Gay Marriage

Rebuttalsi) Extreme lack of reason as to why it should be illegalThe first premiseCon concedes this.The second premiseCon says: I assume here your argument is saying there is no reason to make gay marriage illegal. I disagree. Under Bill Clinton, the defense of marriage act was signed into law, clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That can be changed, but it's s a legitimate, real law, that would have to be challenged by the Supreme Court to be overturned or ignored.Con may've misunderstood me here. The definition of marriage being between a man and a woman can be changed, as Con admits. But my point here was that there is no real reason to have Gay marriage be illegal. One president oculd decide to make forks illegal, and my point would be the same, that there would be no real reason to make forks or Gay marriage illegal.The third premiseCon says: In this premise you assert that anything that has no real legal basis to deny it as a right should be legalized. Again, I disagree, as morality plays a big role in our laws, stemming from tradition. Polygamy, marrying multiple spouses, is illegal in the United States, but if you think about it, there is no legal basis to ban polygamy. Like gay marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act is the only real legislation standing in the way. There is absolutely no reason that polygamy should be illegal. So why is it? Because its immoral. That is the only basis for why it is not allowed. Along with bestiality and pedofilia, morality is the only argument against it. Not only does that disprove your point, but it provides in itself an argument against gay marriage. If it is a "right" to marry who you want, why isn't polygamy legal?The resolution is that Gay marriage should be legal. If they're banning gay marriage because it's immoral, there has to be a reason why it's immoral, because otherwise there is no reason to make it illegal, so it would then make as much sense to ban forks, for example. Con has provided no reason to think that Gay marriage is immoral.Con may've misunderstood my argument that says that Gays should be able to marry whoever they want. I said that Gays should have this right because straight people have this right, and there is no reason why straight and gay people are inequal.ii) Gay Marriage being illegal would mean that homosexuals are second-rate citizensCon says: I don't remember the specific premises, so I will just address your entire argument, which is homosexuals are second class citizens since they don't appear to have the same rights. Gays and straight people have the exact same rights. Gay citizens can marry too, just not eachother, and straight people can not marry gay, either. At face value, they have the exact same rights. Why the Jim Crow laws and laws repressing woman were wrong is because they stopped a minority from being able to do what a majority could. That is not the case. Straight people have the same rights and restrictions as homosexuals.So why should gay marriage be illegal?1. Marriage isn't a "right". As I mentioned in my first rebuttal, polygamy, bestiality, and pedofilia are all illegal, as they should be. Excluding bestiality and pedofilia, as they violate other laws, polygamy is a marriage between a man and multiple woman, or a woman and multiple men. It requires legal age and consent, just like straight marriage. So if gay marriage is a right, why shouldn't polygamy be? I would even go as far as to say that if you support gay marriage, reasonably you also have to support legalizing polygamy.2. Its legalization imposes its acceptance on society. By allowing it to be law, the state automatically becomes its primary promoter. Despite the United States being about half and half on the issue, if legalized, gay marriage would be taught in schools, have required acceptance by federal workers, and required acceptance by churches, despite the complaints of the parents, the disapproval of the federal workers, and the churches saying gay marriage goes against god's word.Con's first argument here is that Gay and straight people have the same sort of restrictions and limitations. However, this is false. As a straight person can marry a straight person, and a straight person can marry a gay person of the opposite sex (however, this would contradict the homosexual's sexual orientation), but a Gay person cannot marry without the marriage contradicting the homosexual's sexual orientation. But a straight person can marry without the marriage contradicting his/her sexual orientation. Therefore, homosexuals do not have the same restrictions in marriage as heterosexual people do.Next, Con gives us two reasons as to why Gay marriage should be illegal. I will rebut them now.1. Con makes the same argument here as he did earlier. My answer is that there is an inequality in Gay marriage being illegal because if it is, then heterosexual people can marry without the marriage contradicting his/her sexual orientation, but the homosexual can't. There is therefore an inequality when there is no reason to be an inequality.2. The point made by Con here could've been made when the same issue was happening but with interracial marriage instead of Gay marriage. Everyone seems to be accepting of interracial marriage now, so perhaps if Gay marriage was legal, then we would be accepting of Gay marriage.Another point that could be made in rebuttal to this point is that no matter what someone's opinion is, it shouldn't interfere with justice. I could be part of a majority that things that women are stupid and are only useful as sex tools, but I could not use my opinion to interfere with justice, meaning a law that states that women being useful and being able to do everything that men could do.I'm intrigued to hear Con's response.