Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

I regret that my worthy opponent waived the opportunity to post arguments in favor of his contentions in the first two rounds. This late in the debate, it is difficult to have any real discussion if only one side has argued in favor of its contentions. Most debates on this site, from the many I've read, seem to have BOTH parties posting arguments in the first or at latest second rounds. In my second response, I asked him to provide proof for his statements, as the burden of proof does fall on him in certain areas (as listed in my post). He lists three points, corresponding to the areas; but they are restatements of his contention, rather than proof of anything. c) is the closest he has gotten yet to an argument supporting his contentions; but no proof has been offered. He refers us to the Fourteenth Amendment; he does not explain why it supports his contentions. To deal with his first three points, in order: a) "Same-Sex marriage does not hurt anyone, because a marriage ceremony does not hurt anyone physically, or psychologically. " -See the definition of Marriage, as posted earlier. We are not talking merely about the ceremony; Marriage as defined for this debate refers to the union "regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners. " The ceremony is not the only thing being discussed here, obviously. If he had wished to discuss the ceremony, he had ample time to clarify this in his first two rounds. He did not do so, and cannot fairly do so at this point in the debate. My opponent has introduced a straw man; and has still failed to provide any proof that Same-Sex marriage does not hurt anyone. b) "Change the status-quo by making a federal law stating that no place which performs marriages can discriminate against homosexuals. " -Why? My opponent, on the third round, has yet to offer a reason to change the current state of the law. He has neither offered any benefits of Same-Sex marriage, nor has he offered reasons for his claim that all things not harmful should be legal. His point is not backed up by anything said so far. Also, as many wedding take place in churches, and many churches beliefs still forbid homosexuality (and Same-Sex marriage by extension), to require them to violate their closely held and sacred beliefs would constitute a interference with the exercise of religion. Such a law would violate the First Amendment to the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" . http://www.law.cornell.edu... c) "The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grants equal rights to all citizens of the United States of America. It was created to stop segregation, 'Black Codes,' and other laws from discriminating against minorities. " I disagree. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, not grants, equality for all US citizens in the privileges granted them by the US Constitution and its Amendments. It grants one right that I can find: ". .. 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. " By this, we all have the right not to be killed by the state, thrown in jail by the state, or have our property seized by the state; except if it is done according to the legal procedure for doing so. Examples of these procedures: Death Row, the various state judicial systems, and eminent domain. For a complete explanation of this right, (albeit very technical): . http://www.law.cornell.edu... But it is not, and cannot imply, a right to marry, regardless of "sexual orientation" Continue: "If no state is allowed to make discriminating laws against minorities, then that should also apply to sexual orientation. " Question: Why should people with a "sexual orientation" be considered a minority? As far as I am aware, everyone has a "sexual orientation;" I need a reason to grant a label, but my opponent does not give any reasons for this point. Why should it apply? Reasons? ------------ So, in his first three points, my opponent has: ~Re-defined the terms we were using, ~Introduced the straw man that he proceeds to bash throughout the remainder of his statements, ~Misinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment ~ And offered yet more statements unsupported by any source, or even by rational argument. If he has such backing, he needs to provide it; as it stands, these points are inadequate. ~~~~~~~~ Refutation: "My opponent goes on to claim same-sex marriage can hurt people, but confuses same-sex marriage with homosexual intercourse. " There is no confusion in my mind on this point. I understand one is not necessarily the same as the other. "A marriage ceremony and a legal document do not involve homosexual intercourse, and married homosexuals may even chose not to engage in homosexual intercourse. Also, homosexuals can engage in homosexual intercourse without getting married. " Here is the straw man again. We are not discussing the ceremony solely, but also the marriage proceeding from and continuing after the ceremony. We are also not arguing whether or not some Same-Sex marriages remain celibate, nor the extramarital proclivities of the participants; we are only arguing whether or not Same-Sex marriages can hurt anyone. "Though homosexual intercourse has a higher risk. .. " I thank my opponent for conceding the point that "homosexual intercourse," and therefore the marriages that contain same, have a risk for harm. Same-Sex Marriages can hurt people, and thus my contention is sustained. ". .. Heterosexual intercourse also has a risk. " Granted, but irrelevant. The argument was not in any way about the possible dangers of heterosexual relationships. For lack of space, I will not address the remainder of his paragraph, as he declares it to be irrelevant. "It may not be possible to examine every same-sex marriage in history, but it is common sense that a marriage ceremony does not physically, or psychologically hurt anyone. " This is irrelevant, as we are not merely discussing the ceremony, but the whole marriage. His universal negative remains unproven. "The rights the Fourteenth Amendment protects are 'life, liberty, and property. ' A marriage ceremony obviously does not hurt anyone's life, liberty or property, and legalization would actually increase one of those: Liberty. " His point is irrelevant to our debate. As I demonstrated above, this clause in the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with marriage. Also, we are not merely discussing the ceremony, but the whole marriage. "It is true that individual states can make limit some things, but a state cannot decide to discriminate african-americans from voting. The basic freedoms such as freedom from being discriminated based on race/religion/gender etc. are enforced in all states, and cannot be restricted by individual states. Discriminating based on sexual orientation would also apply, so that would have to be a federally enforced law. " Again, why? I have discussed this already, earlier in this response, and refer my opponent to my argument there. I have dealt with all of his summary already, except one point: 2) "My opponent's arguments contain fallacies. " Will my opponent please point these out and explain why each is fallacious, perhaps in the comments section? I want to learn from this debate. I place a very high value on correct logic, and am sincerely grateful for anyone who will take the time to check mine. ~~~~ I extend all my arguments, as they have not been adequately refuted, into the next round.