Gay marriage should be legal in the United States.

Thank you for your quick response. I'm just going to cut to the chase here over the relevant points of the debate. The one contention that is actually going to matter here at the end is whether or not marriages need special legal rights. My opponent brings up hospital visits as an example. However, why have hospitals restrict who visits you in a hospital? Shouldn't that decision be up to you? Therefore, in response to this "marriage right," I propose that hospitals collect lists from everyone listing who they'd wish to allow to visit them in a hospital emergency. This would result in no possible discrimination whatsoever, except at the whims of the person being visited, where the power fully deserves to be. You want to let your girlfriend in? Sure. Your co-workers? Sure, except Jim. Uncle Joe? Nah, too creepy. A gay could let their gay lover in. A polygamist could let in all of his wives. The end result is less government (win) and more liberty (win). It's a clear win-win situation. Now, to address even more "marriage rights" [1]: Most of these, especially the tax benefits, are simply discriminatory tax cuts, which my opponent has conceded are unnecessary. For Estate Planning Benefits, both people should simply write wills when they're married. The numerous exemptions listed are merely more discrimination against non-married people. For Government Benefits, a person should simply state who they would wish to share benefits with. Maybe two roommates wish to share social security benefits without being known as gay. I don't know. For military benefits, a person signing up could be asked who they would like to receive benefits from their service, which could be parents, a girlfriend, etc. Employment Benefits, Housing Benefits, and Consumer Benefits are all part of the private sector, so people could work that out amongst themselves, with no unnecessary government interference. Medical Benefits were already covered by the above example, although the list could include who a person would wish to handle medical affairs should he become incapacitated. Maybe you're in college, and your roommate knows you best, and you want your roommate to make the decisions. Why should government stop you? Family Benefits include adoption of children (which could easily be taken care of during the adoption, rather than during the marriage, so the government involvement in marriage is unnecessary), division of money in a divorce (easily handled by a joint bank account that covers the value of all possessions), and child custody (which, again, should be handled at birth or at adoption rather than at marriage), leaving no reason for government involvement in marriage, but rather in parenting. For Death Benefits, one could simply include in their will who they'd wish to manage the affairs of their death. Your best friend? Sure. Your parents? Sure. Your spouse? Sure. If your spouse dies with you? Uh, parents. See? Why restrict people's liberties? As for other Legal Benefits and Protections, I'd like to pick who I want to represent me in court when I die. The martial communications privilege is an example of discrimination against non-married people. For the crime victim recovery benefits, I'd like to select who receives that myself. We should not give immigration and residency privileges through marriage, because that encourages marrying for citizenship, and we've probably already got some undercover business involved in marrying and divorcing for money in exchange for free citizenship. Visiting rights in jails are the same as for hospitals, although jails might put a cap on the number of people who can visit at once or total. There. Every single right that my opponent cited should not be restricted to married peoples only. Therefore, there is no reason for government involvement in marriage. Now that I've established that, I'll switch back to refuting the relevant contentions. Contention 2: The Utility Factor My opponent claims that he claimed that we could legalize gay marriage without tax cuts. However, he did not. The rights from the legalization of gay marriage besides tax cuts were only brought up in this last round. He has now claimed that we could legalize gay marriage without tax cuts, and no sooner. Additionally, I have already shown that the rights of marriage are discriminatory, and either nobody should get them (tax cuts, exemptions, etc.) or everybody should get them (hospital visits, inheritance, etc.). Contention 3: Gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. "Mongeese argues that by legalizing gay marriage we would inevitably have to allow pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality. However, he does this without showing why gay marriage would lead to pedophilia or bestiality." My opponent thinks that gay marriage would have to "lead" to polygamy. However, polygamy already exists [2], and has always existed, and is probably even older than gay marriage itself. People are currently trying to gain polygamy rights [3]. Therefore, to assume that gay marriage must "lead" to polygamy for polygamy to exist is fallacious in itself. Contention 2: It is discriminatory for marriage to be legal in the United States. "I did no such thing. And in case you have become confused let me once again state that I'm advocating for government recognized gay marriages. I've never switched my argument in favor of non-government recognized marriages." My opponent did such a thing when he claimed that tax cuts weren't necessary. However, now that he has added marriage rights, this is no longer the case. However, I have already defeated the marriage rights above. Additionally, he asks why granting benefits to certain people but not others. This is what discrimination means [4]. My opponent then cites legal protection for married couples that really should be accessible by anyone. See the list above. Contention 3: The United States lacks the power to legalize gay marriage. "My opponent has entirely dropped his third argument and probably hopes that you won't notice." Why would I hope that one of my arguments goes unnoticed? I'm merely dropping the argument, like I did with the Harm Principle, because I don't disagree with any part of the Harm Principle. Conclusion Analysis: "[M]y opponent has ignored both of my arguments regarding the constitutionality of gay marriage." That's because I've directed my argument at the necessity of it. I have involved no discrimination in my case. "...if we were to legalize gay marriage we would also have to legalize bestiality, pedophilia, and marriage to inanimate objects." Anything short of that would be, as I've said, discriminatory. "From there he decides to abandon his third argument..." I've dropped the argument, as I no longer need it. "Consequentially, the outcome of this debate should be obvious." Why, yes, it should. "People have the right to marry the person of their preference..." Absolutely. "...and enjoy the legal protections that go along with that marriage." No, because those legal protections are discriminatory, and should be available to all, married and non-married. "I have conclusively shown this using both the constitution and teleological ethics." My opponent seems to think that he has justified discrimination. He is quite wrong. "...our government helps foster the social stability that is overall beneficial to children and their parents." Amazingly, the entire article about marriage's benefits did not mention government at all, so my opponent's contention is irrelevant. Government is not needed. "(Vote Pro)" I have shown all government involvement in marriage to be completely discriminatory against non-married people. Vote Con. 1. http://www.nolo.com... 2. http://people.howstuffworks.com... 3. http://www.pro-polygamy.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...