Gay Marriage Ought To Be Permitted

For me at least, my opponent's arguments are a bit difficult to decipher due to grammatical and structural deficiencies, but I shall try my best. My opponent launches a dually-pronged attack on my economic argument, claiming that legalizing gay marriage has a negligent effect on the economy when considering all state revenue sources, and that the organizations I am getting my information do not have an unbiased platform. I would like to address the argument of negligent economic effect first. I'd like to point out that I previously argued that however small the economic benefit, it is the duty of the government to provide for the economy in any way it can within reason. Yes, the legalization of gay marriage might have only a miniscule effect on the economy, but it is a positive effect. My opponent still has failed to provide a reason why this principle of government devotion to the betterment of the economy cannot apply in this case, so I consider his rebuttal not advantageous to his position. Also, albeit my opponent's comments about the federal deficit are difficult to comprehend, I believe he is trying to say he sees no impact directly from gay marriage on the deficit. I'd like to point out (and I believe my opponent already knows this) that the deficit has increased because of other reasons we shall not contend in this debate, as to not stray from the resolution. My opponent's other attack on my economic argument concerns my sources. I would like to contend that my sources reference specific academic studies conducted without an agenda at hand. However the news organizations that I cite present the information, the information itself does not present a bias. If my opponent disagrees, however, and finds a specific example of a study that I have mentioned that was conducted with an agenda in mind, he is free to speak up. By the way, the Bloomberg article will be linked as source [1] below. If that doesn't work, look up"bloomberg fiscal impact of gay marriage" and it should be the first link. I promise, the proof is there. My opponent's rebuttal rests on the claim that the economic benefit is not worth it considering the "moral cost [to] your citizens". We'll examine this contention soon. Let's break my opponent's arguments up so they are comprehensible. My opponent first concedes that homosexuality is an innate characteristic. Fantastic. But then my opponent strays a bit off course by saying that I have somehow assumed being homosexual is the morally correct position. This is, aside from being untrue, completely irrelevant. Nowhere did I mention the morality of homosexuality, and I don't intend to. My argument concerns the injustice of discriminating against a group of people based on that innate trait. The morality and righteousness of the trait itself is not considered anywhere in my argument; regardless of whether it is moral or not, and that is (or was) up to my opponent to decide for himself, the inherence of the trait still remains. And as of yet, my opponent has not refuted the injustice of discriminating against a population based on a trait it shares. Also, I object to the subtle comparison between my logic and a psychopath's (or lack thereof, according to my opponent). That's simply innapropriate within the bounds of this formal debate, and I wish this to be considered by the voter, but I digress. Let's return to my opponent's arguments. The problem with my opponent's argument that marriage is an ecclesiastical matter is simply that not everyone falls under the jurisdiction of the Christian church. The Church has no power to decide the law, and rightfully so under the Constitution. We cannot decree marriage as the business of religious institutions that not everyone falls under, since marriage is a right that belongs to everyone. Everyone falls under the state however; the government and the law applies to every citizen. It only makes sense to delegate the responsibility of determining policy for everyone to the institution that theoretically represents everyone, and I'm sure my opponent would agree. Then, my opponent reverts to the position that majority is forcing its opinion upon the minority institutions. Con, however, has not yet refuted the principle of majority rules itself. The principle still applies in this case; in a just American society, the opinion held by most people should be considered above the minority's, unless there is sufficient reason to protect the minority (in the case of the Civil Rights Era, for example). The Church, unfortunately, has no special standing in the American legal system and no reason to be prioritized above the majority opinion held by the American people. We're now nearing the end of my opponent's contentions. Next, Con responds to my argument about the irrelevance of considering children in this debate about marriage by claiming that the purpose of marriage is to "provide a stable environment that children can grow up in". This is inaccurate even if we are to step into the shoes of my opponent, who prioritizes the authority of the Christian church in his arguments. "The first reason that the Bible gives for the existence of marriage is simple: Adam was lonely and needed a helper (Genesis 2:18). This is the primary purpose of marriage—fellowship, companionship, and mutual help and comfort. " [2]"The primary reason marriage is significant to God is because it is part of His ordained plan to provide the world with a picture of His love for men and women. Marriage becomes the means for married couples to demonstrate their love for God. " [3]As even Christians acknowledge, marriage is an expression of love. Some married couples have children, and some do not. But the recurring theme is that, at least at the moment they are married, couples feel love and affection for one another. I'd like to clarify that the state legalizing gay marriage would not require change in the church's position, as my opponent infers: "the majority (your side of the argument) is coming in guns a blazing forcing an unjust change to the churches beliefs where as normal or civil people would leave them to practice their own way". Legalization will not affect the ability for the church to continue in peace. It is not an assault on the church in ANY way. The state is making the decision for the benefit of the entire American people, ordained by the Constitution and the principle of equal protection under the law (as I have already contended). I don't see any sort of refutation against my responses to your minor argument about the slippery slope, and in fact, I don't understand a word of what Con is trying to say, so I will assume no attempt to actually refute was made. It is clear gay marriage should be legalized. Of course, that doesn't mean, as my opponent likes to think, that gay marriage is a moral argument being forced upon everyone. Of course not. The purpose of legalizing gay marriage, as I have already explained numerous times, is to embrace the economic benefit (as there lies a duty of government) and reinforce equal protection under the law. Being gay is natural. Con has agreed that this is reasonable to accept. So, I ask the public, why should we discriminate, as a society governed by the state, against a group of people based on a chracteristic they share? Because the church thinks so? That's what Con says; according to him, we should act as if the church has some sort of political capital it can exert to maintain its view on marriage and apply it to our society (as if). Let us embrace all of the social and economic advantages legalization brings. Let us be the just society America deserves to be. Let us accept, support, and actively represent every member of our community.