Question: Should gay marriage be legal?

Gay marriage should be legal. To begin, this is not a debate over wether government ought to recognize the institution of marriage. The resolution states that gay marriage should be legal. If something is recognized as legal it is recognized by the government. Secondly, this is not a debate about wether government should incentivize marriage or wether gay couples should enjoy the same tax benefits as straight couples. The resolution speaks exclusively to legality; nothing more. Legality, for our purposes, is only the ability to do something without punishment or incentive designed to hinder any given act. Gay marriage should be legal. A. Only acts that encroach upon the life, liberty, or property of another should to be illegal. Our founding fathers wrote that government ought be charged with three essential tasks: preserving our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). People, by the virtue of their humanity, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ownership of property), and are entitled to enjoy them to the fullest possible extent unless or until their enjoyment hampers another's enjoyment of their rights. In essence, my rights end where yours begin. It is from this principal that the American concept of equality is derived. Where the object is to uphold natural rights, the task of government then (in domestic terms) is only to make illegal those acts which are not germane to natural rights, their preservation, or enjoyment thereof by all people. If any act by any individual or third party encroaches on the enjoyment of anyone else's rights, that act ought be illegal because no person has the right to deprive another of their rights without consent or without just cause. B. Gay marriage does not jeopardize the life, liberty, or enjoyment of property of another. Marriage, in essence, is a contractual agreement whereby two consenting parties agree to share their lives together. It is an institution that requires consent of two adults; traditionally centered upon either romance or utility or both for both people who marry one another. There has been no substantial indication that gay marriage is harmful to any member of society, wether we consider society as a whole, individuals, children, or those who should desire to marry one another. There is accordingly no conflict with any individual's enjoyment of life, liberty, or property in any way, shape, or form. As such, gay marriage should not be illegal. If something is not illegal, then it is legal. Ergo, gay marriage should be legal.

Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal It is no one else's business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples. There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural" in evolutionary terms. Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974"s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City"s economy and $184 million to the State"s economy over three years. Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted . A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems . A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents. Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support. Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple. The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association found that more than a century of research has shown "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies. Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that "[c]ivil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage" and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages only because the state has given them that authority. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values." A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage , divorce, and abortion rates, the percent of children born out of wedlock... Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage. If marriage is about reproduction, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. George Washington, often referred to as "the Father of Our Country," did not have children with his wife Martha Custis, and neither did four other married US presidents. Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time."

Should Gay marriage be legalized As this debate will discuss the reasons for legalizing same-sex marriage compared to the reasons not to do so, in this round I will discuss some of the most important reasons to recognize the practice. A primary question that must be asked in this debate is what does it mean for a society to have marriages that are recognized legally? Marriage is not only the formal union of a man and a woman which recognized by law, and by which they get status as husband and wife but also the essential part where people can express their love and became a family. From the past until now traditional family includes a wife, a husband and their children. However, not everyone is legally able to get married. A love shared by two people of the same sex cannot get such status as married because same- sex marriage is prohibited and our society cannot understand gay's position. The first argument for legalizing gay marriages is that gay marriages do not hurt or affect any society neither physically nor emotionally. It is well- known fact that marriage is a relationship between two people and it cannot influence on the others. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values." According to study published on April 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly "laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage , divorce, and abortion rates, or the percent of children born out of wedlock...". Indeed gay people choose their partner amongst people with their point of view that is gays. This statistics shows that heterosexual marriage is positively effect on homosexual marriage. Moreover, the adoption rates will be increased. Because gay people have not got an ability of reproduction they resort to adoption. As every family gay people also want to form a family with their own children so they go to orphanage and receive the child which they are not able to have. This adoption helps not only homosexual men but also help children who left in orphanage to fulfill their lives. The second reason for permitting gay marriages is that people all over the world have the same rights. Gay people are not "second class citizens" and they should have the same freedom, opportunities that heterosexual people have. Moreover homosexual people's right should be written into Constitution of every country. Our society prohibit gay people's right to marry, to make decision about their relations and do not let them establish their own family. On the contrary, heterosexual people have the right to get married or not and they do not have any restriction from government's side. Everyone despite his color of their skin, nation of origin, marital status, income level or sexual orientation should ensured with personal immunity, right to vote, enjoyment of his civil, social and economic rights. Furthermore, gay marriage can bring financial gain to state and local governments. If gay marriage will legalize it can bring in an income from marriage licenses, rent, utilities and high income taxes. I await my opponent"s response.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized By two people marrying one another, whether straight or gay, it does not take away from the idea of marriage. Marriage is a celebration of the uniting of two people that are in love. We should not discriminate based on one's sexual orientation. Yes, I see where these drastic cases of people wanting to marry within their family or to animals may come about. However, these cases are very unlikely and the likelihood of them coming up isn't high. Yes, the idea of creating a law that defines marriage may have to be put into place. However, it's wrong to say that two people who are deeply in love and have been together for years should not be together. First off, people in gay relationships according to studies, stay together just as long if not more than straight couples. However, compared to straight couples, they are not treated as if they have any rights as their partner. If one of the persons in a homosexual relationship is in the hospital and needs medical attention, their partner isn't allowed to make any decisions for them despite that they have been together for ten years, for example. If they are in critical care, they can't even go upstairs to see them because they aren't family members. That is absolutely absurd! That is heart wrenching to these people because they are given no respect or recognition of being in a long-term stable relationship. This also applies to them when it comes to receiving their social security and pensions. It is highly unfair because they completely deserve it and it's unfair for them. Second, gay couples take away from a traditional pro-creative couple or family because many gay couples have adopted children and the children have grown up to be great individuals and not necessarily turn out to be homosexual themselves. It should not matter that they cannot procreate a child themselves physically. It is wrong to say that just because traditional families in the past were a certain way and that we should keep it the same. Our world is constantly evolving and I see no reason why gay marriage should not be universally allowed and accepted as a new traditional type of family as well. My opponent makes very valid points to validate their case. However, he attacks the issue in a manner that is more against gay marriage because of their lack of being able to produce their own offspring and marriage is a legal joining of two people, however, who are we to say that it must be between a man and a woman? Procreation does not have to only take place in a marriage. In society, many couples procreate out of wedlock. If gay marriage is legalized, it will in no way slow down the progression of our country economically.

Gay marriage should be legal. Gay marriage should be legal. There is no valid reason homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as as any other citizen of the United States.

Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. Marriage, for purpose of this debate, is a relationship which the state recognizes as a marriage, and upon whose members it confers all the legal rights, privileges and benefits thereof. As of this writing, the federal government and 42 state governments do not recognize marriages between two persons of the same sex. Here are just a few reasons why this should not be the case.1) Not legalizing gay marriage creates second-class citizensTechnically, gay relationships were not even legal in the United States until 2003,[1] yet that stopped no one who wanted to have one, nor does it still stop anyone in states where laws against sodomy are still on the books. There are a great many gay couples who are in long term relationships, and who have gotten married in a non-state-recognized manner and/or who would get married if the option were available to them. This is not going to change. Short of instituting an oppressive and near-omnipotent theocracy, there will always be close, loving and committed gay relationships.The state's refusal to recognize these relationships as marriages (if the parties so wish), while it does recognize their heterosexual counterparts, creates a category of second-class citizens. This is prima facie antithetical to basic American principles.2) Legalizing gay marriage benefits children of gay couples.96% of all counties in the United States, no matter how conservative, have at least one gay couple raising a child.[2] Regardless of how one feels about this, and regardless of how these children came to exist, the fact remains.These children's' mental health will benefit from having a clearly defined legal status with respect to both of their parents, which is especially important during times of crisis such as school and medical emergencies. In addition, inasmuch as a child's parents' relationship is more stable and secure when legally recognized through marriage, this child's well-being is correspondingly better.[3]3) Not legalizing gay marriage denies equal rights to gay citizens.Two GAO reports, from 1997[4] and 2004,[5] identify a (non-overlapping) total of 1,138 federal laws that grant benefits, rights and privileges to married couples. Such laws include laws pertaining to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint insurance policies, immigration for partners from other countries, certain Social Security and Medicare benefits, property tax exemptions, inheritance in the absence of a will, bereavement leave, the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify against one's spouse, etc. This does not include state laws, or private companies' policies.Gay couples cannot enjoy the benefits, rights and privileges conferred by these laws. This is unjust on its face. As a matter of justice, which the state is obligated to uphold, gay marriage must be legalized.4) Legalization of gay marriage benefits our legacy.As recently as 1967, when the Supreme Court put a stop to it,[6] there were states that banned black people from marrying white people. Prior to the end of the Civil War, there were states that banned black people from marrying, period. Times change.In the last several decades there has been a steady movement toward the acceptance of the idea of gay marriage, and this movement is only moving faster. A 2011 Gallup poll showed, for the first time in the history of their polling on the subject, that a majority of Americans favor legalizing gay marriage -- 53%, up from 27% in 1996.[7]The gay marriage movement is a movement for equal rights, and no major equal rights movement in American history has ever failed in the end. Legalizing gay marriage will benefit our legacy because our descendants, for whom gay marriage will almost certainly be a fact of life, will speak about our generation with pride rather than with an embarrassed cough.Finally:5) The Golden RuleThis simple principle exists, in some form, in virtually every religion and secular ethical system. Would a heterosexual person want a legislature or referendum of mostly gay people to make it illegal to marry the person he loved?For the above reasons, I submit that gay marriage should be legalized in the U.S.[1] Lawrence v. Texas, 2003.[2] US Census, 2000[3] http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov... pp. 26-27.[4] General Accounting Office, OCG-97-16 Defense of Marriage Act[5] General Accounting Office, GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report[6] Loving v. Virginia, 1967[7] http://www.gallup.com...

Gay marriage should be legal. There are many reasons to why gay marriage should be legal. A few reasons would be right of choice, right to love, and staying true to one's own feelings. These reasons are very important as you should take legalizing gay marriage around the world to consideration. First of all, there should be a right of choice. Not everyone is going to be like you. A vast majority of the population loves to choose to either marry someone of the opposite sex, or not marry. But there's a percentage with it's own opinion. You get to choose a lot of your life, there are many small decisions we make everyday that are very important to us. But marriage is a much greater concept. For people who prefer living with someone of the same-sex who they love, if gay marriage is illegal where they live, they often have a mentally tough and challenging time choosing between marrying someone of the opposite sex, or not marrying at all. Just because some choices are more appreciated worldwide, doesn't mean that other choices are of any lower value. In this case, since there should be a freedom of choice, gay marriage should be legal. Secondly, there is a right to love. No one can stop you from mentally loving someone. No matter how much someone can stop you from seeing the person, your mental state will still love. Not being allowed to express this love, may make a person emotionally challenged, and fiercely disappointed. Tradition isn't bad, as tradition is to love, live with, maybe have kids with, and marry someone of opposite gender, possibilities still exist. Gay couples could still love, live together and take care of kids. People who are against gay marriage because of religion, should be aware that even if two people of the same-sex don't marry, they can still love each other and you can't stop that. If love grows exceptionally strong within the same-sex, they may really want to marry. If there is a right to love people of the same-sex, there should be a right to show this desire. If you're one of the people who think gay couples should love someone else, you're not defining love right. Mentally, there is always going to be right to love. But these emotions are remarkably calmer when expressed, so the right to go through your love life the way you want to, should exist. Lastly, this is your life. A person has a life, with their own body. They have a mind, which has it's complexity. Part of this complexity may come with one's own emotions. Changing one's own self isn't that simple, and shouldn't be done, especially because judging creates barriers. Extraverted judging creates barriers for others, while introverted judging gives yourself barriers. Judging should be used for accuracy, not for personality. Your personality is you, and your feelings are a part of your personality. Being receptive of the world is important. Emotions are a tough part of the inner-world, which shouldn't be sacrificed if you want to stay true to yourself. Legalizing gay marriage isn't just legalizing it for everyone, but one's it's legalized, allowing yourself to have gay marriage, is a part of judgment. Staying true to yourself, is refusing to judge. Part of what you have to do to legalize gay marriage, is to temporarily accept the world without judgment, so that you can vision these perspectives. Staying true to yourself, is listening to your personality, and letting it matter. Overall gay marriage should be legal, so that some who prefer loving another of the same-sex as they themselves, can express themselves to the fullest. One can do this by valuing their own individualism, openly perceiving emotions, and acknowledging the human right to make decisions on her/his own. A lot of us express these needs by marriage with the opposite sex, or no marriage at all, if we don't feel this way. But it's important to respect the part of the human population who feels such emotions for someone of the same-sex. One's personality creates love. Therefore, gay marriage should be legal.

Gay Marriage The issue of same-sex marriage is highly charged and hotly debated, encompassing a wide variety of beliefs and viewpoints. Those against it usually maintain that marriage is between a man and a woman, that same-sex marriage will weaken the institution of marriage, that it could be a slippery slope to all non-traditional relationships being accepted, and some also object to it on religious grounds. Those who support same-sex marriage are typically of the opinion that two consenting adults have the right to be in a relationship with each other and receive the social, emotional, and financial benefits of marriage. Why should same-sex marriage be legal? The argument that traditional marriage will be weakened isn"t strong enough, because with divorce, blended families, cohabitation, polygamy, and the structure of the animal kingdom, traditional marriage itself can be objected to in several ways or seen as "unnatural." There are many arguments against traditional marriage and people who don"t believe in it, but that doesn"t mean that people can"t enter into these marriages, so the same should be true of same-sex marriages. It doesn"t hurt anyone else, or their marriage, if two committed individuals, who happen to be of the same sex, marry each other. In fact, statistics show that it has the opposite effect, often lowering divorce rates. Delving further into the issue, children often come into the debate or the equation. Some people argue that traditional marriage is about procreation, but that definition excludes infertile couples, couples who don"t want to have children, and older couples. When it comes to same-sex couples, children exist whether people agree with it or not, and they need protection and rights. Their families shouldn"t be stigmatized or denied stability and legal protections. Aside from children that already exist in same-sex households, there are a lot of children waiting to be adopted, that could be adopted by married same-sex couples. If the stigma and legal issues were lifted, more children would have loving homes. Aside from arguments about marriage, social statistics, and children, there is also a moral and compassionate side to this subject. If we don"t personally know what it"s like to be gay, lesbian or bisexual and be told we"re not allowed to marry the person we love, then we can"t put this on other people. It"s not just about standing at an altar and saying "I do." Of course it"s about love and affirmation, but it"s also about filing taxes jointly, being able to visit each other in hospital, inheritance, making decisions, children, and all of the everyday things that most people take for granted. The final point is that commonly held viewpoints vastly change over time, and that"s how society moves forward and serves its citizens. Just because something has been a certain way for an extended period of time, doesn"t make it right. Status quo should always be challenged and amended. There was a time that interracial marriage was illegal and segregation existed. There was a time when women couldn"t vote and gender inequality was a lot worse than it is now. There are so many other examples about how society has evolved over time, for the better. And making same-sex marriage legal is no different.

Gay Marriage should stay legal 1. It is no one else's business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to Publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples. 2. There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural" in evolutionary terms. 3. Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974"s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was " Unconstitutional under both the due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. 4.Denying same-sex couples the right to marry as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. 5. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programsThe Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring over three years. 6. Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US,10,000 are waiting to be adopted. A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer problems. 6. Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them KB) that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support." 7. Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple. 8. The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association found that more than a century of research has shown "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." R32; 9. Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages only because the state has given them that authority. 10. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values." A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions, divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock. 11. Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage. 12. If marriage is about reproduction, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. George Washington, often referred to as "the Father of Our Country," did not have children with his wife Martha Custis, and neither did four other married US presidents. 13. Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," [60] and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time."

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal Gay marriage should be legal because its love it would be wrong to keep to people that love each other apart because of their genders

Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S. When we examine this issue, it's vital to look at it from both an ethical and legal point of view. Only after examining them will we discover it is morally justified and logically proven to legalize gay marriage in the U.S. My value for this debate is EQUALITY. First, why don't we begin with the legal viewpoint. To do this, we need only to look at our Declaration of Independence in which it was claimed "all men [and now we know, women] are created equal" and then later elaborates on how we all have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Clearly the created equally part is fairly self-explanatory. We are all equal, so one's homosexual/heterosexual tendencies are irrelevant to whatever marriage one wants to have. Next is the life, liberty, and happiness part. When one is denied marriage to their partner, this is denying them the pursuit of happiness they deserve. It is unjustified and legally reprehensible to prohibit a marriage. Time and time again in the past, we have partaken in closed-minded, bigoted tendencies only to repeal said tendencies later on when the truth revealed itself. Just look at our ban prohibiting inter-racial marriages. And today, I am assuming we all are under the same opinion that banning it is not morally correct. We can compare the inter-racial marriage issue to the one we have now concerning gay marriage. Furthermore, in American is the separation of church and state. This means that no religion may be brought into political affairs, which is exactly what gay marriage has become. Therefore any and all arguments concerning religion is irrelevant. But next, let's move on to the ethical standpoint. Homosexuals marrying each other will not lead to a third world war. It will not lead to a disease that will spread across America. It will not lead to bestiality. Nor will affect YOU in any way, shape or form. Because when it comes down to it, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married. That's it. See, trying to ban gay marriage is akin you being on a diet and telling others not to eat cake because it offends you. Which, we all know, is preposterous. Clearly, under both legal and ethical standpoints, gay marriage ought to be legalized in all of America. Not only is it a right that ought to be guaranteed, but there are no logical contentions on why it ought to be banned.

Gay Marriage Should be Legal I will be making a case for gay marriage and ask that you read my argument with an open mind. Contention 1: The Harm Principle Same-sex marriage is no more capable of harming anyone than heterosexual marriage. Consider the people that we do allow to marry: Pimps, drug dealers, arsonists, felons of all kinds, known pedophiles, and many more people who have committed terrible crimes are free to marry and do so on a daily basis [1]. Indeed, it is reduction ad absurdum to say that we are preventing gay marriage to avoid harming society. In fact, gay marriage bans harm those of in a homosexual union. It is estimated that there are at least 1,049 legal rights that are denied to homosexual partners [2]. Contention 2: Gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment requires that “[no State shall] deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” [3] Bans on SSM are in violation of this Equal Protection Clause for at least three reasons: (1) They deny gay men and women the ability to marry the person of their choice; (2) They single out and harm a suspect class by preventing them from marrying; (3) There are over 1,000 rights they are denied simply because they cannot marry. [See source 2] Indeed, gay marriage bans are unjust because they discriminate against gay couples by preventing them from forming legal valid marriages. This is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Contention 3: Legalization of gay marriage benefits society If gay marriage were to be legal, then all would benefit. Undoubtedly there are many people who feel that gay marriage does not benefit society, when in fact, the exact opposite is true. Contention 3.1: Economics Alongside the better treatment of homosexual counterparts, there is a betterment of the economic status of society as a whole, meaning that legalization of SSM would be beneficial to the community. It has been estimated that there would be an immediate revenue gain of about $17 billion if gay marriage would be made legal nationally. According to Market Watch “one thing is abundantly clear: legalization of gay marriage would mean a windfall for the wedding industry. ” (Keep in mind that wedding industry are about a $70 billion/year business)! [4] Contention 3.2: Children Currently, there is an estimate of 16.2 million double-orphans in the world today [5]. Rather than providing these children with the opportunity to be in loving homes, adoption agencies are continually denying a stable home to the child simply because the potential parents are gay. Gay parents are equally able to raise children as their straight counterparts. Dr. Ellen Perrin says, “The vast consensus of all the studies show that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way—in some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures—they did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychological difficulties in home and at school [6]. ” Another study done by the USC sociologists say children with gay parents show more empathy for social diversity and are less confined by stereotypes. This study indicates that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationship or on the medical health of the children. [7] Let’s recap: Same-sex marriage does not harm anyone; Same-sex marriage bans violate the equal protection clause; Legalization of gay marriage benefits society economically; and Gay people are just as able to raise children as their straight counterparts, thus being able to provide a home for orphans and the needy. Thank you. References [1] “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. ” iVeritas Et Ratio-Truth and Reason. Accessed on October 26, 2011 . http://www.bidstrup.com... (point 9) [2] “In Defense of Gay Marriage. ” Accessed on October 26, 2011 . http://www.angelfire.com... [3] . http://www.usconstitution.net... [4] . http://www.marketwatch.com... [5] . http://answers.google.com... [6] . http://www.webmd.com... [7] . http://www.narth.com...

Gay Marriage I believe gay marriage should be legal. The fact of denying happiness to human being IN THIS CASE is unacceptable.

Legalization of gay marriage Any person should be allowed to marry whoever they want to marry. If two people love each other, who are we to stop them?

Gay marriage should be legalized in the entire US The right to equality is a fundamental right for humans, especially in government affairs. Taxation is a government affair. Marriage provides tax benefits. Therefore marriage is government affair. So then gays should be allowed to marry.

Gay marriage should be legal in the us banning gay marriage is a violation of the equal rights clause in the 14th amendment.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. ON GUARD! I affirm the resolution: Gary Marriage should be legalized. For the sake of clarity and being terse, the term "gay" will be an umbrella term for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. I am not arguing in what way gay marriage should be legalized (federal or states), but I'm arguing that it SHOULD be legalized because there is no valid legal argument against gay marriage. Do note that since this is in context of being legalized, saying that God is against gay marriage is obviously a moot point. Hopefully this debate won't turn into a debate about God, but rather about the points of gay marriage. ===== Gays deserve the same marital rights ===== My argument is simple and brief: gays deserve the same marital rights as a heterosexual. For a long time, marriage was only a traditional and religious thing. And it was fine for the heterosexuals to hog it for themselves (though if marriage was still purely traditional, I doubt there would be laws concerning it). However, this is the 21st century. Marriages have rights and financial security alongside; things that are vital to living in this society. Gays are being deprived of these rights because they aren't allowed to marry for arbitrary reasons. This is all for now. I realize that my opponent will probably add some other arguments, like the slippery slope or the nature of homosexuality. I realize these possible counterarguments, but there is no guarantee my opponent will use such arguments. It's pointless to type out rebuttals to arguments that could potentially never be used. So with that said, I will await my opponent's rebuttals and refute his arguments accordingly.

Gay Marriage should be legal I will adhere to the rules and reserve my rebuttal against Con’s argument for Round 3. I wish my opponent luck and look forward to a good debate. Same-sex couples should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment in the same way as heterosexual couples. [1] The Human Rights Campaign Foundation states that many same-sex couples "want the right to legally marry [and] honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer. .. " Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Many benefits are only available to married couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [2] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by theNew York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple. [3] The concept of "traditional marriage" being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural” in evolutionary terms. [4] Marriage is redefined as society's attitudes evolve, and the majority of Americans now support gay marriage. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. With a May 2013 Gallup poll showing 53% of Americans supporting gay marriage, it is time for the definition of marriage to evolve once again. [5] SOURCES: [1] "Answers to Questions About Marriage Equality" (357 KB) , www. hrc. org, [2] Freedom to Marry, "Marriage 101," www. freedomtomarry. org [3] Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber, "The High Price of Being a Gay Couple [4] Ross Douthat, "The Marriage Ideal," www. nytimes. com [5] Jeffrey M. Jones, "Same-Sex Marriage Support Solidifies Above 50% in U. S. ," Gallup. com,

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States The proposition on offer is that Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States. For the purposes of debate, "Gay Marriage" will be held to mean marriage between two individuals of the same sex. This definition arises from two segments of relevant law common to most states. For example, from Illinois: 750 ILCS 5/201: Formalities. A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State. 750 ILCS 5/211(a)(5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex. Section 5/211(a) details prohibited classes of marriage. These laws are found at least in general form in many states. Marriage shall be held to be in relevant part: (1) The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (2) The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce) (3) The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created The three definitions show the traditional meaning, an updated definition concerning the state in which married people live, and the nature of the institution. Other definitions recognize marriage as between simply two individuals without legal sanction. Legally, a sanction is "The part of a law that is designed to secure enforcement by imposing a penalty for violation of the law or offering a reward for its observance." Thus, one can see that the institution of gay marriage has been socially recognized, but there is a lack of "reward" in social benefits like tax breaks, as well as a "punishment" in the form of no legal solemnization of the institution. This lack of sanction violates rights of individuals considering entry into a marriage. **************************************** Some common objections: 1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages. Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages. Once upon a time, the majority of people were against segregation. This obviously shoots down the notion that laws cannot be passed against the will of the people. Putting the rights of the people to the whim of ad populum is one of the things the founding fathers were most concerned about - tyranny of the majority. 2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality. To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities. 2. There is indeed evidence for homosexuality being caused by genetic factors. A recent "Psychology Today" has an article on these very concepts. Propensity towards homosexuality increases with each male child. Also, there is no danger to the argument in considering pedophilia, zoophilia, etc... to be innate because these sorts of behaviors are regulated by other, far more compelling concerns than the ones the regulate homosexuality. 3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Homosexuals inherently have less rights if they do not have the same freedom of choice as heterosexuals - freedom of choice is in choosing your PARTNER - not choosing your partner's GENDER. 4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty? Marriage will loose its meaning if homosexuals are allowed to marry?? It seems to me that the meaning of marriage is far more about the love and joy that a couple share in spending the rest of their life together than about making sure a penis and a vagina share the same bed. The "dangers" of polygamy/polyandry (multiple spouses) and pederasty (sexual relations between two males, esp. a minor) are regulated by other concerns for tax laws and the familial unit, as well as laws concerning the age of consent. 5. We cannot say that sexual tendencies give people rights. But a sexual tendency towards heterosexuality should be given the right to choose who to marry and to have social benefits like tax breaks and solemnization conferred upon them? This position is simply not salient. 6. 100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex. This is the same way as choosing your partner how? ********************************************** The position of denying homosexuals the right to marry is not legally tenable. I assert that: 1) The right to marry the partner of one's choosing is a fundamental right. 2) Homosexuals are suspect class. 3) Moral approbation of homosexuals violates Equal Protection. Any of these considerations, if accepted places the burden of proof on CON to fulfill all three prongs of the strict scrutiny standard: First, the law must concern a compelling government interest. Second, the law must be narrowly tailored. Third, the law must be the least restrictive means to the end. Laws forbidding individuals from marrying a member of the same sex fail all three of these prongs. AFFIRMED.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States The proposition on offer is that Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States. For the purposes of debate, "Gay Marriage" will be held to mean marriage between two individuals of the same sex. This definition arises from two segments of relevant law common to most states. For example, from Illinois: 750 ILCS 5/201: Formalities. A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State. 750 ILCS 5/211(a)(5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex. Section 5/211(a) details prohibited classes of marriage. These laws are found at least in general form in many states. Marriage shall be held to be in relevant part: (1) The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (2) The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce) (3) The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created The three definitions show the traditional meaning, an updated definition concerning the state in which married people live, and the nature of the institution. Other definitions recognize marriage as between simply two individuals without legal sanction. Legally, a sanction is "The part of a law that is designed to secure enforcement by imposing a penalty for violation of the law or offering a reward for its observance." Thus, one can see that the institution of gay marriage has been socially recognized, but there is a lack of "reward" in social benefits like tax breaks, as well as a "punishment" in the form of no legal solemnization of the institution. This lack of sanction violates rights of individuals considering entry into a marriage. **************************************** Some common objections: 1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages. Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages. Once upon a time, the majority of people were against segregation. This obviously shoots down the notion that laws cannot be passed against the will of the people. Putting the rights of the people to the whim of ad populum is one of the things the founding fathers were most concerned about - tyranny of the majority. 2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality. To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities. 2. There is indeed evidence for homosexuality being caused by genetic factors. A recent "Psychology Today" has an article on these very concepts. Propensity towards homosexuality increases with each male child. Also, there is no danger to the argument in considering pedophilia, zoophilia, etc... to be innate because these sorts of behaviors are regulated by other, far more compelling concerns than the ones the regulate homosexuality. 3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Homosexuals inherently have less rights if they do not have the same freedom of choice as heterosexuals - freedom of choice is in choosing your PARTNER - not choosing your partner's GENDER. 4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty? Marriage will loose its meaning if homosexuals are allowed to marry?? It seems to me that the meaning of marriage is far more about the love and joy that a couple share in spending the rest of their life together than about making sure a penis and a vagina share the same bed. The "dangers" of polygamy/polyandry (multiple spouses) and pederasty (sexual relations between two males, esp. a minor) are regulated by other concerns for tax laws and the familial unit, as well as laws concerning the age of consent. 5. We cannot say that sexual tendencies give people rights. But a sexual tendency towards heterosexuality should be given the right to choose who to marry and to have social benefits like tax breaks and solemnization conferred upon them? This position is simply not salient. 6. 100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex. This is the same way as choosing your partner how? ********************************************** The position of denying homosexuals the right to marry is not legally tenable. I assert that: 1) The right to marry the partner of one's choosing is a fundamental right. 2) Homosexuals are suspect class. 3) Moral approbation of homosexuals violates Equal Protection. Any of these considerations, if accepted places the burden of proof on CON to fulfill all three prongs of the strict scrutiny standard: First, the law must concern a compelling government interest. Second, the law must be narrowly tailored. Third, the law must be the least restrictive means to the end. Laws forbidding individuals from marrying a member of the same sex fail all three of these prongs. AFFIRMED.

Gay Marriage Gay marriage should be legal.

Gay Marriage Gay marriage should be legal.

Gay marriage should be legal. This falls under conduct, which my opponent has not followed. What is Marriage? Marriage is defined as the social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce). But the usual point of contention is the why people should get married. I'd contend that it is out of love. Love and commitment is the modern reason for people to get married. In the words of Olson, "Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality and autonomy. "[1] In addition, marriage is a right sanctioned by the UN. The United States Article two states:Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. (1)When we bear article two in mind, and view article 16:Men and women of full age, without any limitation . .. have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (1)The answer is obvious. In conclusion to this point, marriage should, by its definition and law, be allowed in all countries. Won't somebody please think about the children! ?In the scenario that you believe that we should have marriage for children, then I would like to point out that homosexual parents are not just equal to, but occasionally better than, heterosexual parents. Many studies show[3] that[4] homosexual[5] parents are either equal to or stronger than heterosexual marriage. If we want our children to be happy, then it is only fair that we allow homosexual parents to marry. The allowing of IVF and other such things, especially adoption, would mean that marriage is a good idea. The Libertarian ApproachI want to bring in a libertarian approach. If you remember the quotation by Olston, I wish to expand it: "It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation. It is not a right belonging to the State of California. " In other words, it is individual liberty that is important here. The country or state enacting the law should have no say. In the words of J. S. Mill:"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression. .. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling. .. "[2]In other words, we must have the state protect our ability to do as we wish, and stop social tyranny. We cannot have a system where systems "could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation". We have to give people the choice to be able to choose to act as they wish, and not force our will on others. Financial IssuesAlso, I would like to 'steal' my final argument from Bluesteel, simply due to the brilliance of his point:""The gay marriage ban costs California $1 billion every 6 years. Marriage is a big industry that stimulates businesses (bakeries, photographers, DJ's, etc) in the state and generates tax revenue. $1 billion is a lot in California. Cutting $1 billion from the University of California's budget is ultimately what forced them to triple student fees over the last 10 years"[7]. I'd also like to state, in case my opponent uses the same rebuttal that he uses against bluesteel, that, if my opponent wishes to claim that " Including same sex couples into the legal definition of marriage would increase the tax burden", I would like to see the mathematics behind this claim. After all, it is quite a simple one to do: get the 84,000 homosexual couples living in California[8], reduce it by, say, 50% for those who won't get married. Then, separately, work out the average married person's money return every year based on marriage tax returns, and divide it by 2 to make it per couple, then multiply it by 3 to compare it to the 349 million dollar cost that the study states. That would provide the comparison. I would very like my opponent to do this if he uses this argument. " ---[6] My final argument is an argumentum ad democratum - An argument from Democracy. Public Opinion Regarding Gay Marriage Date Support Oppose June 1996 49% 47% June 1999 53% 44% December 2000 40% 44% June 2002 46% 44% August 2003 46% 46% October 2004 54% 43% November 2005 66% 32% Polls around the world[9] have shown that homosexual marriage[10] is becoming more and more popular. Modern studies show anti-gay testament to be constantly becoming a minority, in Britain, 70% of people support it, Canada 66% support it, in America it has became majority opinion in favour of SSM. Denial of this union is going directly against the wishes of the people. In conclusion, marriage should be legalised so it becomes in line with modern democracies, and in line with modern laws. It should be legalised because there is no strong reason to criminalise it. It should be legalised because it improves the financial system of where it is legal, and on philosophical grounds to protect personal liberty and freedom. Finally, the legalisation would promote the democracy of the country. I shall wait for my opponent's response. I shall rebut his case in round 3. Thank you. (Arguments From myself, @ . http://www.debate.org...)1 - . http://motherjones.com......2 - On Liberty, page 9.3 - . http://www.livescience.com......4 - . http://www.time.com......5 - . http://www.tandfonline.com......6 - . http://www.debate.org......7 - . http://online.wsj.com......8 - . http://online.wsj.com...... 9 - . http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...10 - . http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org...;

Rather Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Gay Marriage SHOULD be Legal, gays are just like us.

This house believes that gay marriage should be legalized INTRODUCTION It is now a widely accepted fact that homosexuality is naturally made, not only viewing from scientific studies that prove its apriority [1], but also viewing from homosexual behaviors that are documented all the way back from ancient Greece to today. Homosexuality is also seen in 1,500 species of animal including mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects and other invertebrates [2]. Being proven to be innate, homosexuality seemingly should not be debatable or discriminated. But due to human race’s unfamiliarity with same-sex having affectionate bond, gay marriage debate become one of the most common debating topics around the world. The main essence of gay marriage debate is if abandoning this social stereotype is necessary when there are organizations and peoples who renounce homosexuality. In this debate, I argue that gay marriage should be legalized. Under the definition, the argument will not extend to region where homosexuality is criminalized for it is very unreasonable to extend the debate to those regions. My burden of proof will be to show that tolerance towards homosexuality is not enough but legalization of their marriage should happen. I will present my case from two different aspects: individual and social benefits of legalization of gay marriage. By individual, I represent the homosexual couples themselves and by social benefit, I represent the general community. I will elaborate my individual argument on this round and social argument on my next round. ARGUMENT1: Individual Homosexual Couples Regardless of race, physical condition and lifestyle, every person is entitled of human rights. These rights are granted unconditionally, which means sexual preference do not prevent one from being entitled from these rights. Taking a look at this right that is also fully granted to peoples with homosexual reference, under Article 7, it is promised that all human will be free from discrimination and treated equality in front of the law. There is absolutely no reason to exclude and forbid marriage between two individuals just because they are homosexual. Homosexuality is neither an option that one can choose nor a crime. It has been around in our world for millenniums and all over the various types of species. It is completely illogical to discriminate marital right because of sexual preference since marriage itself means a formal bond of affection between two individuals and is not about reproductive ability. Forbidding homosexual marriage is contradicting the spirit of equality and legalizing it is serving and upholding the basic rights and humanity of a human. Legalizing homosexual marriage is also abiding by right to pursue happiness that all countries in the range of this debate has in one form or another. Everyone is entitled to pursue happiness in their lives as long as their actions are legal and moral. This means that forbidding homosexuality, which is not illegal (under our definition) and moral has to be protected and those who achieve happiness in means of homosexuality should not be discriminated. Forbidding the right to marry the partner that one desire is not only a state tyranny but also is going against constitutional right to pursue happiness. To protect this fundamental right, gay marriage has to be legalized. The legalization of gay marriage will surely ensure the happiness and satisfy countless gay couples that desire marriage. In many surveys led to gather approximate number of gay couples, couples marked themselves as married, portraying their desire to marriage [3]. In US, about 2 million children are being raised by LGBT couples but are unable to have legal bond with their parents because the state do not categorize LGBT couples as “married” [4]. All these are some tragic results that can be adjusted by abiding human rights and constitutional rights. Gay marriage has to be legalized to provide gay couples with marital benefits, legal child custody but the basic right to form family in the first place. 2.5% of the population is predicted to be innately homosexual. This rate is similar with left-handed population. Traditionally, left handers were discriminated and were forced to follow the social norm which is the right hand. During my years of early education, I was forced to write in right hand by my kindergarten and primary school teachers. I have heard many stories where Catholic school instructors tied left-handed students so they would not practice penmanship with their hand that they are born to be more comfortable with. Nowadays, social norm against left-handedness has already changed. Left-handedness which once was viewed as a disorder and a misfortune is now socially accepted. It became the part of social norm. Taking an example of South Korea, schools in the past generation forced an abstinence of usage of left hand from left-handers. Many parents forbid their children from their meal if they used left hand to manipulate eating utensils. This idea is still common among senior citizens of Korea. Many adults from past generations still denounce left-handedness. However, discrimination on left-handedness is rather less in nowadays South Korea. Schools do not force students to follow the majority. Parents who forbid meal just because their children used left hand to eat will most likely to become the target to look down on in the community. The social norm did change in Korea. This similar analogy is enough to show that homosexuality can become a part of social norm. No one should be discriminated for factors they are born with. Homosexuality is one of factors that mankind are born with. Limiting their happiness and basic right to form union with their loved ones is ridiculous and needs abolition immediately. If an aberration that formed only 2.5% of the general population slowly became social norm, so can homosexuality which is suspected in about 10~20% of the general population [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. To ensure happiness and to uphold the basic rights of the homosexuals, legalization of gay marriage has to happen. REFERNECES [1] http://allpsych.com...; [2] http://www.news-medical.net...; [3] http://www.foxnews.com...; [4] http://www.nytimes.com...; [5] Billy JO, Tanfer K, Grady WR, Klepinger DH (1993). "The sexual behavior of men in the United States". Family Planning Perspectives 25 (2): 52–60. [6] Binson, Diane; Michaels, Stuart; Stall, Ron; Coates, Thomas J.; Gagnon, John H.; Catania, Joseph A. (1995). "Prevalence and Social Distribution of Men Who Have Sex with Men: United States and Its Urban Centers". The Journal of Sex Research 32 (3): 245–54. [7] Bogaert AF (September 2004). "The prevalence of male homosexuality: the effect of fraternal birth order and variations in family size". Journal of Theoretical Biology [8] Fay RE, Turner CF, Klassen AD, Gagnon JH (January 1989). "Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men". Science 243 (4889): 338–48. [9] Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [10] McConaghy et al., 2006

Should Gay Marriage be Legalized Gay marriage should be legalized because people should have the right to love who they want to love and love them however they want. Boys with boys and girls with girls this will not ruin or society or how or what people from other nations think about us legalize it because if you find true love go for it and there should NOT be government, politics or the president to stop that from happening because they gay people should have all the rights in the world they want to.

Gay (Same-sex) Marriage Should Be Legal "Where do you get your morals from that two sexual perverts should be treated as normal people and allowed to invade the institution of marriage, which has the primary purpose of procreation?" Where do you get your morals from that homosexuals aren't normal people? This is a legal debate, not necessarily a moral one. Marriage is simply a union between two people. Homosexuals are still people. We should extend marriage rights to them as well. Their desire is simply to be happy with the person that they love. The three "unalienable rights" listed in the Constitution are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The freedom to marry someone of the same sex falls under both Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. While some religions object to homosexuality, there is no reason that this should influence legislation. The first amendment explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The founding fathers also strongly promoted a separation of church and state. Therefore, religion has no place in this debate. Marriage has traditionally been between a male and a female, but this simply because the majority of the populace throughout history A. was heterosexual and/or B. believed in a religion which prohibited same-sex marriage. However, many today do not object to homosexuality. While procreation is certainly a big aspect of marriage, people do not marry simply for the purpose of procreation. Most in America marry for love. That is the purpose of marriage - to show a bond between two people. I see no reason why we should not extend this bond to homosexuals. Some have a moral objection to homosexuality. However, these morals tend to be based on very weak grounds, often in religion. As I explained earlier, religion should not be a part of this. A large majority of people in America do not think that same-sex marriage should be illegal. [1] Therefore, it would be inappropriate to enforce these anti-homosexual morals on others. For as long as we tolerate different religions, we have to tolerate beliefs that don't agree with some of our religious teachings. I think that this applies very strongly to gay marriage. Source: [1] http://www.isidewith.com...

Legalizing gay marriage A man and a man, or a woman and a woman should have the same rights to get married as a man and a woman have. Love should not be defined by race, gender, political affiliation, or what kind of religion you practice. You can't help who you fall in love with and no one should be able to tell you who you can and cannot marry.

gay marriage Gay marriage should be legalized because being gay is a natural part of life.

Gay Marriage Gay Marriage should be legalized, for if two people love one another, who are we to interfere? There are no reasons why gay marriage shouldnt be legalized. Marriage is about love and gender shouldnt matter.

Gay Marriage Gay Marriage should be legalized, for if two people love one another, who are we to interfere? There are no reasons why gay marriage shouldnt be legalized. Marriage is about love and gender shouldnt matter.

Same-sex marriage should be recognized in the U.S. Since Con has placed upon me the burden of proof (excluding any positive arguments he might make), and since he has invited me to go first, I will post my opening statement in this round.I define marriage as a relationship which the government recognizes as a marriage, and upon whose members it confers all the legal rights, privileges and benefits thereof. As of this writing, the federal government and 42 state governments do not recognize marriages between two persons of the same sex -- including, as Con pointed out, my home state of Minnesota (although it is silly to think that more than a few Minnesotans will read this debate, or that I, a mere educated layman, should be making the case against the pending anti-equality law on behalf of the entire pro-equality community). Here are a few reasons why gay marriage should be legalized at the federal and all state levels.1) Not legalizing gay marriage creates second-class citizensTechnically, gay relationships were not even legal in the United States until 2003,[1] yet that stopped no one who wanted to have one, nor does it still stop anyone in states where laws against sodomy are still on the books. There are a great many gay couples who are in stable, monogamous relationships whose members have made lifelong commitments to one another; some have gotten married in a non-state-recognized manner, and many if not most would get married if the option were available to them. This is not going to change. Short of instituting an oppressive and near-omnipotent theocracy, there will always be close, loving and committed gay relationships.The state's refusal to recognize these relationships as marriages (if the parties so wish), while it does recognize their heterosexual counterparts, creates a category of second-class citizens. This is prima facie antithetical to basic American principles. 2) Not legalizing gay marriage is antithetical to liberty.As a liberal, I'll be the first to say that sometimes our individual liberties must be curtailed in order to ensure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all Americans. But in no way would legalizing gay marriage disrupt the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of heterosexual marriages. With one exception, all amendments to the US Constitution have empowered citizens in one respect or another. The one exception was the 18th Amendment, which instituted Prohibition; this amendment was quickly repealed, and is today regarded as a nearly unmitigated disaster. If the anti-equality "Federal Marriage Amendment" should ever pass, this would be a second, and equally disastrous in my opinion, exception to the rule. However, criminalization of gay marriage at the state level, or via Federal legislation, has the same effect.3) Not legalizing gay marriage is antithetical to equality.The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that marriage is a fundamental right of all Americans.[2] However, this right is denied to gay citizens. Two GAO reports, from 1997[3] and 2004,[4] identify a (non-overlapping) total of 1,138 federal laws that grant benefits, rights and privileges to married couples. Such laws include (but are hardly limited to) laws pertaining to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint insurance policies, immigration for partners from other countries, certain Social Security and Medicare benefits, property tax exemptions, inheritance in the absence of a will, bereavement leave, the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify against one's spouse, etc. This does not include state laws, or private companies' policies.Gay couples cannot enjoy the benefits, rights and privileges conferred by these laws. This is prima facie unjust. As a matter of justice, which the state is obligated to uphold, gay marriage must be legalized.4) Legalizing gay marriage is conducive to the well-being of the children of gay couples.96% of all counties in the United States, no matter how conservative, have at least one gay couple raising a child.[5] Regardless of how one feels about this, and regardless of how these children came to exist, the fact remains.These children's' mental health will benefit from having a clearly defined legal status with respect to both of their parents, which is especially important during times of crisis such as school and medical emergencies. Consider, for example, that except for a few states which allow joint-parent adoptions, only one member of a same-sex couple that is not allowed to marry can have legal custody of their children. If something happens to that person, his or her partner's grief will be compounded by the legal nightmare of trying to obtain custody of, or even visitation rights for, the children he or she may have raised all of their lives. This clearly benefits no one.In addition, inasmuch as a child's parents' relationship is more stable and secure when legally recognized through marriage, this child's well-being is correspondingly better.[6]5) Legalizing gay marriage is economically sound.To be sure, legalizing gay marriage would mean more government spending as the existing government benefits of marriage are extended to a somewhat larger population. However, this would be more than offset by increased tax revenue and consumer spending. Wedding spending for gay marriages in the first year they were legalized in certain states ranged from $5 million (Iowa) to $155 million (New York).[7] If gay marriage were legalized nationwide, nearly $17 billion would be pumped into the national economy.[8] In these times of recovery from the Bush economic crisis of 2007-08, such a windfall is nothing to sneer at.6) Legalizing gay marriage is beneficial to this generation's legacy.As recently as 1967, when the Supreme Court put a stop to it,[9] there were states that banned black people from marrying white people. Prior to the end of the Civil War, there were states that banned black people from marrying, period. Times change.In the last several decades there has been a steady movement toward the acceptance of the idea of gay marriage, and this movement is only moving faster. A 2011 Gallup poll showed, for the first time in the history of their polling on the subject, that a majority of Americans favor legalizing gay marriage -- 53%, up from 27% in 1996.[10]The gay marriage movement is a movement for equal rights, and no major equal rights movement in American history has ever failed in the end. Note that this is not a "bandwagon" argument; not an argument that we should legalize gay marriage simply because everyone wants it. Rather, we should legalize gay marriage so that our descendants, for whom gay marriage will almost certainly be a fact of life, will speak about our generation with pride rather than with an embarrassed cough.Finally:7) Legalizing gay marriage upholds the Golden Rule.This simple principle exists, in some form, in virtually every religion and secular ethical system. Would a heterosexual person want a legislature or referendum of mostly gay people to make it illegal to marry the person he loved?For the foregoing reasons, among others, I submit that gay marriage should be legalized in the United States and in all states and territories.[1] Lawrence v. Texas, 2003.[2] cf. Loving v. Virginia, 1967.[3] General Accounting Office, OCG-97-16 Defense of Marriage Act[4] General Accounting Office, GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report[5] US Census, 2000[6] http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov... pp. 26-27.[7] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...[8] http://www.forbes.com...[9] Loving v. Virginia, 1967[10] http://www.gallup.com...-

Legalization of Gay Marriage My Arguments Gay Marriage Benefits Society Gays parents are just as good as heterosexual ones When it comes to marriage, the well-being of the kids is a concern. Whether homosexuals choose to adopt or have artificial insemination, we know the kids are in good care. According to Benjamin Siegul, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, the kid's relationship with the parents as well as social and economic support is more important than the parent's sexual orientation. [1] Numerous studies have also claimed that sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting effectiveness, namely the American Psychological Association. [2]The American Psychological Association states through their decades of research that "adjustment, developmental and psychological well-being of the child is unrelated to the child's sexual orientation" and that kids of lesbian or gay couples are likely to flourish. [2] The American Academy of Pediatrics have come to the same conclusion: "Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders. "[3] Many kids are also happy with their homosexual parents, and in fact, feel like they don't even need a parent of the opposite gender. One kid named Logan, a son of lesbian parents in Alberta, Canada stated this: “I don’t feel I needed a father or wanted a father,” said Logan, “It’s kind of overrated. It’s not like you need a male figure in your household the entire time, as long as you can talk to guys and see them and you can be friends with them. That’s enough. ”[4] Gay Marriage is legal in Canada and most kids are doing just fine. Marriage is a Constitutional RightThe Supreme Court verified 14 times that Marriage is a protected right for all citizens. [5] The 14th Amendment states in Section 1: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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. "[6] Ideally, rights such as marriage shouldn't be taken away from people just because of their sexual orientation. Not only is this supported by the Constitution, but it's also supported through the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. In article 16 it states, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. "[7]I've shown that gays are fit to parent, so why can't two people who love each other get married and enjoy priveleges just like everyone else. Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligationsThat's what marriage is all about isn't it. Gays shouldn't have the right to marry taken way from them just because of their sexual orientation. Isn't the United States all about equality. If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be. Gay Marriage is legal in 15 different countries. [8] My question is : Why can't America legalize it as a country? It's a Constitutional right that applies to all people. Therefore, gays should be able to marry for these reasons. I look forward to my opponents next arguments. Sources:. http://www.bu.edu...;[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[2]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...;[3]http://www.edmontonjournal.com...[4] . http://www.ctpost.com...;[5]http://www.law.cornell.edu...;[6]http://www.amnestyusa.org...;[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[8]

Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. A prefatory note: although Con appended his statement with a number of sources, he did not match the source to the text that it was intended to support. Thus, we must say that Con's argument was not reliably sourced.Con's arguments should nonetheless be considered on their own accord, and we turn to them now.ProcreationThe main thrust of Con's rebuttal is that the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and since gay couples cannot procreate, the state has no reason to marry them. This argument appears on its own, as well as in many places throughout his direct responses to my arguments.Con seems to be suggesting that the state should not legalize any action in which it does not have a direct interest. I don't see how anyone, especially a small-government conservative, could accept that principle. Alternatively, he might be suggesting that the state should not interact with its citizens in ways that would help them unless it has a direct interest. However, the state has not only an interest but a mandate to take actions promoting the general welfare of Americans.[1][2]In any case, the state's interest in marriage is many-faceted. It includes, but is not limited to: Facilitating public order by creating cohesive family units. Enabling liberty and free decision-making by spouses. Creating stable households. Legitimatizing children. Limiting the public's liability to care for the vulnerable. Facilitating property ownership.[3] If the state's only interest in marriage were procreation, there would be no reason for the state to issue marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples where one or both members were senior citizens, infertile, or had a stated intent to never procreate. (Indeed, if the anti-gay community themselves believed this logic, then one would expect lawsuits enjoining governments from issuing such licences to be commonplace.)Let us now consider the positive arguments I offered above, and Con's response to them.Second-class CitizensCon argues that this argument would only be true if the inability to marry hurts the socio-economic status of gay couples. It does, in ways that I have outlined above. But Con seems to have missed the gist of this argument; by second-class citizen, I meant a citizen that has a sense of inferiority to his other citizens. A recent study found that couples perceive marriage as having an additional meaning that mere registered partnerships lack, and that "the cultural and political trappings of statuses that are not marriage send a very clear message of difference and inferiority to gay and lesbian couples."[4]The remainder of Con's response relied on his Procreation argument, addressed above.Benefits to ChildrenCon's response to this relied entirely on his Procreation argument, addressed above.Equal RightsCon suggests that marriage may not be a right. However, the courts have long recognized marriage as "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ... To deny this fundamental freedom ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."[5]Con also suggests that if marriage is a right, then it does not apply to gay marriages by virtue of the definition of the word "marriage." However, it is that very definition which is at issue in the overall gay marriage debate. The definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is not universally accepted. Another definition is: "a couple's choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings on one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life."[6]There is no contradiction between that definition, or a similar one, and the concept of gay marriage. Inasmuch as such a contradiction exists because of the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, I submit that the rights, benefits and privileges listed above which are granted to opposite-sex couples who have married are denied to gay couples, that this is due to the definition of marriage being faulty, and that it should therefore be redefined.LegacyCon suggests that I am comparing race and sexuality. I am not; rather, I am comparing one type of marriage that was once discriminated against to another type that is currently discriminated against. Con suggests that I am arguing that we should jump on the bandwagon because of the growing strength of the gay marriage movement. I am not; rather, I am arguing that because the victory of the gay marriage movement seems historically inevitable, our descendants will look upon us favorably if we institute it now rather than wait for the next generation to do so.Con states that gays are not being discriminated against. This will be true when they are allowed to marry.The Golden RuleCon's response to this is mostly an extension of the Procreation argument, addressed above. Con also suggests that if marriage were about love, then all loving relationships should be state-regulated. I cannot imagine why that would be the case, and Con does not explain the logic behind that assertion. (I believe, however, that the statement "marriage is not about love" provides an interesting insight into the mindset of gay marriage opponents.)In conclusion, Con has failed to rebut my arguments in favor of the legalization of gay marriage.[1] U.S. Constitution, Preamble.[2] U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.[3] Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 2010.[4] Badgett, M.V. Lee, When Gay People Get Married (NYU, 2009), pp. 58-59.[5] Loving v. Virginia, 1967.[6] Perry, 2010.

Gay marriage should be legal First, let me say that I am only interested in debating those who are willing to devote sufficient time to complete this debate. If you think you might not be able to post your arguments within the allotted time, please don't bother. I will argue that gay marriage, the legal union between a same sex couple, should be allowed. Let me state that I also believe that "civil unions" exclusive to homosexual couples are not sufficient. The term "civil union" should either replace "marriage" entirely for both heterosexual and homosexual couples in terms of the actual legal contract (leaving marriage as a religious and philosophical term only), or the term "marriage" should be used for all. My first argument can be given in the form of a syllogism: 1. A man has the right to marry a woman. A woman has the right to marry a man. 2. Men and women should have equal rights. 3. Therefore, men should have the same right to marry men as women do and women should have the same right to marry women as men do. The second argument I will give here is a little more in depth. I believe that the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits any law against gay marriage. The 1st section 14th amendment reads as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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." Laws against gay marriage clearly "abridge the privileges" of certain citizens. More specifically, that privilege is marriage and those citizens are those men and women who wish to marry those of the same sex. I have several other arguments, but I will first allow my opponent to speak.

Gay marriage Gay marriage should be legal because marrying someone its a union of love, and why if boy and girls can marry to unite their love, gays can't? Love is love, and even if marriage is not legal for them, they won't stop loving each other, so this won't do any change, you would just let them with the desire to marry. Is like taking them a right just because they are not like you. People hate on them because they are different to them, but its better to be different, you didn't came to the world to be like everybody else, and gays are a big example of this. And by marrying each other, it means they can also adopt children, but this is not bad, because they would take care of their children properly, and it could be even better than a heterosexual couple, because sometimes they mistreat their babies, and gays are really sweet and they couldn't hurt nobody, not even a fly. Well, the point is that they should marry, if we have that right, let them have it too. Love is love, and you can't do anything against it.

Gay marriage Gay marriage should be legal because marrying someone its a union of love, and why if boy and girls can marry to unite their love, gays can't? Love is love, and even if marriage is not legal for them, they won't stop loving each other, so this won't do any change, you would just let them with the desire to marry. Is like taking them a right just because they are not like you. People hate on them because they are different to them, but its better to be different, you didn't came to the world to be like everybody else, and gays are a big example of this. And by marrying each other, it means they can also adopt children, but this is not bad, because they would take care of their children properly, and it could be even better than a heterosexual couple, because sometimes they mistreat their babies, and gays are really sweet and they couldn't hurt nobody, not even a fly. Well, the point is that they should marry, if we have that right, let them have it too. Love is love, and you can't do anything against it.

Gay Marriage Gay Marriage should be legal in the U.S because it is your own rights to love someone. If you are gay, you won't know it at first, it comes to you in time. It is not your falt if you become gay. You should not be held accountable for who you like, or dislike. Letting gay people marry is basically just giving them their own rights. The U.S is a free country and people should have the right to choose who to marry, even if they are gay. One group of people should not be able to take the rights of another group of people.

Gay marriage should be legal Gay marriage should definitely be legal because it is a fundamental right for every person to be able to marry who you love and be happy. In the constitution one of the main points was that every man was created equal and this should apply to gays and lesbians. Yes, gays and lesbians were created and born that way and its not a choice. It has been proven that you don't chose to be gay and there is nothing wrong with that. I ask you this question, do you think that the statement all men are created equal don't apply to gays and lesbians?

Gay marriges should be legalized. Almost every country in the world supports the idea that everyone has the right to freedom of choice. Gay marriage is also a choice. We can not prohibit gays have a family.

Gay marriage should be legal in the United States. I will be using a dual overlaying teleological/constitutional argument to contend that gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. In this project I will borrow the harm principle, as articulated by John Stewart Mill, to argue that the only reasonable circumstance in which a government can limit a citizen's liberty is to prevent that person from causing harm to others. This view when taken to its logical conclusion would entail the legalization of gay marriage. Contention 1: The Harm Principle Gay marriage is no more capable of harming anyone than heterosexual marriage. And the canard that gay marriage out to be outlawed because it is detrimental to society is evidenced by the other groups that we do allow to marry. Consider for a moment some of the people that we do allow to marry. Pimps, drug dealers, arsonists, felons of all kinds, known pedophiles, mobsters and other criminals are all quite free to marry and do so on a daily basis. [1] Any coherent argument against gay marriage that would leave these people to freely marry would be a masterpiece of political engineering. Indeed, this is the perfect reductio ad absurdum to the notion that we are preventing gay marriage to avoid harming society. Contention 2: The Utility Factor Gay couples are in a better position to raise children and therefore produce more stable families if they are afforded marriage rights. It also provides them the opportunity to be able to spend the rest of their life with the person that they love and it guarantees them the legal protections that other married people enjoy. To deny people their right to form marriages with the person of their choice is to deny them their right to pursue happiness as they see fit. The only rational thing that can be said about our collective aversion to gay marriage is that we, as a society, have systematically demonized everything that could possibly exceed the pleasure of prayer or pro creative sex. Contention 3: Gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Banning gay marriage unfairly discriminates against gay couples by preventing them from being able to form valid legal marriages. In doing this it is in clear violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment which states that, "(n)o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". [2]-[3] With this in mind the illegality of gay marriage violates the equal protection clause because it does not afford equal protection under the law to a certain group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Contention 4: Gay marriage bans violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The essence of the due process clause is surmised well in the following excerpt, "Due process alternatively due process of law or the process that is due, is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state." [4] Given this understanding the illegality of gay marriage would be unconstitutional because it denies a certain group of people their legal right to marry. People have the right to life, liberty, and property under the due process clause and to deny these rights in any way without sound reasoning is unconstitutional. Furthermore, one does not have liberty if one is not allowed to marry the person of their choice. Therefore, we can conclude that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. =================== Potential rebuttals addressed: The Offense Principle =================== Shall our government limit liberties on the basis that certain actions will offend others? Not if we wish to remain consistent with the bill of rights. At no point in the bill of rights is anyone guaranteed the right not to be offended. Secondly, people will inevitably take offense to nearly anything, which renders the offense principle entirely relative. The offense principle provides no objective basis for limiting liberty because different things will always offend different people. And if it were taken to its logical conclusion the offense principle could lead to us outlawing minority religions like Islam, pornography, mini skirts, chewing gum, backwards baseball hats and nearly anything imaginable. ========= Conclusion ========= If we seek to live in a more just society that follows the rule of law and embodies the virtues of compassion then gay marriage should be legalized. I will further elaborate on my arguments in my second round, but for know I will let Con present their case. Defining terms: Same-sex marriage is a term used to describe a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. Other terms used to describe this type of recognition include gay marriage or gender-neutral marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org... (For the purpose of convenience the legalization of gay marriage would involve the entire United States.) Harm principle (as articulated by J.S. Mill)- a government can only limit the liberty and rights of its citizens in order to prevent citizens from harming each other. http://en.wikipedia.org... Sources: [1] http://www.bidstrup.com... (Point number 9) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.usconstitution.net... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... Best, Freeman

Gay Marriage should be legalized Hello Ladies and Gentleman and welcome to this debate on the legalization of Gay Marriage. I believe that Gay Marriage should be legalized! I believe this for the following reasons: 1. Marriage is a civil right - Everyone should have the same right if they pay the same taxes ect 2. Marriage is no longer a lone religious experience. All marriages by law are civil marriages they are then later referred to religious marriage. 3. Gay Marriage supports the family - You can not turn someone straight so why keep that person from creating a loving family that can enrich our society. 4. Religion and state should be separated - Regardless of what your religion says you should not enforce it on people who do not share your views or religion. 5. I believe it unfair that you can demand a right and deny another the same right. 6. Civil Unions are NOT the same. 7. Gay Marriage does not ruin marriage- Divorce and cheaters do. How can a man who cheats on his wife be allowed to marry and then remarry after breaking the contract of marriage without being punished were a gay couple who have been in love for years who are perfect for each other be refused? It does not make any sense!

Gay marriage should be legal in the United States I accept Con's definitions. Hopefully this will be a good debate. Ultimately, gay marriage is an issue of civil rights, and I will argue on the basis that the government should provide equal benefits to gay couples as it already provides for heterosexual couples. There are both state and federal benefits, although the majority of federal. Some of these benefits include: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; joint filing of customs claims when traveling; wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; crime victims' recovery benefits; loss of consortium tort benefits; domestic violence protection orders; judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; [1] The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the laws. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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." [2] Since there are thousands of laws pertaining to marriage, gay couples should also be protected in their right to marry under state law. Marriage is outside the federal government's jurisdiction, according to the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [3] This is my short argument. I do have a number of other arguments that attempt to refute common arguments against this one, but I shall wait for Con to state his arguments, so that I can attempt to refute them specifically. Nonetheless, I have shown, as my Con has stated, that "the United States is obligated to make gay marriage legal." States are obligated to give gay couples equal protection under the law, while the federal government should have no say in the gay marriage issue, making the federal government unable to ban gay marriage itself unless through an amendment to the constitution. Sources: [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com...

Gay marriage should be legalized Gay marriage should be legalized because marriage doesn't have to have a couple of the same gender. Marriage is about true love.

Gay Marriage Gay marriage should be legalized because it is uncivilized and unmerited. Our civil rights and the Constitution give us many liberties. One of our civil liberties is the pursuit of happiness, which homosexual people are not allowed to chase. They cannot be married to the person they love and it violates their freedoms. According to professorshouse.com, "In Alaska, Nevada, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Nebraska, Missouri, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama, not only is gay marriage banned, but so are civil partnerships." Others might ask why gay marriage should be legalized, but my question is this: why should other people be able to choose who marries who? If a man and a woman get married, no one seems to care. They are two people who feel affection for one another and those two people want to start a family. If we change the scenario a little bit and a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, try to get married it causes uproar. They are not allowed to be married or raise a family together. Imagine waking up one day to a world that was completely opposite from the world we went to sleep in, meaning gay people are now straight and all straight people are now gay. Do you think the newly straight people would fight for the newly homosexual people"s rights? America is the land of the free, but we are not free to marry whomever we would like. After everything straight people have put homosexual people through, in this scenario, homosexual people would most likely vote for their rights because they would want their rights to be voted for. We are equals in this world whether we are Black, White, Hispanic, Indian, or any other race for that matter. Why should we not be equals based on sexual orientation? The 1st amendment of the Constitution states that a person"s religious beliefs or a lack of thereof must be protected. Legislatures also cannot discriminate against marriages of the minority party which, homosexual people fall into that category. There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state, so you cannot declare that a marriage is a gift from God. In a marriage there is one thing that truly matters: love. Yes, other things are important too, but not one couple would make it to even asking someone to marry them if there was not some love. Las Vegas, Nevada is also known for being the place where many weddings occur which are annulled within one week. These marriages are not based off love, but simply a drunken night in Vegas. High divorce rates weaken what a marriage is defined as. Why are we not able to rewrite what a marriage stands for and make it include a homosexual marriage? The definition of love, according to dictionary.com is as follows: "Very strong affection: an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion." If gay people feel this way then why shouldn"t they be able to be married? If they are happy with each other, said persons should be able to marry. California, Hawaii, New York, and the District of Columbia all have domestic partnership laws and civil partnerships meaning it is almost a marriage without the matrimony. Civil partnerships also give couples the ability to have joint bank accounts, live in the same house, and pay bills together. Homosexual couples are not entitled to this in most states. Marriage benefits should be available to all couples, no matter what. In places where gay marriages are banned, the gay couples are not able to have the same benefits as others. When filing for health care or insurance through a job, gay couples are not able to add each other on. Most loved ones, such as a spouse or a child, in a straight marriage, can make life altering decisions in a hospital if need be. Since gay marriage is not legal, said person"s spouse is not recognized as their next of kin and care is delayed. Who would be affected if homosexual marriage was legalized? No one. Everyone believes there is one person who is out there to love us. Gay people feel the same way. Parenthood is a benefit of marriage and gay couples cannot have children by themselves, without some type of help, so they look to adoption agencies. In some cases gay couples are put on longer waiting lists or denied completely. There are other benefits to being married as well, such as tax breaks. On the website professorshouse.com it reads, "When we hit our mid-thirties, we wanted only true friendships- friendships that were durable." This is a perfect example of matrimony and what it should be based on. . According to dictionary.com a marriage is, "The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities." If this is a marriage why are gay people not included in this? Even though gay marriage should be legalized, some people have different beliefs. In most religions including, Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism same sex preferences are a sin. People believe in procreation to repopulate the world, but are against gay marriage and homosexuals adopting children because they cannot procreate on their own. If this is a stand point on making or breaking gay marriage then only people who are fertile and want to procreate should be able to get married according to this bias. America has never really given gay marriage a chance, but they believe gay marriage will weaken its institution by leading to high divorce rates. On loveandpride.com I read, "One reason legislatures are denying gay marriage is because they are fearful that opening the door to allowing gay marriages will open the door to polygamy as well. This would also mean reopening cases about polygamy in the past which they are not willing to do." Others are fearful for children"s futures and they fear being raised by two fathers or by two mothers may compromise children"s mental capacities. Even though to most people gay marriage should be illegal and should stay in its current state, I believe we need to change the world for future generations. We feared that different religions were going to clash, but now all of the religions coexist. White people had Black and Hispanic slaves, but we overcame the odds and now White men, Black men, and Hispanic men can be equals. If it is possible to overcome such fierce obstacles then we can overcome the boundary obstructing gay marriages and straight marriages alike. Gay marriage should be legalized for these reasons. Evolution will always continue and at any given point in time, something will occur that we will not like in this world, but we can overcome this. Gay marriage is a controversial issue that people have been fighting for years and it has finally come to the surface. We should take charge of it.

Gay marriage should be permitted == My case ==1) Equal protection before the lawHomosexuality is not a choice. It is found in nature. According to New Scientist, "A gene has been discovered that appears to dictate the sexual preferences of female mice. Delete the gene and the modified mice reject the advances of the males and attempt to mate with other females instead." [1] The majority of research suggests that homosexuality has a genetic component. [2] I'm sure my opponent agrees that marriage is -- in most cases -- predicated upon sexual/romantic attraction. According to Wikipedia, marriage "is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged." [3] Interpersonal relationships of a sexual or romantic nature rely on attraction. As such, if homosexuality is not a choice, then banning gay marriage is depriving homosexuals of the right to marry. Depriving a certain group of a right without reason is inherently unjust -- because justice, by definition, is fairness, or treating people without discrimination. Not recognizing same-sex marriage is discriminating against a certain class of people based on an inherent characteristic. Homosexuality is as much of an inherent characteristic as, say, blue eyes. Saying "homosexuals can't marry" is the same as saying "anyone with blue eyes can't marry." Con might argue that homosexuals *can* marry people of the opposite sex, but, as mentioned, marriage is intrinsically tied to sexual/romantic interpersonal connections -- which homosexuals experience only with people of the same sex. A just society is a society where intrinsic characteristics do not form the basis of discrimination -- everyone is "given their due," i.e. equals are treated equally. [4] Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is done for no valid reason, and, therefore, is unjust. A just society won't discriminate on that basis. I'll also add that not recognizing same-sex marriage is a symbolic act of discrimination, as if the state rejects the very orientation of same-sex attraction. This causes insecurity, stigmatization and psychological harms. A study by Wight, et al. found that "being in a legally recognized same sex relationship, marriage in particular, appears to diminish mental health differentials between . . . lesbian, gay and bisexual persons." [5] Restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is an expression of the same stigma by the state. According to the American Psychological Association, "Laws that exclude lesbian, gay and bisexual people from marriage cause stress, and that stress negatively impacts physical and mental health." [6] Banning same-sex marriage also stigmatizes the children of same-sex couples, causing bullying and harassment. [7] Since banning same-sex marriage is fundamentally unjust, vote Pro. 2) Economic benefitsA just government must also do what benefits its people, since that forms the fundamental role of the state. Recognizing same-sex marriage provides multiple economic benefits. Adam Stevenson (2012) conducted a study that showed that gay marriage would bring in between $20 and $40 billion more in tax revenue. The marriage penalties brought in increase overall labor and this labor, according to the study, isn't cancelled out by the marriage bonus. So, even considering the marriage bonus effect, this much revenue would be gained by the government in income taxes. [8] Multiple state-level studies have shown that, because of gay marriage, the amount of money spent on wedding ceremonies, gifts, et cetera, would significantly boost the economy by (1) increasing consumption, (2) allowing greater sales tax revenue, and (3) creating jobs, allowing more income tax revenue and inherently boosting the economy. [9] Another major economic benefit is that since people become more financially secure due to marriages, they will no longer be eligible for government-provided welfare and safety nets. It would save the government hundreds of millions in welfare costs. [10]I have proven that recognizing gay marriage is the only just thing to do, because (1) banning gay marriage denies equal protection before the law and causes stigmatization, and (2) legalizing gay marriage increases government revenue, consumption and employment. In Martin Luther King's words, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Therefore, vote Pro. [1] http://www.newscientist.com...[2] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] https://www.scu.edu...[5] http://ajph.aphapublications.org...[6] http://www.apa.org...[7] http://edition.cnn.com...[8] http://www-personal.umich.edu...[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. ~Counterarguments~ 1. Marriage started by religion. - Whether or not the origin of marriage was religious or not does not matter. In modern times of America, a secular nation adhering to a separation of church and state doctrine, religious reasons to keep marriage heterosexual is not valid. - Marriage didn't originate in one place, but was developed in many societies during different times. Monogamy wasn't the only type of marriage that was developed. I doubt my opponent is still an advocate of polygamy, endogamy, exogamy, proxy marriages, or arranged marriages. 2. Science nature of Marriage. - Institutions have been created and developed by human beings as a mechanism for cooperation and social order. Government is an example of a human institution, as is marriage and money, and even friendship. Even though such abstract concepts do not exist amongst every other animal, this does not mean we should throw away such concepts. - To some we may not need marriage, and in fact some do believe that marriage is pointless. However, many people DO want to get married, for reasons ranging from love to personal sentiment to economic, and it should be their right to be able to. 3. Gay marriage already legalized. - While a very few number of states such as Massachusetts is the only state that fully recognizes same-sex marriage, many other states of America still do not recognize it. Note that I intend this debate to be based on American law, as is implied in my first round (sorry if I didn't make that clear). My side still stands as there are still a large number of states who are not in support of gay marriage. ~Conclusion~ My opponent's points have been refuted accordingly. Gay marriage should be legalized since there is no legal reason to make it illegal, and is almost seen with parallel with the prejudice against blacks and women not too long ago in history.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized The government is not investing in marriages at all. People do not get married because it's good for the government and the economy. When two people get married, they are joined together through marriage vows. I quote, "I, ____, take you, ____, for my lawful (husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." If we are pledging such a vow to another person, how could marriage be something implemented to help out the government. It also assists the people being married by giving them additional support and gays couples should too be allowed to receive this emotional and financial support that is given to those who are married Yes, there is a legal significance to marriage. However, it is not the foundation of why one "pops the question" to another? Who are we to decide who "legally" should be together and not be. I am not pleading a case for those who want to have relationships with animals and cars. This is a matter between to human beings. Therefore, the example of these drastic cases like the article my opponent chooses to share is irrelevant. Homosexuals aren't dogs, cats, or cars. They are people too. In my defense, I also want to add that I validly included that gays do not receive any benefits through not being married. Through marriage in a heterosexual marriage, both people are entitled to have specific benefits. Therefore, if gays were given the right to get married, a question of whether they deserve the same marital rights isn't even in question because it comes with the package deal of being allowed to get married in the first place. Also, I'd like to point out that my opponent states that my statement isn't pertaining to the debate. However, he also remarks on the issue of economics and how marriage helps with the progression of the economy. This all relates to monetary benefits and money supply which comes out of marriage. Therefore, my remark cohesively relates to the discussion at hand. My opponents comment on stating "The government has no vested interest in a couple who cannot create future citizens for society, and therefore same-sex couples should not be included in the legal union of marriage," is one that lacks any evidence. It is but a mere biased opinion that he feels that the government has no interest in same-sex couples. Though gays have no procreative ability, they too pay taxes and adopt children that heterosexual couples leave on doorsteps of hospitals or don't care to raise. Just because they cannot procreate children on their own does not mean it is not in government's interest to instill the ability for gays to get married. It would actually gain more support in government if they did acknowledge and show support to the gay community since the population of them has increased drastically over time and many more of them are coming out of the closet as the days go by.

Should Gay marriage be legalized Gay marriage is the relation between two same-sex people and for every child it is necessary to rise with father and mother. For instance, William Rees-Mogg, author of "Extending the right to marry only weakens an institution that society needs to be strong" published in Times magazine, cites : "Ian Duncan Smith, one of the most effective members of the coalition, published a strategy on social justice that takes the view that children are indeed best reared in a stable marriage". It is very strong argument about how gay marriage influence on children. From the past until now fathers considered to be strict but mothers are considered to be soft and by the help of this nature parents can support children's emotional needs and every child needs this softness and at the same time father's strictness. Girls who are raised without their mothers are at higher risk for early sexual activities, they have low academic performance and became bad-tempered. An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Review put forward for consideration that children with gay parents are more likely to attract on homosexual behavior, pedophilia or even pornography. In addition, gay marriage could destroy the real sense of the family. Children will not be able to understand the meaning of this word. It will be difficult to teach children the family importance and traditions when such uncertainty exists. Furthermore, gay marriage increases the chance of getting diseases. As you know, biologically gay's sexual contact is the major cause of venereal diseases such as HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), HPV(Human Papillomavirus Infection) gonorrhea, syphilis, trichomoniasis, herpes, hepatitis types B and C which are sexually transmitted. The main reasons of occurring such infection are that homosexual men have great number of sex partners, in addition during coitus (sexual act) they do not use a condom which is used as a protection against infection during their sexual contact. Study which done in 1998 by The Center for Disease Control in America reports that 54 percent of people who suffer from AIDS are homosexual men and 90 percent of people suffering from HIV are gay people. On to the issue of "equality." Based on the opponent's representation of "equality," all members within a group should be allowed to marry, regardless of their individual nature. Going by that theory, the government should legally enable me to marry my car, and I should receive benefits for it, for the sake of "happiness," as my opponent simplistically poses it. This is absurd, of course, and this is because the nature of an individual certainly affects what rights he is eligable for. (Example: If someone developed a chronic bone condition that disallowed him to work, there is a good chance that the government would provide him with disability benefits. Do I also deserve these benefits, even though I am perfectly healthy and capable of working?) "Equality," in our society, means that everyone receives the rights that they are eligable for, based on compatibility of individuals' traits. Moreover, I have shown in my previous argument that homosexual partnership, by its inherent nature, does not meet the "procreation/child-rearing type" format that would make it eligable for marriage. The issue is not a matter of "inequality," as the opponent's argument suggests. In conclusion gay marriage should not be legalized. Now I will turn it over to my opponent.

Gay Marriage Throughout human history, gay people have engaged in committed, romantic relationships similar to heterosexual marriage. Whether or not the government recognizes same-sex marriage, those relationships have and would continue to exist. In this debate, I will be arguing that these relationships, the people within them, and the people their relationship affects (their families) deserve to have their unions recognized by government. To deny legal protections for SSM would be a gross injustice that is unwarranted, unconstitutional and unfair. ==To start, let's consider why people want to get married. There is a plethora of research showing significant benefits to tying the knot. Marriage is a contractual legal institution, and thus even without intimacy creates a significant connection to another person. This contractual expansion of resources coupled with sexual attraction and emotional intimacy explains why married people are more financially well off, happier and healthier than their non-married peers [1]. If marriage significantly benefits people's lives, it is logical to recognize that the lives of gay people (and thus society overall) would benefit from gay marriage. None of the highlighted benefits of marriage are limited to heterosexual couples. Without legalized SSM, gay people would still engage in gay relationships - relationships that have the potential problems but not the benefits associated with marriage. ==The benefits of a married couple logically extend to their children. If people are happier, healthier and more financially well off, the children of married couples will also be better off. In addition to the inherent benefits of coupling, the legal rights afforded to married couples extend to safeguard the family. In many cases, kids with gay parents have been hurt by their family not being protected in instances where adoption, the death tax and other legal issues arise [2, 3]. Con will be arguing in favor of children with gay parents not being protected by the law as their peers are, for reasons entirely out of their control. There are a lot of families headed by same-sex parents. Almost 40% of LGBT identifying individuals have had a child. Six million people in America have gay parents, and there are 125,000 gay headed households raising 220,000 kids under the age of eighteen [4]. Keep in mind these are old statistics and are likely much higher. Innumerable studies have been done, peer-reviewed and deemed credible by the science community to conclude that sexuality is irrelevant in terms of parenting abilities [5, 6]. If necessary, I will expand more on the credibility of these studies, however this should not be the focal point of the debate. Whether or not SSM was recognized by government, families headed by gay parents would still exist, and these families need legal protection. ==Supporting traditional family values is not a legal prerequisite for marriage. First let's consider that divorce is rampant among heterosexuals. Studies also show that the legitimization of marriage is the primary factor in considering the dissolution of all relationships. Social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity, indicating that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success [7]. However the government does not deny the right to marriage based on the likelihood of the relationship's demise. Agreeing to have children is not a prerequisite for marriage either, even though many gay couples do. Some heterosexuals are infertile. Others simply don't want to have kids. Some couples are polyamorous. Others do not plan on being married forever. The point is, having a "traditional" lifestyle is not something the government requires when extending the legal protection of marriage. Heterosexual couples engage in questionable marital decisions all the time. Couples who marry young are twice as likely to end in divorce [8]. Still we allow young people the opportunity to get married, and receive the personal (and societal) benefits and protections that are afforded to more established married couples. Despite the supposition that government sanctions marriage to compel population growth and/or traditional values, the fact is even infertile, polyamorous straight people who are disinterested in parenthood have the right to marriage. Moreover many gay people have children (biological and otherwise). It would be logical to extend marriage rights and privileges to gay couples and their families as well. Gay people are forced to pay taxes like everybody else, regardless of whether or not they agree with policy. It is immoral and arguably tyrannical of government to single out this demographic as undeserving of the legal benefits and protections that are given to heterosexual couples, while still requiring of them the same obligations of citizenship. If gay adults are required to participate in and help fund government, then they should by extension be afforded the same benefits and protections. ==As for the legal contentions. .. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled fourteen times that marriage is a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals [9]. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868. It states:"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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 14th Amendment marked a large constitutional shift, which inhibited the state's rights to discriminate freely. The U. S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when SCOTUS struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [10]. The Due Process Clause says that states may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [11]. This essentially means the laws on record will be scrutinized for legitimacy in order to ensure people's rights are being recognized and protected. Whereas the law used to uphold outdated and immoral policy in the past, due process considers both the law as-written as well as the spirit of the law. Indeed we have made many adjustments throughout history; recognizing black people as free citizens and giving women voting/property rights are just some examples. The Equal Protection Clause looks to guarantee that all people would have rights equal to those of other citizens [12]. Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a 2010 federal court decision in which Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that the Constitutional right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner [13]. Afterward the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision along with a handful of other cases. This makes sense if you extend the same logic of due process and equal protection for gay couples. SCOTUS ruled that there was no reason to exclude gay couples from the same protection as heterosexual couples in similar relationships, which SCOTUS has every legal right to do. The 14th Amendment posits that freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Thus SSM is now the Constitutionally valid law of the land per the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. ==In conclusion, here is the breakdown of my arguments via syllogism. P1. People benefit from marriageP2. Gay people benefit from marriageP3. Kids benefit from having married parentsP4. Gay people have kids . : Ergo, gay people and their kids benefit from gay marriage P1. If more people and kids benefit from marriage, society benefits overallP2. Government sanctions marriage to benefit society overall P3. Pragmatically - government does not inhibit marriage based on probability of issues or failureP4. Morally - government does not impose traditional values on married families. : Ergo, government has no justifiable reason to inhibit SSM P1. Gay people pay taxes and abide by the duties of citizenshipP2. The Supreme Court acknowledges a person's right to marriageP3. The Constitution grants legal protections of Due Process and Equal ProtectionP4. The Supremacy Clause empowers the Supreme Court's decision. : Ergo, legalizing SSM is both the moral and legally righteous thing Con must distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is only beneficial for straight couples. He will have to explain how society overall does not benefit from having a greater population of happier and healthier people. Furthermore, Con must explain why gay relationships shouldn't be fostered with legal protection. Jerry will have to prove that children with gay parents should not have the security of legal protection with those that raise them and whom they know as their parents. Additionally Con will have to outline how the government ensures married couples abide by traditional standards, and/or how it regulates marriage on the basis of qualifying factors beyond mental capacity (age and sound mind). Otherwise he will have no reason to oppose SSM. Of course Con should explain why gay people should forfeit the right to marry their preferred adult partner as well. And finally, Jerry will have to present why the majority of Americans, Supreme Court and Constitution of the United States are all wrong in their assessment of supporting legalized recognition of SSM. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. SOURCES: . http://tinyurl.com...

Gay Marriage should be legal Being against Gay Marriage is discrimination, it is no different than not allowing African Americans to go to white schools. Telling a portion of the American people that they are not allowed to do something because of who they are, is wrong. All human beings should be treated as equals and given the same rights as everyone else.

Gay Marriage Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, neither chose their sexual orientation, nor should they be denied the same legal rights heterosexuals enjoy simply because they were born different from what is considered "the norm." Every respectable scientific organization in the world, including the American Psychological Association, says that sexual orientation is connected to biological factors and cannot be changed. Just as it is wrong to deny legal rights to blacks, women, and people born left-handed, so too is wrong to deny gay couples the legal equality and benefits that come with marriage. Opponents of gay rights are quick to point out how the Bible says homosexuality is "an abomination." However, in the time the Bible was written, an abomination simply meant "out of the ordinary." Since the Bible does not clearly condemn homosexuality, it cannot logically be used as a weapon against gays. Even IF the Bible did condemn homosexuality, gays would still be entitled to the same rights and protections granted to straight couples under the laws of the United States because of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Any attempts to outlaw or prevent gay marriage are unconstitutional since America is not a theocracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic, where the majority never decides the rights of minorities. This was made very clear on February 7, 2012 when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage (CA proposition 8) unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause. As you can see, there is absolutely no acceptable religious or legal reason why homosexuals should not be granted the same marriage rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States This debate was issued to InquireTruth... twice. He let it expire both times. Now I open it up to the public to defend his position because he apparently will not do so. *************************************************** The proposition on offer is that Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States. For the purposes of debate, "Gay Marriage" will be held to mean marriage between two individuals of the same sex. This definition arises from two segments of relevant law common to most states. From Illinois: 750 ILCS 5/201: Formalities. A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State. 750 ILCS 5/211(a)(5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex. Section 5/211(a) details prohibited classes of marriage. These laws are found at least in general form in many states. Marriage shall be held to be in relevant part: (1) The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (2) The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce) (3) The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created The three definitions show the traditional meaning, an updated definition concerning the state in which married people live, and the nature of the institution. Other definitions recognize marriage as between simply two individuals without legal sanction. Legally, a sanction is "The part of a law that is designed to secure enforcement by imposing a penalty for violation of the law or offering a reward for its observance." Thus, one can see that the institution of gay marriage has been socially recognized, but there is a lack of "reward" in social benefits like tax breaks, as well as a "punishment" in the form of no legal solemnization of the institution. This lack of sanction violates rights of individuals considering entry into a marriage. Inquire truth has put forth the following in another debate: **************************************** Gay marriage should NOT be legal for the following reasons: 1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages (1). Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages. 2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality. To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities. 3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights. 4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty? **************************************** To address the issues: 1. Once upon a time, the majority of people were against segregation. This obviously shoots down the notion that laws cannot be passed against the will of the people. Putting the rights of the people to the whim of ad populum is one of the things the founding fathers were most concerned about - tyranny of the majority. 2. There is indeed evidence for homosexuality being caused by genetic factors. A recent "Psychology Today" has an article on the very concepts that Synderella mentioned in your other debate. Propensity towards homosexuality increases with each male child. Homosexuality is not sexual perversion. Also, there is no danger to the argument in considering pedophilia, zoophilia, etc... to be innate because these sorts of behaviors are regulated by other, far more compelling concerns than the ones the regulate homosexuality. 3. Homosexuals inherently have less rights if they do not have the right to choose who they can marry. If the state has the power to regulate who people can marry, then the state would have the power to refuse marriage licenses between two stupid people or any other arbitrary, even innate, distinction. Clearly, homosexuals lack the right to choose who to marry. 4. My opponent asserts that marriage will loose its meaning if homosexuals are allowed to marry. It seems to me that the meaning of marriage is far more about the love and joy that a couple share in spending the rest of their life together than about making sure a penis and a vagina share the same bed. The "dangers" of polygamy/polyandry (multiple spouses) and pederasty (sexual relations between two males, esp. a minor) are regulated by other concerns for tax laws and the familial unit, as well as laws concerning the age of consent. ************************************ To head off a couple counterarguments... IT asserts that there are "trivial benefits" that "do not trump the consequences" of legalizing gay marriage. However, he never states what these consequences ARE. More, stabler families? Solemnization of relationships for a segment of the populace? It sounds like IT is afraid that allowing gays to marry will suddenly have people "catching gay." >> "We should not verbally abuse and discriminate someone because they are homosexual, but we should not do this to a pedophile either. We cannot say however, that their sexual tendencies give them rights." But a sexual tendency towards heterosexuality should be given the right to choose who to marry and to have social benefits like tax breaks and solemnization conferred upon them? This position is simply not salient. >> "100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex." This is the same way as choosing your partner how? >> "If Christians want to teach their kids Christian ethics and values, they send them to a private school. Public school education should reflect the view that is congenial to the masses and consistent with popular opinion." The notion that homosexuality is a sexual perversion is a Christian value. It's very clearly outlined in Leviticus. ********************************************** The position of denying homosexuals the right to marry is not legally tenable. I assert that: 1) The right to marry the partner of one's choosing is a fundamental right. 2) Homosexuals are suspect class. Either of these considerations, if accepted places the burden of proof on CON to fulfill all three prongs of the strict scrutiny standard: First, it must concern a compelling government interest. Second, the law must be narrowly tailored. Third, the law must be the least restrictive means to the end. Laws forbidding individuals from marrying a member of the same sex fail all three of these prongs. AFFIRMED.

Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal More than just gay rights

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized! Clinton mentions he is against violence acts on gays and they should be allowed our same freedoms, except marriage. If gay marriage were legalized, these cruel people might finally come to realize gays are human too, simply just with a different sexual preference, and learn to accept them in our society. The Equal Opportunity act ensures that jobs can get into trouble, whose applications state, or should state, that they are not allowed to discriminate applicants on factors such as: race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, age, and so on. Besides not being of legal age to marry, these rules should apply elsewhere, too. As mentioned in my previous arguments, the LGBT community is considered a minority like people of color. These groups struggled to and continue to struggle to be accepted into society but for the most part have the same rights as others. Before they did, they encountered almost the same unfair and discriminatory treatment as gays - people of color nor interracial couples weren't always allowed to marry. In response, you'll probably say that marrying people of color is not illegal, and gay marriage is. I am aware of this - the point is it used to be, but people overcame their ignorance and learned to accept them as equals. I feel the point of marriage is stated in the vows: "to have and to hold, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to 'love' and to cherish, 'till death do us part". Marriage about becoming one, spending the rest of your life with who you love, helping each other emotionally, physically, financially, etc. Today, so many of people do not take marriage seriously and do end up in divorce, but that's ONE type of love, gay marriage has not been proven to end in divorce yet since it's prohibited in so many areas. Also, just because marriage can end in divorce didn't mean it was because it wasn't originally based on love, necessarily. Plus, I feel the argument of the purpose being reproduction is becoming redundant. It's like saying a heterosexual couple shouldn't marry because they can't have children. Adoption centers and sperm/egg donors are around for a reason. Gay marriage benefits these children desperate for a home, and can benefit us all in a way. If this would stop being seen as "abnormal" and slowly but surely become accepted, bullying, discrimination, harassment might hopefully disappear not only with this community, but in general. We NEED to erase the hate! I believe that part of the reason this is not allowed, too, is we are constantly afraid of change. However, if it wasn't for all the changes made and discrimination we've overcome, our country wouldn't be what it is today. We are all sinners in a sense. So who are we to judge others? But all they want to do is love, be loved, and have the right to take that love to the next level like everyone else. In conclusion, I believe I've made plenty of compelling arguments to support why gay marriage should be legalized.

Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal Expanding the Right to Marry Serves the State

Gay marriage should be completly legal. Extend Arguments

Gay or same sex marriages should be legal. I believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry whoever they want just as heterosexual couples do. Just because of your sexual orientation, you should not be treated differently than the majority of the population. Denying gays the right to legalized marriage is a violation of religious freedom because civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions. In the case of Christianity, the Bible states to "do unto others as you would like done unto you". How would a heterosexual couple feel if they were in the position (as are homosexuals) of such oppression? It is completely unfair to deprive homosexual couples the benefits of marriage. This includes joint ownership rights, medical decision-making rights, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. A same-sex couple is not allowed to make medical decisions for their partner because they cannot be legally married to them. Therefore, their partner can be on their deathbed and they will not be allowed to make decisions regarding their life until someone in their family arrives. How can this be okay? Homosexuality is much more common and accepted as a lifestyle nowadays, most evidence strongly supporting biological causation. Denying gay legalized marriages is also a form of minority discrimination. Allowing for legalized gay marriages does not hurt society or anyone in particular. It is only allowing others to be happy in their lives. The same financial benefits that apply to heterosexual marriages should apply to same-sex marriages. Another pro that comes from legalizing gay marriages is the increase in child adoptions. Because gay couples cannot pro-create the adoption rate would rise significantly. Children would be put in a loving family rather than a numerous list of foster homes that many times take advantage of children in order to receive a pay check. If I were unable to keep my child, I would feel much better knowing he/she was going to a loving same-sex couple who was going to love and take very good care of him/her rather than 6 different foster homes gain ownership that did not show any appreciation for him/her.

Gay Marriage (U.S.A) Gay Marriage should not be legal for 1 reason: Marriage is an unnatural institution and should be abolished as a whole. It serves a primarily negative role and we should not subject our gay friends to this Kafkaesque institution.1st, Marriage has an extremely high failure rate.Around half of all marriages end in divorce. If anything else had such a high failure rate, it would surely be outlawed. If half of a specific design of bridge support strut failed, the public would clamor for it to be removed from public service and outlawed. If half of all tacos caused dysentery, they would be made illegal by the FDA. Yet this little disaster we call divorce is allowed to happen again and again. 2nd, Marriage is a fundamentally sexist and anti-democratic institutionMarriage historically represents the subordination of the woman to the man, or in the case of a gay marriage, the "bottom" to the"top". Everything from the white dress to the minister telling the husband "you may now kiss the bride" symbolizes the woman surrendering her self-hood to the man. It cannot be accepted in the 21st century. 3rd, marriage is complicit in domestic violenceThe very institution of marriage is based on the idea that the man is the absolute despot of the household, with the right ot demand sex without the possibility of the woman's refusal. Lack of economic opportunity means that wives have to choice but to allow for their bodies to be controlled in order to secure subsistence. Marriage forces women and "bottoms" into a position of virtual prostitution. Claudia Card, professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, writes that: "The legal rights of access that married partners have to each other’s persons, property, and lives makes it all but impossible for a spouse to defend herself (or himself), or to be protected against torture, rape, battery, stalking, mayhem, or murder by the other spouse... Legal marriage thus enlists state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem." Do you really want to sell the gays into sex slavery? For the sake of the entire LGBTQIA+ community, we must say NO to gay marriage and marriage in general.

Gay marriage Gay marriage should be legalized.

Legalizing gay marriage Gay marriage should be legal because people should have the right to marry whomever they want, same gender or not. Even if your against it i dont think you should be the reason to denie people marriage benefits and rights. Even if god or religion tells you its wrong that also shouldn't keep people from marrying who they love. Yes, people say marriage is between a man and woman but its the 21st century. Things have changed. Women can vote, segregation has practically ended, we have made many technological advancements, ect. Back then women voting seemed wrong but now its normal. Gay marriage can be the same. .

Gay marriage should be allowed. Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits, and banning gay marriage increases rates of psychological disorders. So kids should have a mother and a father (in your opinion) but what if a foster child wasn't able to be provided with a mother and father, you'd rather them to just stay in foster care when statistics show abuse and neglect is high in foster care when gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. Gay marriage legalization is correlated with lower divorce rates, while gay marriage bans are correlated with higher divorce rates. If the reason for marriage is strictly reproduction, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them.

Same sex marriage should be federally legalized. Amendment 14, Section 1 has a clause in it called the Equal Protection Clause. It states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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." This proves that same-sex marriage should be legal. The case Loving vs. Virginia is the case that overturned the ban on interracial marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia was being discriminatory. The Court unanimously voted against Virginia, against discrimination, and in favor of the Loving (no pun intended) family who was allowed to marry. This law must be federal in order to extend federal rights. These rights include immigration rights. If an American wife marries a foreign husband, that husband becomes a citizen. This law should be extended to homosexual love. Over 1,138 rights and protections are are given to citizens for being married, they should be extended to gay couples. These rights include hospital visitation. If a spouse is dying, their spouse should be allowed to visit them before they die. Allowing these people to die without seeing their lifelong lovers, is more than immoral, more than prejudice. It is inhumane.

gay marriage I believe that gay marriage should be legalized. If all men are created equal then they should have the right to marry who they want even if it is the same sex.

Gay Marriage should be legalized in the sate of California Some people believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The definition, at the moment, actually states just that; however, definitions change as time drives on, and I believe its time for a radical change. About ten percent of the population is homosexual, and many of them have legitimate reasons about why they want to get "hitched." Jennifer and Marie have been living together for eight years. They share a house, two cars, utilities, two children, and a puppy; however, their commitment is not legally recognized, they often receive little or to no help financially, and businesses often do not consider the couple as immediate family of one another. Marriage is a decision that all Americans, including homosexuals, should have the right to consider as marriage allows couples to receive special employment benefits and financial aid, permission to make legal decisions about inheritance, child custody, and visitation rights which could have been disregarded if there had been legal documentation of the partners' commitments. Situations such as this corrupt the lives of gays and lesbians everyday. Medical, dental, and life insurance for married couples is, in most places, not an options for long term committed gay and lesbian couples. Married couples also receive financial aid from many different sources. Taxes, loans, grants, scholarships, and bills all depend on things such as marriage; in a lot of the cases marriage greatly affects these issues positively and, once again, leaves gays and lesbians to fend for themselves as individuals. "We the people" say that America is a free country that is dedicated to making sure it's citizens obtain equal rights, yet everyday same-sex couples suffer from the lack of certain rights. I strongly stand for the concept that same-sex couples should be aloud to legally marry; after all, I, too, wish to get married someday, and if the law does not allow same-sex marriages then my marriage will be denied as well. I urge Americans to open their eyes and look at same-sex couples from my point of view. Denying same-sex couples from marriage is denying the basic rights regarding benefits, financial aid, inheritance, child custody, visitation rights, and legal documentation of a married couple.

Gay marriage Religion No longer is it true that gay marriage restricts your freedom of religion as there are now many churches that accept people with all sexual orientations. . http://www.youtube.com... Now the only thing that is restrictive is the fact that there are still too many people of faith that are too blinkered to move into this century and accept that it is morally incorrect to marginalize people in this way. Human rights Human rights, as the name suggests, should apply to all humans. Gay people are still very much part of humanity. They are not aliens. All humans have to have equal human rights. When this doesn't happen it attacks the fundamental nature of having human rights in the first place. Safety Young people are being driven to suicide just because of who they love. This is morally wrong. A few facts from The Trevor Program website paint a startling picture of the reality of being a gay youth in our society especially where gay marriage is not recognised. 1. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among 15 to 24-year-olds, accounting for over 12% of deaths in this age group; only accidents and homicide occur more frequently (National Adolescent Health Information 2006). 2. For every completed suicide by a young person, it is estimated that 100 to 200 attempts are made (Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey 2003). 3. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers (Massachusetts Youth Risk Survey 2007). 4. More than 1/3 of LGB youth report having made a suicide attempt (D'Augelli AR - Clinical Child Psychiatry and Psychology 2002). By legalising gay marriage we can change this suffocating view that too many societies have that is driving so many young people to take their lives unnecessarily. It has to change. So, because there is absolutely no reason why gay marriage should not be recognised and that by legalising it we allow young gay people to not feel suicide is the only option gay marriage should be legalised. No one should be bullied and marginalized for loving someone. . http://www.thetrevorproject.org...

Gay Marriage should be legal. Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 sates. There is nothing wrong with two people loving each other that are the same gender. These people deserve their chance at love and the government should not hold them back.

Gay marriage should be legalized in all states I believe that same sex marriages are the same at heterosexual marriages. To me marriage is between 2 people who love each other, and they would favor in sharing their love for the rest of their lives. As we live in a modern day society, people are now re-defining the meaning of marriage and is starting to suppose gay rights, and that's great! But there is still a percentage of people who believe it's wrong. Gay marriage can be a positive thing prior to our financial system. If gay marriage is legalized, in the city of New York, $142 million will be added to the city's economy and $184 million in the states economy. States that legalize gay marriage, such as Massachusetts have such a low divorce rate! It's divorce rate has decreased 21% between the years of 2003-2008. Versus states that ban gay rights had an increase of divorces about 17%. So I can also benefit couples prior to divorces. Legalizing gay marriages can be a positive thing for kids in foster homes. 100,000 children in America are still waiting to be adopted, and with these gay couples, they can provide a home for these children. And last but not least, gay marriage is a civil right of the American people. We have the right to chose who we want to marry. People can't control whether they are gay or not. It is not a choice, and these people are born with it. Just like a person is born black, or white, or with freckles. They can't change it, and they should not have their rights taken away based on religious views.

Gay marriage should be legal I think gay marriage should be legal because every body deserves to marry who they love.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S. I accept.

Gay marriage should be legalized. 1) My opponent has provided no argument that marriage is a fundamental human right. Conside the followin: if a nation did not provide government-sanctioned marriage contracts, would it be violating basic human rights? Would this provide a moral and legal justification for war (as an intervention in human rights violations)? This example shows that access to marriage is not a human right, it is an arbitrary legal contract granted to citizens because it fulfills particular state interests.2) My opponent claims claims that we "all look at marriage in different ways." So what? If I want to marry my dog (because I see marriage as a legal contract between humans and their pets), should I be allowed to? The government is not in the business of redefining marriage in whatever way individual citizens desire, as that would be the equivalent of anarchy.3) My opponent claims that same-sex partnerships are being unjustly denied the right to marry. As I have already pointed out, this argument presupposes that there is such a right to begin with. Only if there is a right to marry in the first place does this argument work. Because there is no such right to begin with, the notions of Equal Protection and Due Process in the Fourteenth Amendment do not apply.4) Just because gay couples have the capacity to care for children does not mean they should care for children. Moreoever, my opponent fails to realize that the issue at stake in this debate is a capacity to procreate. Gay couples are unable, by their nature, to create children.5) Again, my opponent attacks another straw man (last round my opponent attacked religion and the bible when I made no reference to religion or the bible): I clearly stated that same-sex partnerships are allowed. My point is that same-sex marriage should not be legalized, but that gay couples are allowed by law to exist. There is an important difference. Humans have the right to enter a long-term relationship with anyone they choose. They do not have the right to marriage.6) I extend my arguments from the previous rounds, as none of them have been adequately refuted. Heterosexual marriage provides a framework for procreation, it has "special social value" and should therefore be recognized as such by the state. If the state were to recognize same-sex marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage, it would in effect deny the special social value of marriage. If the special social value of marriage is denied, then the government has no legally tenable justification for offering its citizens marriage contracts in the first place. If state-sanctioned marriage can be legally justified as a legal contract, it follows that same-sex marriage cannot be legally justified. My opponent has yet to respond to this argument.

Gays Should be Allowed to Marry There is really no legitimate reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. If marriage is meant to be based on love instead of medieval property exchanges then it should be available to anyone. Furthermore, if the argument against it is founded in religious ideology then it should be remembered that this country has a fundamental separation of church and state, and as a purely legal institution marriage, and the privileges that accompany it, must be available to all people.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. Gay Marriage should be a legal form of marriage for the simple fact that disallowing LGBT groups to marrying is taking a right that should be theirs. I'll let you go first, as I am contending that there are no substantial legal reasons to disallow same-sex marriage, and thus it should be a right for any LGBT couple to marry.

Gay Marriage should be illegal Gays should be allowed to marry partners of their choice just as heterosexual couples do. It is ignorant in today's world to deny such a basic right to an individual because of something that is innate. Yes, sexuality is not a choice, it is innate. Civil union is not a reasonable compromise for a legal marriage. Most civil unions don't have the same rights as a legal marriage has. Even if we made all civil unions exactly equal to legal marriage but called it something else, it wouldn't be enough. The concept of "separate but equal" has already failed. Segregation is not a solution when it comes to rights. History has proven this. Secondly, where is the benefit of oppressing gays from marrying? Religion isn't an answer. Religion is the excuse. In the case of Christianity, the bible states to do unto others what you would like done onto you. How would a heterosexual couple like it if it were them in the position of such oppression?

Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US What Marriage IsWhat's the reason for a country to create a law about something? Why does it do it? The answer is simple. A country creates a law because that law will benefit the society as a whole. Does and can gay-marriage benefit the society as a whole? No, because gays cannot procreate. Hetersexual marriages is the only marriages which can continue our society by procreation. Marriage is by nature oriented to procreation. It is procreation which is the sole purpose behind marriage, and marriage is incomplete without it. Now, why should the US legalize gay-marriage or at all have an interest on it? What does the society as a whole benefit from legalizing gay-marriage? The fact of the matter is that society as a whole is benefited from the union of a male and a female in ways that are not valid for two persons of the same sex, because only heterosexuals are capable of procreation. Gays are not capable of procreation, and gay-marriage becomes therefore very useless for the society and for the state. Procreative marriages is essential, important and necessary for the production of future citizens and therefore the continuation of the society. Indeed, this is the very reason why the state at all has an interest in marriage. Calling something marriage or just writte under a 'contract' that you are married, does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. [1] This is what real marriage is, and gay-marriages goes completely against it. Girgis, George and Anderson, the authors of “What is Marriage? ”, nicely explains what marriage actually is:'Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts—acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it. ' [2]This view of marriage is called the 'Conjugal view' or the 'Traditional view'. Indeed, this the most rational view of marriage. But wait! What About The Revisionist View of Marriage? The Revisionist view of marriage is that marriage is about love and not procreation. This view however is simply just false. Those who say that marriage is about love and not procreation have completely misunderstood what marriage is and why it is regulated by the state. If marriage was merely about love, then what are the state's interests in recognizing it to begin with? And if marriage is about love and not procreation, then what reasons is it for the US to not allow other relationships like for example friendships, few peple wanting to marry each other, or even people who wants to marry an animal because he/she loves it? Very little. In fact, 'love-marriages' can be used to justify all sorts of relationships. However, in nature and in the governments eyes, marriage is to create a procreating type relationship that enables the continuation for the society. Only heterosexuals can create this kind of relationship. This is indeed the most rational form of relationship marriages, and there is no rational reasons as to why the state should have an interest on any other forms of relationship marriages, like for example 'love marriages' which can be used to justify all sorts of relationships, and which doesn't benefit the society as a whole. The truth is that the government doesn't care about love, and marriage is not about love. Of course, love is a important part of marriage. However, it's not the sole porpuse behind marriage. Procreation is. This is why the state at all has an interest in regulating marriage, because it recognizes that procreative marriages is essential, important and necessary for the production of future citizens and therefore the continuation of the society. Gay-Marriage and EqualityAccording to many proponents of gay-marriage, not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their equal rights, and it also goes against the idea of equality (i. e. , All humans are equal and should have the same equal rights etc). However, equality has very little to do with this. The real sake of the matter is mainly and fundamentally over what marriage is. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson says: "Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that denying homosexuals to marry each other violates the idea of equality and deprives their equal rights, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria are relevant, and which are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded. " [3]So you cannot argue that gay-marriage should be legal because of "equality," unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And as I have said earlier, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered towards the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. Thus, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, there is no discrimination against them or their 'equal rights'. ConclusionGay-marriage cannot benefit the society as a whole, because they cannot procreate. It is basically useless for the state and the society, just like for example friendship relationships. Moreover, gay-marriage goes against what marriage actually is. Namely, the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. In the words of Girgis, George and Anderson:'Same‐sex partnerships, whatever their moral status, cannot be marriages because they lack any essential orientation to children: They cannot be sealed by the procreative act. ' [2]There are also no compelling reasons as to why the state should have interest on gay-marriage or recognize it - or at least legalize it. Thus, the US should not legalize gay-marriage. Now, Con must do these three things in order to successfully refute my argument:1) Give us a compelling reason as to why gay-marriage should be legalized, and why the state should at all have an interest in recognizing and legalizing it. 2) Show us that there are rational reasons as to why a person should marry another person of the same sex.3) Show us that my definition of marriage is wrong, and that my definition of marriage is not why the US at all has an interest in marriage. Namely, because of the continuation of our race and society by procreation, and because of the rearing of children which only heterosexuals can naturally create. The US ought to not legalize marriages which goes against what marriage really is, and the state is justified in recognizing only real marriages. Indeed, the resolution is for now affirmed: Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US Sources[1] . http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...[2] . http://www.peter-ould.net...[3] . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...;

Gay Marriage ought to be legalized in the United States. Before we begin, I'd like to make a few clarifications regarding the resolution. First, I'd ask that my opponent avoid any semantics arguments (i. e. Gay Marriage is already legal in SOME states, etc. ) as the resolution implies legalization of gay marriage at the federal level. Second, the resolution also implies that gay marriage should be recognized in the U. S. so long as heterosexual marriage is legally recognized. In other words, my opponent should not put forth the argument that marriage in general should not exist in the first place, or that it's merely a state of mind (as opposed to a legally recognized binding). That said, I hope we can agree on the simple definition of Gay Marriage to mean the legal binding between people of the same sex. Let's begin. CONTENTIONS: 1) Sex vs. Gender 2) Minority Discrimination 3) Marriage vs. Religion 4) Civil Unions vs. Marriage 5) Sanctity of Marriage 6) Family Values 1) I'd like to begin by clarifying the differences between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological differences that make people either male or female, while gender describes cultural aspects of masculinity and femininity. In other words, a person of the male sex can identify with the female gender. As such, he can live his life as society would expect a woman to live their life, by dressing, talking, and even acting like a woman or in a feminine matter. By law, this feminine man can legally marry another woman regardless of how feminine he behaves or identifies (i. e. transvestites). Con must explain why it is the biological chromosomes and not personal characteristics or traits that are paramount in determining the law. 2) Not legalizing gay marriage is a form of minority discrimination. As new information about homosexuality emerges (i. e. the discovery of so-called gay genes and other biological evidence that homosexuality is not a choice), and exposure to forthcoming heterosexuality increases, society is becoming more accepting of the gay lifestyle and aware that homosexuals are people with the same rights as everybody else. The government believes that people have the right to marry, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Con must explain why this right applies only to people who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex. Con must also explain why it is acceptable to discriminate against people based on sex when it comes to marriage, but why it remains illegal in other institutions such as employment via the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 3) Opponents of gay marriage offer that marriage is a religious ritual and as such the government has no right to legislate what is and is not considered to be marriage. However, the spiritual contract of marriage carries with it a legal binding, meaning that it is most definitely the government's business. While most denominations do not condone gay marriage, some churches and religious institutions DO recognize same-sex unions, whereas the federal government still does not. In choosing which unions it does and does not uphold, the government is discriminating based on religion which is unconstitutional. Additionally, whatever is considered "God's will" is irrelevant in a democracy such as the United States which supports a separation between Church and State. I'm assuming I don't have to structure an argument about which "God" the government is required to obey supposing my opponent would dare to disagree with this obvious separation. In other words, one can morally be opposed to gay marriage based on their specific beliefs via their religion; however, expecting a government to use those religious beliefs in legislation is entirely immoral, anti-democratic and contrary to the founding principles of the United States. 4) To rectify the issue of religious marriages verses federally recognized unions, the government has proposed a mockery of the marriage institution otherwise known as Civil Unions. Many ignorant Americans assume that Civil Unions and Gay Marriage are synonymous; however, they are grossly misinformed. Marriage carries with it over 1,050 state and federal benefits, whereas Civil Unions only receive 300 benefits at the STATE level (and not every state has legalized civil unions, making this point almost obsolete). Thus civil unions are deprived of 750 benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. So what exactly does this all mean? In our society, when people marry it is typically out of love and commitment. However having a ceremony is not enough; legal rights should be extended to couples who have accepted this commitment. Some examples of civil union verses marriage benefits can be seen when we look at things like TAX RELIEF (marriage couples can file for state *and* federal tax breaks, whereas people with CU's can only apply for state benefits); MEDICAL DECISIONS (couples with CU's can only make emergency medical decisions in the state of which they live and were married); DEATH BENEFITS (a marital spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits, whereas CU partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death); CHILD SUPPORT (CU partners are not required to pay child support payments if they move out of state); etc. Con has the burden of proving why these benefits should only apply to those within heterosexual marriages, despite the equal love and commitment present in partners who happen to be of the same sex. 5) Some people think that gay marriage would eliminate the so-called sanctity of marriage. In a country where a heterosexual can get married at any point in time for whatever reason (including intoxication), I'd like for someone - anyone - to explain how legalizing same-sex marriage would devalue the marriage of any other couple. Marriage is supposed to be about commitment, and yet Britney Spears was able to engage in a 55-hour long union while gay couples who have spent decades together are not able to legally wed. The point is, the divorce rate in this country is at an all-time high and that's while gay marriage is still prohibited. TIME magazine recently published an article on the rate of infidelity among married couples rising drastically, again while gays have nothing to do with this dilemma. By recognizing same-sex unions, no statement is being made about the sanctity (or lack thereof) amongst heterosexual couples. Nobody is being negatively affected. 6) Similarly, some people cite family values as a reason to be against gay marriage; however, I'd suggest the opposite: allowing same-sex marriages shows children that everyone regardless of sex, gender or sexuality is capable of love and commitment. It would also decrease discrimination and hate crimes against homosexuals; children would be taught from an early age that sexual differences are acceptable within society. Moreover, gay individuals are having children whether people like it or not (via in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc. ). If gay marriage were legalized, same-sex adoption would increase thereby providing good homes to orphans who need the love, care and protection of decent parents. Additionally, it would alleviate some of the funding necessary by the State to house all of these orphans, making it economically beneficial as well (as an added bonus). CONCLUSION: A plethora of evidence supports that people don't choose to be gay, meaning to deny them basic marriage rights is blatant and unlawful discrimination. However even if it WAS a personal choice, Con has the burden of proving why this lifestyle choice in particular warrants discrimination, even while gay individuals are required to abide by the same laws and pay the same (more) taxes as every other American. I have proven that there are only benefits to legalizing gay marriage, whereas there are detriments in not doing so. Back to Con.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal The right to get married to a significant other is one that is inherent and one that all Americans should have. I'm sure that if any other demographic was alienated as gays are today, people would not be as obstinate in their opinions. For example, women were denied the right to vote until the early 20th century. Why? Simply because they weren't seen as equal. This is exactly what is happening to gays today. They aren't allowed to be married simply because most people don't agree with what they're doing. Honestly, it's not asking for much. All that gay marriage entails is giving gay couples the same benefits as others and also having the state recognize their matrimony.

Gay marriage should be legalized by the federal government Gay marriage should be legalized. Government and religion should not mix. Not allowing people of the LGBT community to marry is discrimination against their sexuality. Something should not be illegal just because others don't agree with it. The LGBT community deserves the same right to marry who they love and be bound legally just like everyone else can be.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the United States Role of Government First, I would like to address the role of the modern democratic government in society. Now, the principles on which modern governments are based stem from Enlightenment-era political theory. In short, the purpose of government is to defend the natural rights of its citizens. These are life, health, liberty, property [1], and the pursuit of happiness (added in the US Declaration of Independence, which relied heavily upon Locke’s ideas). Modern governments also rely primarily upon the implementation of negative rights, meaning that they create laws preventing actions, whereas positive rights force or grant permission to actions [2]. Democratic governments represent the will of its people as will, but also must defend the people against their own will; it must act objectively to protect all citizens, as to prevent oppression from the majority. Role of Marriage Next, I will address marriage, and its relationship with society and government, starting with its history. History Marriage predates recorded history. It did originate between man and woman, but some cases, such as with Roman emperor Nero, men married other men [3]. Marriage had political, economic, and social benefits. Political- Marriage often was used as a means to form treaties between European nobility, where they were negotiated between sons/daughters to ensure political control of certain regions [4]. Economic- Dowries were given, money changed hands, and more economic transactions arose in early marriages. Social- Since premarital sex was often frowned upon, marriage legitimized childbirth. It also legitimized social standing (in early class systems) and provided a means of communication. Modern Marriage Today, marriage carries many benefits. Although marriage provides a means for procreation as explained by CON, marriage is much more in modern society. These 1,138 federally-granted advantages (in the US), none of which are extended to civil unions (the alternative for homosexuals) [5]. These include the following: Property/inheritance rights; abilities in creating life insurance trusts; discounts in insurance; visitation rights; immigration benefits (easier to bring in spouse from other country); ability to make medical decisions for spouse; tax benefits; ability to receive federal assistance (disability pay, etc) in place of spouse; joint economic abilities (e.g. shared incomes, bankruptcy); exemption from testifying in court against spouse; funeral leave; adoption advantages; postmortem decisions; prenuptial agreements; and many, many more [6]. This is much more than just creating a gateway for childbirth. Government regulation of marriage is necessary because of economic considerations like inheritance, and for a method for people to have representation outside themselves. Certainly, CON’s assessment that marriage is purely a link to children is very, very, wrong, as it ignores other key benefits of marriage. Synthesis So, how does the first section (Role of Government) apply to marriage? Well, the government exists purely to protect natural rights. How does preventing gay marriage serve to protect life, liberty, or property? Regulating the participants in a contract (which is what marriage is in a legal sense) is not the purpose of government. In fact, gay marriage needs to be legalized, as to grant all citizens the same opportunity for its economic and legal protections, and to make sure the government does not overstep its role in society as a protector of the minority and not a means for social progression as CON contends. Moreover, the concept of negative right shows that, because everything is legal until made illegal, gay marriage is intrinsically legal until regulated. Again, since the purpose of government is to protect citizens, how does restricting marriage defend natural right? Finally, the government is supposed to recognize public will, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of the minority. Well, the majority of Americans (and many others) support the legalization of gay marriage [7]. Even if the majority did not, the government still has the duty to protect the minority from discrimination (gays are being discriminated against- denied certain privileges associated with marriage on the grounds of sexual orientation, a genetic trait). Individual Rebuttal Since the format of the debate was not defined in the initial arguments, I am assuming that I can reply directly to CON’s stance (especially since there are only three rounds in the debate). “Since the government promotes marriage, then marriage must possess some kind of public good.” No, the government protects marriage, not promotes. It protects people’s inherent disposition to love. The government only extends benefits to married couples because the people deemed it a necessary expense (remember, the government’s power is derived from the people). “Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children.” This definition is too limiting. Marriage is the union between two people agreeing to commit themselves to an economic and legal contract with mutual benefits on the basis of love. “Infertile Couples” If infertile couples are still “protected” because they can “pursue” children, why can’t homosexual couples be encouraged to marry to improve adoption? Children lacking a family unit would benefit from an influx in married couples willing to adopt. Since adoption is the only way gay couples can acquire children, they would end up simply as a ‘safety net’ (not to be disrespectful) for children not wanted by their parents. Two fathers/mothers are certainly better for a kid than a foster home or even a single parent for developmental and economic reasons [8]. Conclusion Simply, it is not the government’s role to regulate who gets married, but only to dispense benefits associated with the union. Sources [1] John Locke, “Second Treatise of Government,” (http://www.gutenberg.org...) [2] http://www.alabamapolicy.org... [3] http://penelope.uchicago.edu...*.html (Chp 28) [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.glad.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.gallup.com... [8] http://io9.com...

Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the United States. Before we begin, I'd like to make a few clarifications regarding the resolution. First, I'd ask that my opponent avoid any semantics arguments (i. e. Gay Marriage is already legal in SOME states, etc. ) as the resolution implies legalization of gay marriage at the federal level. Second, the resolution also implies that gay marriage should be recognized in the U. S. so long as heterosexual marriage is legally recognized. In other words, my opponent should not put forth the argument that marriage in general should not exist in the first place, or that it's merely a state of mind (as opposed to a legally recognized binding). That said, I hope we can agree on the simple definition of Gay Marriage to mean the legal binding between people of the same sex. Let's begin. CONTENTIONS: 1) Sex vs. Gender 2) Minority Discrimination 3) Marriage vs. Religion 4) Civil Unions vs. Marriage 5) Sanctity of Marriage 6) Family Values 1) I'd like to begin by clarifying the differences between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological differences that make people either male or female, while gender describes cultural aspects of masculinity and femininity. In other words, a person of the male sex can identify with the female gender. As such, he can live his life as society would expect a woman to live their life, by dressing, talking, and even acting like a woman or in a feminine matter. By law, this feminine man can legally marry another woman regardless of how feminine he behaves or identifies (i. e. transvestites). Con must explain why it is the biological chromosomes and not personal characteristics or traits that are paramount in determining the law. 2) Not legalizing gay marriage is a form of minority discrimination. As new information about homosexuality emerges (i. e. the discovery of so-called gay genes and other biological evidence that homosexuality is not a choice), and exposure to forthcoming heterosexuality increases, society is becoming more accepting of the gay lifestyle and aware that homosexuals are people with the same rights as everybody else. The government believes that people have the right to marry, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Con must explain why this right applies only to people who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex. Con must also explain why it is acceptable to discriminate against people based on sex when it comes to marriage, but why it remains illegal in other institutions such as employment via the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 3) Opponents of gay marriage offer that marriage is a religious ritual and as such the government has no right to legislate what is and is not considered to be marriage. However, the spiritual contract of marriage carries with it a legal binding, meaning that it is most definitely the government's business. While most denominations do not condone gay marriage, some churches and religious institutions DO recognize same-sex unions, whereas the federal government still does not. In choosing which unions it does and does not uphold, the government is discriminating based on religion which is unconstitutional. Additionally, whatever is considered "God's will" is irrelevant in a democracy such as the United States which supports a separation between Church and State. I'm assuming I don't have to structure an argument about which "God" the government is required to obey supposing my opponent would dare to disagree with this obvious separation. In other words, one can morally be opposed to gay marriage based on their specific beliefs via their religion; however, expecting a government to use those religious beliefs in legislation is entirely immoral, anti-democratic and contrary to the founding principles of the United States. 4) To rectify the issue of religious marriages verses federally recognized unions, the government has proposed a mockery of the marriage institution otherwise known as Civil Unions. Many ignorant Americans assume that Civil Unions and Gay Marriage are synonymous; however, they are grossly misinformed. Marriage carries with it over 1,050 state and federal benefits, whereas Civil Unions only receive 300 benefits at the STATE level (and not every state has legalized civil unions, making this point almost obsolete). Thus civil unions are deprived of 750 benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. So what exactly does this all mean? In our society, when people marry it is typically out of love and commitment. However having a ceremony is not enough; legal rights should be extended to couples who have accepted this commitment. Some examples of civil union verses marriage benefits can be seen when we look at things like TAX RELIEF (marriage couples can file for state *and* federal tax breaks, whereas people with CU's can only apply for state benefits); MEDICAL DECISIONS (couples with CU's can only make emergency medical decisions in the state of which they live and were married); DEATH BENEFITS (a marital spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits, whereas CU partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death); CHILD SUPPORT (CU partners are not required to pay child support payments if they move out of state); etc. Con has the burden of proving why these benefits should only apply to those within heterosexual marriages, despite the equal love and commitment present in partners who happen to be of the same sex. 5) Some people think that gay marriage would eliminate the so-called sanctity of marriage. In a country where a heterosexual can get married at any point in time for whatever reason (including intoxication), I'd like for someone - anyone - to explain how legalizing same-sex marriage would devalue the marriage of any other couple. Marriage is supposed to be about commitment, and yet Britney Spears was able to engage in a 55-hour long union while gay couples who have spent decades together are not able to legally wed. The point is, the divorce rate in this country is at an all-time high and that's while gay marriage is still prohibited. TIME magazine recently published an article on the rate of infidelity among married couples rising drastically, again while gays have nothing to do with this dilemma. By recognizing same-sex unions, no statement is being made about the sanctity (or lack thereof) amongst heterosexual couples. Nobody is being negatively affected. 6) Similarly, some people cite family values as a reason to be against gay marriage; however, I'd suggest the opposite: allowing same-sex marriages shows children that everyone regardless of sex, gender or sexuality is capable of love and commitment. It would also decrease discrimination and hate crimes against homosexuals; children would be taught from an early age that sexual differences are acceptable within society. Moreover, gay individuals are having children whether people like it or not (via in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc. ). If gay marriage were legalized, same-sex adoption would increase thereby providing good homes to orphans who need the love, care and protection of decent parents. Additionally, it would alleviate some of the funding necessary by the State to house all of these orphans, making it economically beneficial as well (as an added bonus). CONCLUSION: A plethora of evidence supports that people don't choose to be gay, meaning to deny them basic marriage rights is blatant and unlawful discrimination. However even if it WAS a personal choice, Con has the burden of proving why this lifestyle choice in particular warrants discrimination, even while gay individuals are required to abide by the same laws and pay the same (more) taxes as every other American. I have proven that there are only benefits to legalizing gay marriage, whereas there are detriments in not doing so. Back to Con.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Although my opponent stated his stand, I feel I have much more valid and reasonable reasoning why Gay Marriage should be legal. 1- Although marriage is "designed" by God, no where in the Bible states that Homosexuality is wrong, it only speaks of sexual intercourse being wrong, and it says about a woman and a man having sexual intercourse is wrong. a. Why should marriage "reflect" Christ and his Church? Marriage is a decision between two PEOPLE to symbolize their love, affection, devotion, and commitment towards each other. b. Currently, and unfortunately, marriage in 44 states is between a man and a woman. People fail to realize the true meaning of love, other than Religious views. Marriage is between two people who LOVE each other. So why shouldn't a homosexual couple who's been together for years and is in love not be able to obtain the title of "Married"? 2- By passing the law allowing Gay Marriage, the United States Government would no be governing religion, but instead governing equality and justice. a- Marriage is a UNION, a union between two people who have unconditional love for each other. b- You state the same thing over and over. c- There are plenty of different religions other than Christianity and "Non-Believers". If marriage has so much to do with religion and the United States Government should not "govern religion" then everyone should have "Civil Unions" and not have the chance and choice to get "married" because discriminating against Homosexuals due to who they love and therefore not allowing them to get married is simply wrong and unjust. Con repeatedly states the same claim over and over without acknowledging that not everyone is Christian. Some churches, including Christian churches, allow Gay Marriage in their church. The only argument against Gay Marriage that Con has is simply "God" and religion, but only ONE religion. Con fails to acknowledge that being so religious, you are not supposed to JUDGE anyone. "Only God Can Judge Me". If Gay Marriage is so wrong due to God and the Christianity Religion, why not wait and deal with that after death? You only live once so why should a Homosexual not be able to spend that ONE LIFE with the person they love as their "Husband" or "Wife". It is unfair and unconstitutional that only a man and a woman can get married. As human beings, we have freedoms and rights. Therefore, why shouldn't a homosexual be given those same rights? Other than religion and ignorance, my opponent has no valid reasons. Actually, other than Con repeating themselves and only speaking of the Christian Religion and not touching any other valid points I discussed, there is no other argument Con presented. By banning homosexuals to get married, it signals them out. There are states that allow people to marry their own relatives, such as a cousin, which is in fact incest, but yet Gay Marriage is wrong. In my opinion, love is love and no one can help who they love, whether it is a female or a male. I await your "argument".

Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S. To recap: Marriage is a fundamental right of American citizens guaranteed by both the morals set by the Declaration of Independence and the regulations of the Constitution. Leaving it up to the states is both unethical and morally reprehensible, especially as many are passing laws that are banning homosexual marriages. From ethical, logical, and legal standpoints, all facts indicate that gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S. When we examine the arguments my opponent and I brought up, it is clear that it is the federal government's duty to uphold our citizen's privileges and our duty to support the equality of all people- gay or straight, young or old, male or female.

Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal Proposition Summary

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized In America Gay marriage should be legalized in America. There is no logical reasons as to why it should not be, but regardless, I am going to debate the most common reasons against it. The main reason people are against gay marriage is religious reasons, mainly Christianity. Religious people will say that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman, and that homosexual relations is an "abomination". However, that should have no place in a legal decision. If you recall, this land is created on the bases of 10 unalienable rights, one of them being freedom of religion. Is it really right to base a law off of a religion that other people do not follow? Furthermore, religion is not logical; I am not invalidating anyone's religion, but the fact of the matter is that it cannot be proven. I don't think laws should be based off of anything other than logic. So what are the logical reasons against gay marriage in America? Are there any? Some people may say that it is immoral. But is there really anything immoral about two consenting adults engaging in sexual activity, regardless of gender. You may disagree, but the simple fact is that a healthy, consensual sexual relationship is not hurting anyone. Why should they be denied marriage rights if they are not hurting anyone? Another people argument use is something along the lines of, "If gay marriage becomes legal, what's to stop the legalization of bestiality/pedophilia/rape/incest?" First of all, there are many things wrong with this argument. First of all, all of those previously mentioned things all have reasons as to why they are wrong and immoral. That is why they will always stay illegal. Confused as to what they are? Rape - Easy. One adult is not consenting. That is hurting someone involved. Bestiality - An animal cannot verbally consent to sexual relationships. Therefore it is rape, which is wrong since one partner is being hurt by the act. Pedophilia - Pedophilia involves an adult having sexual relations with children. Having sex with a child under the age of consent is automatically rape. Which is wrong. Incest - Sexual relationships between family members have the potential to conceive a child who may be physically or mentally affected by the crossing of similar genes. That is hurting someone involved, regardless if the two family members consented to sex. Also, incest brings the potential to harm a partner emotionally and mentally, since the relationship is taboo and illegal. You may wonder, "what about family members who cannot conceive a child?" Well, believe it or not, in many states, there are laws that protect the right to marry a family member who you cannot conceive with, including my state (Indiana). So that argument is pointless, because how will it lead to legalized marriage between family members if it's already legalized? Besides, all of those are "what if"s. "What if"s are not a logical argument to use. The legalization of gay marriage does not automatically guarantee that everything "immoral" will be legalized. Another argument is "What if it turns our children gay? I don't want my child exposed to that!" Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but if you do not approve of your child having a normal sexuality, you should probably reconsider your parenting skills. Seeing a gay couple will not determine their sexuality; sexuality is something you cannot change, and no outside force can change it. Despite that fact that we always assume that a child will be heterosexual, that does not mean a different sexuality is "abnormal". Sexual attraction to humans is a normal thing. Also, what is wrong with a child being exposed to a happy, healthy, loving, monogamous relationship? Many people speak of the "gay lifestyle", which includes sleeping around, contracting STDs, etc. So wouldn't you rather your child see homosexual relations as healthy relationships, instead of one riddled with drug abuse and promiscuity? And if your child is gay, do you want them to think that the only lifestyle for them is the latter? I don't think so. Out of all the main arguments I have seen against gay marriage, I have yet to see a logical one. If you truly have a logical argument, feel free to debate with me.

Gay marriage should be legal in all states Okay well first of all, homosexuals do not necessarily distract children from a learning environment. If you mean that if gays have kids, then I understand your point, however let me just say I have two dads and I have a good education. It doesn't distract me from my school work or affect my learning. Benefits Gays getting married could actually have some benefits. Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage on May 17, 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. It could also affect the economy in a positive way. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.Rights Denying same-sex couples the right to marry also stigmatizes gays and lesbians as inferior, which may send a message that it is okay to discriminate against them. Homosexuals should have all the same basic rights as everyone else. I find it very unfair that they can't marry if they truely love eachother want the same benefits of marriage. Gay marriage is also protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. Common senseGays getting married will not cause World War III. It will not cause schools to start teaching about gay sex or anything having to do with homosexuals. Maybe religious people will find it unfair because it is ainst their beliefs, but religion has nothing to do with the matter when it comes to what's best for the economy, the peope and their rights.

Gay Marriage Gay Marriage should be legal for two main reasons. 1) There are no negatives to gay people getting married. The most successful countries in the world support gay marriage; Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark are all places that have legalized gay marriage years ago and have seen no problems in their respective countries from it. 2) Equality. If a man loves another man or a women loves another women there no difference in a man and women loving each other. As a society and a planet we must move forward and strive for Equality, so that every person is given an equal opportunity to love who they want as well as their lives. Please respond I am curious to hear your argument. I am open to being proved wrong and I hope you are to May the best man win

Gay marriage should be legal in the United States I had a big response laid out but due to my opponents limited contentions I am going to respond briefly instead. Since he really made no argument, I don't want to put the effort into a giant argument. Premise 1 : Homosexuals cannot control whom they attracted to. (a) Homosexuality is found in nature" Homosexual behavior is found in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world " [1](b) animals are ruled by instinct and not rationality. Animals have urges that they cannot control and this is found in nature and is a common trend" It was (and is) common to think that other animals are ruled by "instinct" whereas humans lost their instincts and are ruled by "reason", and that this is why we are so much more flexibly intelligent than other animals " [2](c) Humans are rational but cannot control what instincts they have. There are many studies that are starting to prove that testosterone levels, parental factors, and genetics all play a roll in if someone will become homosexual. Meaning it is not their choice to be homosexual, but they have the urge at birth. While committing homosexual acts is a choice, they can no more choose this than we can choose our attraction to women. Where once the scientific and medical establishment maintained an unqualified belief that homosexuality was a form of psychological deviance, today a solid majority of psychiatrists and psychologists themselves believe in biological theories (genes, brain, prenatal chemistry) over environmental or psychological theories. [3]Premise 2 : The Us Constitution promises everyone the right to marry someone they love(a) The right to marriage and equality" The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances." [4](b) Loving Vs Virginia This cases goes to prove that supreme court approves marriage equality. The overturned a law in Virginia that prohibited white people from marrying other people of different races. The irony was the law did not stop any other races from marring other races, but directly effected white people. They were only allowed to marry other white people. This law was the first step in marriage equality and goes as far as to show that gay marriage should be legalized. [5]ConclusionHomosexuals cannot chose what genetics and hormones they have. The have urges that is deep within them. We are promised the right to marriage equality under the 14th amendment and the supreme court even went as far as to acknowledge this in Loving vs Virginia.Gay marriage should be legalized in the same regard. Equality is equality for all. [1] http://www.yalescientific.org...[2] http://cogweb.ucla.edu...[3] http://www.pbs.org...[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[5] http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Legalization of Gay Marriage Gay Marriage should definitely be legalized for many positive reasons. Firstly, our era has evolved so much with accepting black people and removing the slavery laws. But how have so many places around the world not legalized gay marriage? All humans should be able to love and feel attached to people regardless of sex. Marriage is defined as a commitment between a man and a woman but should we really let these definitions take control over basic human rights? No! Why do people keep referring to the definition of the word marriage? People argue that there needs to be a new definition to gay marriage but why can't we change the definition of the word marriage? Maybe the gay community might have to accept that the government will be so inhumane and not change anything and allow them to define there love which is no different than ours and be called something different than marriage? Although that is inhumane to disregard and not include people just because their share a different kind of love? We accept people who have different skin, religion and beliefs but we can't even accept that people are attached to the same sex? Gay marriage should be legalized, not just because it is inhumane to disregard how people are attracted to others but because it would also help the dying economy. Love is not about money and neither is this topic and everyone should know that I believe gay marriage should just be legalized for fair human purposes but it would help the economy. Let's say there is around 2000 gay couples in Australia alone and the whole wedding process would cost around 20,000; that's 40,000,000 million dollars. That would stimulate the economy with more jobs and more money. To sum up, love is defined as " a strong feeling of attraction", just because that love is shared between two people of the same sex doesn't mean they should not have the ability to get married or whatever the government thinks they want to call it and feel the attachment and commitment as a couple. It would also stimulate the economy and give jobs to many people. Thankyou.

Resolved: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized I believe Gay Marriage should be legalized because the right to marry whom you choose is a human right, and gays are not any less human than heterosexual Americans. Also, unless someone can prove there is a political reason for not wanting Gays to get married, i will continue believing that the only reason this right is in question is because of religious reasons, and there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state in this country. Also, banning gay marriage is just as bad as a jim crow law.

Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. You should have the right to love who you want to love and marry who you want to marry.

Gay marriage should be legalised Marriage equality should be legalised.

Gay Marriage should be legalized Many thanks again to Wylted again for this discussion. Essentially my opponent is arguing that gay people do not have a right to marriage, because the state has no incentive to recognize their relationship. He argues that legal safeguards, protections and monetary benefits are given to straight couples to incentivize marriage, because the traditional institution is beneficial to society as a whole. To justify this claim, he cites the benefits of a traditional family unit on children... and that's about it. In this debate, I will prove that gay people should be encouraged to pursue marriage for the same reasons (individual success) as their heterosexual peers. That will translate to greater success across society. Moreover, I will prove that marriage does indeed strengthen the family and assist in raising children in a positive and stable environment. Therefore, this institution should logically extend to same-sex couples, many of whom happen to have children. All of this explains why gay marriage should be legal. Research shows that marriage benefits the individual and thus society as a whole. Married people are more financially well off, happier and healthier than their single peers [1]. Why should gay people not be privilege to the same institution to encourage their well-being, and thus contribute to the well-being of more people? That doesn't make sense. Gay people will have long and committed, often monogamous relationships similar to heterosexual marriage anyway as they have throughout history. If the argument is that romantic heterosexual relationships promote the well being of people (and the kids they have), shouldn't the government also encourage recognition and support of the equivalent gay relationships? Research also shows that the legitimization of marriage is the primary factor in considering the dissolution of all relationships. Social sanctioning of the relationship promotes longevity, indicating that the legalization and social acceptance of gay marriage will strengthen gay relationships and contribute to their success [2]. It makes no sense to: - suggest that the institution of marriage benefits society because of personal gains- acknowledge that gay relationships will exist regardless of legal recognition - and suggest that preserving those relationships is not beneficial for the same reasons it is beneficial for straight couples. Con must distinguish why the legal institution of marriage is beneficial for only straight couples. Furthermore, Con must explain why similar gay relationships shouldn't be fostered with legal protection.On the other hand, I am arguing that gay people (and thus society) will benefit from the same benefits of legal marriage. Children undoubtedly benefit from having married parents -- the benefits of a married couple logically extend to their children. It makes sense that if married people are happier, healthier and more financially well off, that the children of married couples would also benefit from the relationship. In addition to the inherent benefits of the coupling, the legal rights afforded to married couples extend to safeguard the family. In many cases, kids with gay parents have been hurt by their family not being protected in instances where adoption, the death tax and other legal issues arise [3, 4]. Con is arguing in favor of children with gay parents not being protected by the law as their peers are, for reasons 1) entirely out of their control, and 2) that are irrelevant in terms of reasonable comparison. There are a lot of families headed by same-sex parents. Almost 40% of LGBT identifying individuals have had a child. Six million people in America have gay parents, and there are 125,000 gay headed households raising 220,000 kids under eighteen [5]. These families and future families (now that gay relationships are more accepted) need protection not only in the sense of human decency, but to afford these families and society additional opportunities for success. There are NO reliable studies indicating that a mother-father headed household is paramount to one's happiness or success in terms of raising children. While there are innate biological ties to our immediate family fostered through evolution, the reality is that there are very specific and primary variables far more relevant to one's development, well being and happiness. Biology is not anywhere near being the most important or relevant factor in parenting. First and foremost, financial security is paramount to opportunity. Married households are more financially stable and create security for children [6]. Again, Con is suggesting that kids with gay parents not be afforded the same opportunities and economic protection as their peers in this regard. Second, science suggests that raising happy kids requires relaying empathy, teaching kindness, encouraging laughter and fostering compassion [7]. In addition, securing your own mental health, mandating discipline and nurturing your marriage are key [8]. Absolutely none of these things are limited to opposite-sex relationships. Further they can be encouraged for gays through the legal institution and social recognition of marriage, and therefore should be extended to gay couples to encourage their relationship's success. Again, why should people in gay relationships (so similar to their heterosexual counterparts) NOT be encouraged to embrace the benefits of marriage, and thus have them extended to their children? The greatest threats to the family are economic instability, unemployment, lack of emotional support and residential instability [9]. Once again, none of these things are pertinent to the sexuality of one's parents. While having ties, support and relationships with BOTH genders is in fact important and essential to the development of a child, kids with gay parents can have access to these role models by developing relationships with grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other people to provide similar guidance, support and nurturing pertinent to gender. In regard to Con's studies, NONE of the research done on same sex vs. traditional parenting that discredit gay parenting compares similar variables. For instance, Wylted cited one study that shows a "traditional" family encouraged less drug abuse, depression, etc. However that study did not take into account same-sex two parent households. Families headed by two parents fare better regardless of sex or gender. The research DOES show that two gay parents are better than single (straight) parents [10]. In addition, the research Wylted provides does not compare equal family units. In addition to the single vs. two parent disparity, it gives zero consideration to the length of time two parents have been together, and other factors including family drug abuse, stability, class and financial status, etc. On the contrary, according to the American Psychological Association, not one but innumerable studies that have been done and peer-reviewed and deemed credible by the science community all conclude that sexuality is irrelevant in terms of parenting abilities and outcomes [11, 12]. If necessary, I will expand more on the scientific credibility of studies I can present in my favor vs. Con's in the next round when I have more character space. For now, consider that divorce is rampant and supporting the traditional family are not legal prerequisites for marriage. Consider the fact that some heterosexual couples are infertile. Many others simply do not want to have kids. Some couples are polyamorous. Others do not plan on being married forever. In fact heterosexual couples engage in questionable marital decisions all the time. Couples who marry young are twice as likely to end in divorce than those that wait until their later 20s [13]. Still we allow young, infertile, polyamorous straight people who are disinterested in parenthood the opportunity to get married, and receive the personal (and societal) benefits and protections that are afforded to their peers. While Con tries to divorce fairness from the debate, it is indeed instrumental to the argument. Gay people are forced to pay taxes like everybody else, regardless of whether or not they agree with policy. It is immoral and arguably tyrannical of government to single out this demographic as undeserving of the legal benefits and protections given to heterosexual couples, while still requiring of them the same obligations of citizenship. If gay adults are required to participate in and help fund government, then they should by extension be afforded the same benefits and protections. Thanks![1] http://www.nytimes.com...[2] https://books.google.com...[3] http://www.freedomtomarry.org...[4] http://www.hrc.org...[5] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...[6] http://cfed.org...[7] http://www.livescience.com...[8] http://time.com...[9] http://www.urban.org...[10] http://io9.com...[11] http://www.apa.org...[12] http://www.baylorisr.org...[13] http://www.divorce360.com...

Same-sex marriage should be federally legal in the USA. ***** "legal" definition: of, based on, or concerned with the law ***** I first begin my argument with a religious pretext. The following are citations from the US Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -First Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -Tenth Amendment The first quote shows us that government cannot establish laws that respect any religion. The second quote shows us that the powers not specified in the Constitution are given to the states. The first quote already specified, however, that government cannot make a law that respect an establishment of religion. Therefore, states cannot do this. However, states have and continue to behave unconstitutionally by having legislation that bans same-sex marriage. This legislative ban respects an establishment of religion, and therefore is unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state, hence the phrase "separation of church and state." Example of violations of the separation of church and state: • "in god we trust" on USA currency • public schools opening events, like graduation, with prayer • judges hanging the Ten Commandments in their court room I recognize that freedom of (and from) religion is guaranteed in the founding documents of the United States of America, and is a notion that has continued to be upheld sine the founding. However, governmental issues must preside with influence from legality, not religion. The United States of America is not a Christian nation. It was not founded as one, and it is not one to this day. There is no official religion of the country. Furthermore, many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. Christian beliefs may have influenced notions in the nation's founding, but this does not lend a hand to proclaim that the United States of America is a Christian nation. Refer to the following quote: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, 1976, Article 11 If Christianity is allowed to influence politics, then Islamic Sharia law should be able to as well. However, we all know that Sharia law is not allowed to influence politics or law, thus Christianity or any other religion cannot, either. Marriage can be holy to those of religious denominations, but ultimately in the eyes of government marriage is a legal issue. It gives the correspondents over 1,300 legal rights. A priest, pastor, or any other type of religious figure is not required to be legally married. There is no legal argument one can make against same-sex marriage. There are only religious arguments. But, since religion cannot be endorsed by the government, same-sex marriage should be federally legal. • • • • • • • • • • • • The following is my argument with a scientific pretext, specifically against the notion that "homosexuality is unnatural." There are over 450 known species that engage in homosexual behavior, including but not limited to: • African Buffalo • Amazon River Dolphin • American Bison • Adelie Penguin • Gray Squirrel • Red Deer • Black Bear • Grizzly Bear • Gray Whale • House Fly • Red Fox • Reindeer • Gorilla (See "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity," 1999, by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD; or: http://borngay.procon.org...) Homo sapiens sapiens DNA is over 98% identical to gorilla DNA. Note, then, that homosexuality is present in one of our most closely-related relatives. It is relevant to compare homo sapiens sapiens to the rest of the animal kingdom because homo sapiens sapiens is a mammal, thus is part of the animal kingdom. Our DNA is made of the same four nitrogenous bases of every other organism--adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. The same relative percentages also exists in every organism of Earth, regardless of species. Just because homosexuality is not of the general majority status quo, it cannot be deemed "unnatural" biologically. Painting nails, piercing body parts, and cutting/styling hair are all "unnatural" biologically, though they are accepted today because of culture. Some say that homosexuality is unnatural because it goes against survival, since the sex organ of a male and that of a female is required to produce offspring. Note, however, that the majority of homo sapiens sapiens are not homosexual, so survival is inevitable, and that many other species also engage in homosexual behavior. Nonetheless, whether it is "against survival" or not is not pertinent to this debate, because this debate concerns that same-sex marriage should be federally legal. If federal law were based on survival, then many current activities such as mass oil drilling and consumption would not be federally legal because it is an unsustainable practice that ultimately is against survival. Furthermore, if marriage is about reproduction, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. • • • • • • • • • • • • The following is additional argument without religious or scientific pretext. Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974's Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." There are multiple benefits to same-sex marriage. It brings financial gain through things like marriage licenses and higher income taxes. It makes adoption easier and more widespread. Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support." Legalizing same-sex marriage does not harm "family values." In fact, Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage. Lastly, homosexuals are not sub-humans. To be qualified as a homo sapien sapien, you must been certain biological standards. Homosexuals are able to reproduce, and they share every single other biological requirement heterosexuals do.

Gay marriage should be legal. My thanks to my opponent for initiating this challenge. I have debated her in the past on the same issue, and hopefully this debate will be fruitful.I will be defending the contention that there are no good reasons why gay marriage should be legal. This is because heterosexual marriage provides a framework in which both procreation and child-rearing can take place. The state has a vested interest in protecting this relationship because it is essential to both the production of virtuous citizens and the continuation of society. Because neither are intrinsic to same-sex relationships, the state should not recognize them as marriages. I will be defending the following argument, as formulated by philosopher Jim Spiegel: 1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. [1]Heterosexual marriage provides a framework under which future citizens can be raised and produced due to the fact that heterosexual union (The joining of a sperm/egg) is possible under this type of relationship. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that these notions are crucial for the maintenance of a healthy society. Thus, since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.Is Marriage About Love? Same-sex marriage advocates usually view marriage as a relationship between two parties which is centered around love. But this fails to understand what marriage is and why it is regulated by the state. Why is the state in the business of regulating marriage to begin with? After all, the state doesn't regulate friendships or other nonmarital romantic relationships. It's a peculiar thing, considering upon entry into a marriage relationship, a couple finds themselves bound by obligiations which decidedly nonromantic in nature. The very reason the state has an interest in regulating marriage is because it recognizes that marriage is essential to the production of citizens and therefore the continuation of society. The state does not regulate nonmarital romantic relationships precisely because it has no compelling reason to do so.This is not mitigated by the fact that procreation is possible from outside a marital framework. The difference between a marriage and say, a boyfriend/girlfriend having sex is that the former is a contractural agreement to the welfare of both partners and any children that may arise as a result of the relationship. The state does not regard the latter as a marriage because there are no contractural obligations involved. Since traditional marriage provides the environment necessary for both the production and raising of the state's future citizens, it should be afforded protection under the law. The fact that heterosexual sex is logically distinguishable from marriage by no means dampens this argument.The Antimiscegenation AnalogyOpposition to same-sex marriage is sometimes compared to opposition to interracial marriage. However, the analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender. While race is irrelevant to procreation, gender most certainly isn’t. Race is irrelevant to whether or not procreation is possible, hence the state is unjustified in passing antimiscegenation legislation. However, since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex. Therefore, the state has a principled reason to exclude couples from entering into marital relationships on the basis of their gender.Artificial Reproduction: IVF/Surrogacy One response offered by SSM advocates to the procreation argument is that homosexual couples are able to reproduce through artificial means such as IVF or surrogacy. However, this fails to adequately respond to the argument. Homosexual couples are not actually "reproducing" when they engage in artificial reproductive treatments -- rather, they are using donated eggs/sperm from a third party. As such, the child that results from these artificial means of reproduction is not actually that of the homosexual couple. Rather, he was produced by means of heterosexual union via a third party. So what we actually see here is a reaffirmation of the special value of heterosexual union, since artificial means of reproduction are inherently heterosexual in nature.Moreover, if couples should be allowed marriage rights due to the fact that procreation is possible due to third party intervention, then one cannot object to the marriage of incestious couples, who can reproduce by artificial means. Are Sterile Couples Excluded?It may be objected that such reasoning prevents sterile heterosexual couples from marrying due to the fact that they are unable to procreate. But this objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. What matters is thus that an act is procreative in type, not whether it is procreative in effect.Marriage is a Social ConstructionIf marriage is a social construction, then there cannot be said that there are rights associated with it. This actually undercuts the proponent's own argument. If my opponent affirms that homosexuals have a basic right to marry each other, then they cannot view marriage as a social construction. This is because social constructions have no normative structure to them, they are simply constructs that may be redefined at one's own whim. One therefore cannot be unjust in denying homosexuals the "right" to marry.Opening the FloodgatesIf we divorce marriage from procreation, then what nonarbitrary reason does one have to limit marriage to being between two parties? Why not one person who loves himself, or three cohabiating roommates who love each other and want insurance benefits, or a business partner and his client, or three men and two women? Why even think that marriage must involve consent or must be between persons? Bereft of a solid foundation on which to base marriage, there are no limits to who can be married. Clearly this is counterintuitive. This reductio ad absurdum illustrates the fact that marriage must be based on more than just love or similar feelings.___________Sources1. http://wisdomandfollyblog.com......

Gay Marriage should be legalized in all 50 states. Here is what my argument will consist of. Adopting Obviously, gay couples cannot reproduce. But, there are 397,122 children in the USA alone in need of a home and in foster care. A gay couple could easily adopt the children. And more permanent homes can be founded. Loose definition of "marriage" Throughout time, marriage has evolved from one man and multiple wives. Until 1967, it was illegal for interracial marriage. But that was changed to allow interracial marriage because color does not matter when it comes to marriage. Why should gender? Unalienable Rights There are rights Americans have been guaranteed for more than 200 years. Among those, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And everyone, even homosexuals, deserve the right to a pursuit of happiness. And these people cannot pursue happiness if they are not given the right to marry.

Gay marriage should be legalised Someone else's marriage is none of your businesses. No allowing it is discrimination. Gay couple should be able to enjoy the same rights and celebrations as straight couples.What has a gay couple done that a straight couple has not. When I think about it is there is no good reasons not to legalise it.

Gay marriage should be legalised So... I'll go ahead and use the argument I used on a previous debate where my opponent sadly forfeited.My CaseNote: Firstly, I would like to point out that I have nothing against homosexual individuals. I agree that if two men or two women love each other, they should be able to stay together. In fact my side on this debate really does not reflect my actual opinion. In this debate I am simply arguing that a union between two homosexual couples should not be referred to as marriage.Religious reasons. Now, I myself am not religious. However, gay marriage is not compatible with most religions. Just taking a look at Christianity, we can see that The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. Now this opposition is a problem for two reasons. Firstly, churches who are against marriage between homosexuals are often pressured into, or even forced to marry gay individuals when same-sex marriage is legal. This is exactly what happened in Danbury, U.K. Two gay men who were already millionaires sued their church in attempt to force their church to perform a wedding ceremony. They wanted to challenge the laws that allowed religious organizations to opt out of marrying homosexuals (The Libertarian Republic). My second reason has to do with tax dollars. The congressional budget office (1) notes that "the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019." If these benefits are in the name of marriage rather than civil unions religious individual's taxes will be going to a cause that they do not necessarily believe in.Gay marriage has actually been referred to as the detriment of homosexual culture.This argument is an interesting one. Dr. Lee Badget (2) emphasizes that "marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture." Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual pride is a big deal. By removing the gap between homosexuals and heterosexuals, some may claim that LGBT culture will come to an end. With this argument, I am advocating for civil unions. I do believe that gay individuals should get the same opportunities as straight individuals. These opportunities just shouldn't come with the name of marriage. Really if you think about it, gay marriage can do the same thing to heterosexual culture. Badget goes on to say that, "In particular, they worry that opening up marriage poses a threat to children by diminishing heterosexual couples’ desire to marry, thereby reducing parents’ commitment and attention to child rearing." Here it is shown that making gay marriage legal could actually harm homosexual/heterosexual culture, which is something that ought to be preserved.Marriage itself is becoming outdated. Many consider it sexist/oppressive.Legalizing gay marriage brings more types of marriages to the plate. In July 1969, the Gay Liberation Front (3) in New York said, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression." This is a belief shared by many heterosexuals as well. Looking at my argument above, we can also see that the quality of marriage and the culture of both gay and straight individuals will be negatively impacted by the legalization of same sex-marriage. Psychology Today published an article that showed how married individuals actually become increasingly less happy after they make the decision to get married. The article also showed that married people feel isolated or alone more often. The legalization of gay marriage will result in more couples getting married, which may not actually be a good thing.(1) http://gaymarriage.procon.org...(2) M.V. Lee Badgett, PhD, When Gay People Get Married, 2009(3) Paula Ettelbrick, "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?," OUT/LOOK National Gay and Lesbian Quarterly, Fall 1989Opponent's ArgumentsDiscriminationDiscrimination- the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people (Merriam-Webster)It is important to observe that gay individuals can obtain the benefits traditionally given through marriage in ways other than marriage. I do advocate for civil unions (and any other way of obtaining rights other than marriage) Look at my first point. Tax dollars go towards benefits for marriages/domestic partnerships/civil unions. If gay individuals benefits are in the name of marriage, it is unfair to people who believe being gay is immoral because their tax dollars are going towards something they believe is wrong. Since homosexuals can still get such rights outside of marriage, not allowing them to marry cannot be considered discrimination.Rights and CelebrationsI explained above that gay individuals can enjoy rights through domestic partnerships/civil unions. As for celebrations, it is not uncommon for homosexuals to celebrate their domestic partnerships or civil unions just as heterosexuals celebrate marriage. Homosexuals are not being deprived of such events.

Gay marriage should be legalized. hello there, I want to talk about the debate we are having. Gay marriage legalization, is a topic, and issue that is being questioned at the moment, all around the world. Countries are unsure of whether to legalize, same sex marriage. I have collected a couple of strong arguments, that are for the legalization of same-sex marriage. I'd like to begin with identifying gay people. Gay people, are no different than me or you, they have the same rights as you, all around the world, whether the country permits their marriage. It is a human right to have their freedom to love, whether that be a man or a woman. Being gay is not a choice, people believe that it is, but people are born gay, they don't become gay later in life. I believe that gay people should have the right to express their feelings to others without being judged. This meaning, that even when people come out to others, they shouldn't feel scared for their life. Statistics show that 9 out of 10 school kids are bullied, beaten and bashed because they are gay. They take their lives because they feel unaccepted in our society. I don"t think people should die for feeling what they fee, it is as much of their right to love who they love, as it is for the straight population, to love who they love. Homosexual behavior is an act of freedom of choice, people should learn to understand and respect other people"s feelings for each other. Secondly, religious beliefs say that it is offending to the bible, but no where it the bible does it say to go against gay marriage. Gay marriage should be legal worldwide because they are people and they should have the right to love. People shouldn't be judged or frowned upon for having feelings they can't control. Who are we to say that someone can't be married to the same sex, we are not God or anyone special to judge others so we can't tell people how to live their lifestyle. Everyone deserves to be happy and if being gay is something that makes someone feel accepted in this crazy society, then everyone should let them. People should be allowed same rights as men and women.

Gay Marriage should be legal What is most popular is not always right What is right is not always popular If so, all of those 28 states are breaking the federal law If the law says it is illegal to love another person, that is no law I wish to be under We are denying a group of people basic civil rights Intolerance is the only reason for apposing gay marriage Marriage is the bonding of two people who love each other, gay or straight. We shall not deny basic freedoms and we should not discriminate against anyone That is why gay marriage should be legal

Gay marriage should be legalized I will start by stating my argument:Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples. Who has the right to stop two people from devoting their complete love for each other? And why? Gay marriage should be protected by the Constitution's obligations to liberty and equality. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is to label them as inferior and unworthy of our basic rights. Why is it not acceptable to discriminate against a persons race, but it is against their sexual orientation? Homosexual marriage rights will have no impairing effects on that of heterosexual couples. To claim that this legalization will hinder the sanctity of marriage is a ludicrous claim seeing as the divorce rate is already between 40% and 50%. To claim that marriage is a religious institution is ridiculous. Marriage was originally a religious institution in which daughters were sold for calfs. Should we revert back to this? It is after all the original form of marriage! Imposing your beliefs on them is annoying and pointless. If you don't agree with homosexuality, then don't be a homosexual. There is no need to impose your beliefs upon others and deny them happiness. Refusing someone their rights based upon their sexual orientation is wrong and ignorant. They are just as much of people as the rest, and they deserve their very basic intrinsic likes as everyone else also does. (The pursuit of happiness is one of those rights, by the way. ) Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to hearing your opening statement.