the bible, the primary text of the church. . In an meaningless world in which some individuals refuse to acknowledge the logical flaws of having a greater power, people turn to faith in their search for the "why" of society. Faith serves as a justification when there are no longer any real practical barriers to an issue. Despite scientific evidence overwhelmingly in favor of evolution many christians still believe that every species that ever existed was on Noah's ark. This is just one case of faith being a misguided attempt to explain phenomena that became more easily discernible through the process of science. Faith is not scientific or societal law and should not be interpreted as such. 2. Through my points in the first bullet I have established that society and faith and even marriage are meaningless inventions of mankind. These are ultimately inconsequential to the progress of the world and the universe. Under those circumstances it would be best to try to return to naturalism and survival of the fittest by passing gay marriage legislation so that society can focus on the real issues, namely, the survival of the human race. While mired in issues as inconsequential to you and I as gay marriage and abortion, the progress of society is extremely slow and mankind finds itself in increasing danger of world destruction. Pass this legislation so that we can establish a society that insures mankind's survival. 3. Congressional debate on such an esoteric topic is a meaningless gesture. There is no way that this topic can really be understood because it is inexplicable from the point of view of scientific research. IE. no proof or rejoinder.