Marriage Equality

Opening Statement At the risk of repeating myself, fundamental rights are established individual rights, not collective ones. The Constitution’s 16th amendment grants the Federal Government the right to collect income taxes for reasons they find necessary. Not everyone supports war. Not everyone supports national healthcare. Not everyone supports federal spending for education. However, if they are going to give rights/benefits to married couples, they cannot constitutionally give those benefits discriminatorily. Con’s spending concerns are irrelevant because providing heterosexual and homosexual couples with equal benefits is a priority. The Role of Government Rights: What is “gay” marriage? It’s like “black” voting. Yes, technically, it isn’t wrong to call it that. But, why would we? Opponents to marriage equality call it “gay marriage” because it sets in an aura of abnormality. It’s not how it “should” be. We should be rejecting the very concept of a “critical right” because we should call it what it is: a right. Con believes I’m off on a tangent here, but it’s crucial to understand demeaning terminology and why it should be rejected. USFG’s Role: Con likes the way I phrase my position. I do too. In that case, if I can show how drugs do interfere with another person’s freedom, the Federal Government is obligated to support marriage equality, since there is no longer an empirical example to the contrary. First, not all drugs are illegal. There are over-the-counter drugs and pharmaceuticals. Then, there are illegal drugs like methamphetamines. These are illegal due to their nature of being abused. This oversimplification completely neglects the consequences of drug abuse and tries to lump all the issues as if they’re one. The difference between marriage equality and drugs is, well, drugs harm people. Individual Liberty: Con continues to insist the majoritarian mindset. The only way for Con to win at this point is to prove America is founded on majoritarian principles and prove why that mindset is a good thing. Otherwise, individual liberty and the harms of discrimination outweigh the “abnormality” factor of marriage equality and I urge everyone to vote pro. Elected Officials: Elected officials are there to govern. They govern federal spending, foreign affairs, internal affairs, and create laws, etc. Homosexuals are people, too. Just because the majority is okay with oppression does notmake oppression okay. Supposed Harms: a) “Society doesn’t recognize it:” As I’ve said above, Con’s insistence of mixing governmental obligations with majoritarian interests is a lost battle. America is not majoritarian; it is pluralist. b) “It’s abnormal:” Con believes the list I gave are all genetic abnormalities. That’s… just not true. The only purely genetic abnormalities on my list are being six-toed and being six-fingered. Other than that, every single thing on that list can be either genetic or environmental. Being homosexual is likely a mixture between nature and nurture. [4] [5] [6] c) “It destroys society:” Con hasn’t proven anything. All he has done is repeated his claim by saying, “it will hurt [society] more.” Then he provides a vague imagery of homosexual PDA. Well, I don’t personally like heterosexual or homosexual PDA, so I guess we should make all marriage illegal? d) “It causes a chain reaction:” I’m glad Con dropped this. Since he conceded this point, it’s fair to assume there won’t be an increase in homosexual partnerships, which also means there won’t be an increase in AIDS. e) “Diseases:” The reason homosexual men are disproportionately more likely to get AIDS is due to unprotected anal sex. Wear a condom; problem solved. Also, what about lesbians? They have less of a risk than heterosexual women. Should we ban heterosexual marriage and only allow homosexual marriage for women? If not, then this entire argument is refuted. What is Marriage? Con gave his interpretation of marriage, but didn’t explain why this term demands a static definition. This was the point of my questions, and Con’s counter-question didn’t address that. However, last round he provided a defense, so I’ll respond to it here. Con accepts the definition of marriage “varies” among cultures, which means it is not static. Already, Con has conceded that it is acceptable for the term to vary in meaning. The definition matters greatly, which is why marriage equality advocates are trying to make it more precise. Con’s counterexamples of redefining “love”, “female”, and “gay”, do not hold ground because there is no reason to change them. Also, “love” is a very fluid term. This probably helps my point. There are reasons to change the definition, which is the whole point of this debate. Personal Convictions If the Federal Government is truly out for the well being of everyone, they should be out for the well being of individuals, particularly when they are consistently discriminated against by the State. Con went on a little rant about how it’s “wrong”, but gives zero warrants. His only new argument here is everyone will become old. If they pass a marriage amendment, it’s not like everyone’s going to jump on the bandwagon and say, “let’s all be gay!” No, Con’s objection to marriage equality, coupled with society’s perception of marriage equality, proves there won’t be a massive spike in being homosexual. Rebuttal: Institution of Marriage Con’s principles are based on tradition and traditions are often wrong. Case in point: slavery. Con doesn’t want to abandon his traditions. Why not? What kind of principle is oppressing a minority of Americans because the majority doesn’t like it? Con thinks we can’t just “change” principles. We're not changing the principle; the principle of equality has always been there. It's just been suppressed for centuries. Rebuttal: Traditional Values The first definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a “family” as: “a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head.” [14] So, yes, a homosexual couple, regardless of marriage status or not, can be considered, in fact, a family. Con sounds offended by my definition of “family”, which is strange considering he’s the one declaring homosexuals can never be a family, ever. Again, Con is appealing to tradition, which is a terrible reason alone to continue something, especially when it harms people. Rebuttal: Slippery Slope A hamster doesn’t have anything to do with equality between equal voting rights, just as marrying a dog has nothing to do with equality between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. Con showing the analogy makes no sense only proves this slippery slope makes no sense. Rebuttal: Expectations I completely understand what Con is getting at. However, breaking down gender roles is exactly what happened in the early 1900s when women escaped the “domestic sphere” and we’re a better nation because of it. Both genders are capable of taking on certain “roles”. We’re all human here. Rebuttal: Life Expectancy First, I’d like to note Con was never able to actually show any conclusive data about this claim, so face value it shouldn’t be considered. Second, Con dropped my argument that life expectancy is irrelevant due to it not conflicting with another person’s life expectancy. This is conceded and I ask Con not to bring this section up in his next round since he accepted the rules on concessions. Closing Statements So far, Con has tried to frame the Federal Government’s role as a majoritarian one; he has tried to frame it where the majority rules and the minorities have to deal with the consequences. There are 1,138 legal benefits denied to homosexual couples. As Pro, I have shown both moral and economic reasons for the government to support marriage equality. Con needs to do two things: show how the Federal Government supports majoritarian interests, and substantiate how tradition outweighs oppression. He hasn’t been able to do either. [13] http://www.cdc.gov... [14] http://www.merriam-webster.com...