Gay Marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

For the record, mongoose, I'm a little disappointed that you waited until the very last second to post your R2 argument even though you've been online constantly... you knew I was going on vacation! Silly! But alas I am paying 75 cents per minute to use the internet while on this cruise; if you purposefully waited til you knew I would be away to post, your plan has been foiled. Mwahaha. Here I am, and I'm going to post a final rebuttal as quickly as possible. I thank you for this debate and wish you the very best of luck in the remainder of the Tournament of Champions. Mayhaps we will meet again! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INTRODUCTION: Con writes, "My opponent stated that the resolution implied legalization only with the legalization of heterosexual marriages. This removes the argument that neither should be recognized by government or given rights." To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what he means and thus cannot provide a substantial response. To clarify, in my opening argument I claimed that this debate should not be addressing whether or not marriage should hold with it any legal bearing at all; rather, that so long as heterosexual marriages exist, then gay marriage should allow to exist as well. REBUTTAL: 1. I don't know what point - if any - Con is trying to make here. My point has been that sex and gender are different things, and I asked him to explain why a man who identifies as feminine (part of the feminine gender, even if his sex is male) should be allowed to marry another woman... even if he lives his life as a woman (be it a transgendered or cross dressing lifestyle, etc) while a person of the female sex cannot marry another person of the female sex. For time constraints, I ask that my opponent see my R1 argument and then try to address this issue, instead of arguing that sex and gender are one in the same when in fact they are not. I have provided links to scholarly articles explaining this discrepancy, and also refuted his suggested definition. 2. My opponent keeps repeating the same tired argument. As I've already explained, yes, people have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Excluding religion - as a separation of Church and State supposedly exists in our democratic political realm - Con has yet to explain why this shouldn't be epanded to say that people also have the right to marry someone of the same gender. And, once again, the idea of people being allowed to run around naked just because they want to is a horrible analogy; NOBODY is allowed to run around naked publicly for a plethora of reasons, where the issue of gay marriage is discriminating against certain people based on sexuality. Nobody is saying "Straight people can run around naked but gay people can't" or vice versa. 3. Again, I have absolutely no idea what my opponent is talking about. Obviously the government is involved with legal decisions regarding the U.S. I believe gay marriage should be legal because it's a spiritual union that carries legal bearing. 4. Concerning civil unions, Con says that they are a better option than marriage but does not explain why. He says, "They will not be the same" but then in the very next breath says "They would have the same rights as marriages." For the record, however, civil unions DON'T have the same rights as marriage (one is recognized on a state by state level and the other on a federal level), not to mention I have already argued against why civil unions are inferior in previous rounds. 5. Con says gay marriage devalues marriage because it "goes against the very definition of marriage." For one thing, just because the definition isn't exact doesn't mean that one devalues the other. For another, the definition can be expanded the same way it has been done in the past for MANY things. 6. Regarding family values, my opponent "condedes this point because it doesn't make sense." Okay. REBUTTAL II: 1. My opponent says that it is legal to discriminate based on sex, and uses the examples of locker rooms and bathrooms. The problem with this analogy is that these sexist laws exist because they include the rights of other people. For instance, if I don't want to share a bathroom with men, laws exist to protect that right of mine to not have to. However, the union of marriage solely affects the individuals engaged in the marriage. Therefore, to dicriminate based on sex OR sexuality is obnoxious. 2. Some people would like to marry things like the Berlin Wall, as my opponent cited. However this debate is not about people who want to marry walls, pets or siblings. It's about gay marriage and gay marriage only, so the discussion should be limited to the issue at hand. CONCLUSION: Con says that there is no discrmination based on sexuality. I don't know how he could bring himself to say that; clearly your rights are limited if your sexuality is that of a minority in this country (which is anti-democratic as a democracy tries to preserve the rights of minorities as well). To consider something to be wrong just because it is in the minority is a logical fallacy. And finally, my opponent once again tries to compare marriage and civil unions, when they are NOT the same thing and do NOT carry the same legal bearing. That said, I wish Con luck in the next round and like to remind him and the judges that he is not allowed to offer any new arguments, as I won't have the opportunity to respond. Thank you for the debate.