Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

I figured the burden of proof was on you to prove why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized, but if you want me to explain my reasons for it to be legalized then I will. The reason I think it should be legalized is because I see no reason why it shouldn't be, I see it as an unnecessary law restricting the freedom of minorities. I see no reason why minorities shouldn't have the same rights as the majority. 'My opponent has introduced a straw man; and has still failed to provide any proof that Same-Sex marriage does not hurt anyone. ' A homosexual marriage itself, beginning with the ceremony, legal document, and continuing throughout the marriage, does not hurt anyone's life, liberty, or property anymore than a heterosexual marriage. I don't see how I can prove this to you without common sense, so the burden of proof is on you to try and prove it wrong. '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' You haven't proven why there is any reason not to change the status-quo, since you accepted this debate, the burden of proof is on you to try to prove my claims wrong. '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. ' It would not violate the First Amendment, because same-sex marriage does not limit the practice of religion, it just ends an unfair practice done by churches: discrimination. Burning women the church felt practiced witchcraft use to be a practice by the church. Putting adulterers or non-virgins to death use to be a practice by the church. But traditions change. Giving equal rights to everyone and ending discrimination is a more important than sticking to the words of a 2000 year old outdated book. '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. ' The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal rights, and 'liberty' from discrimination. This amendment mainly deals with discrimination, which should also include ending discrimination of homosexuals. 'But it is not, and cannot imply, a right to marry, regardless of "sexual orientation"' Why not? After all, that amendment was intended to end discriminatory laws against minorities. '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? ' I'm sorry, but this made me laugh. I wasn't referring to people WITH a sexual orientation, I was referring to discrimination BASED ON sexual orientation. So, in his three points, my opponent has: ~Asked for proof when the burden of proof was on him ~Claimed a perfectly valid argument was a 'straw man' ~Misinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment ~Made an embarrassing error involving 'sexual orientation' 'There is no confusion in my mind on this point. I understand one is not necessarily the same as the other. ' So why argue it? '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. ' What my opponent claims to be a straw man, is that - essential what a marriage is - a ceremony and a legal argument doesn't hurt anyone, when he has failed to provide proof that it can hurt people. '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. ' That point wasn't part of my actual argument for gay marriage, it was just a statement refuting yours about the STD risk of homosexual intercourse. Again, marriage does not mean homosexual intercourse, as homosexuals can have intercourse without marriage and vice versa. 'Granted, but irrelevant. The argument was not in any way about the possible dangers of heterosexual relationships. ' Another statement that made me laugh. The reason I made that point was because I was stating that there is no reason for homosexual intercourse to be illegal and heterosexual intercourse not, if heterosexual intercourse also has a risk of STDs. But if this argument isn't about either relationships, then your point about STDs has no place either. 'This is irrelevant, as we are not merely discussing the ceremony, but the whole marriage. His universal negative remains unproven. ' Again, the marriage ceremony and legal document are basically all the legal marriage consists of. 'His point is irrelevant to our debate. As I demonstrated above, this clause in the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with marriage. ' That is actually a lot less true than you might have realized. The Fourteenth Amendment was a key reason for the end of interracial marriages being illegal. If it applies to equal rights for marriage, then that applies to same-sex marriage too. Your arguments contain the fallacies of: Claiming the Fourteenth Amendment protects against all discrimination except homosexuality. Claiming STD risk is a valid reason against marriage. Claiming the states can make laws discriminating against minorities. And the embarrassing mistakes you've made such as the 'sexual orientation' one, and the one comparing homosexual and heterosexual relationships. I'd like to thank my opponent again, for this debate. And voters, I urge you, if you believe in equal rights and that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. "