Gay marriage should be legal.

Simply put, it should be legal. I can find no compelling argument as to why it shouldn't be legal. So, I will ramble a bit. This must get to 100 words. I like words. Words are wordsy. Words, words, words. Sentences too. Also, two. Sentences are collections of words put together, often beginning with a capital letter and ending with a punctuation mark.

I negate: Gay marriage should be legal.

[Contentions]

Contention I: "Slippery Slope" Argument

By allowing gay marriage and not defining marriage between a man and a women, then the law is open to all types of other definitions. Gay Rights Activists claim that marriage should be based on nothing more then love. If this was true, why isn't polygamy allowed? Why isn't incestuous/family marriages allowed? It's all based on love right? By allowing gay marriage, the state is being opened to all sorts of other acts that are seen as wrong in society. Marriage cannot be based solely on love. This leads to my next point.

Contention II: Natural Law

The question now arises how should marriage be defined and why. Marriage should not be defined based on love only (As proven in my above point). Therefore, for the sake of this debate I will explain natural law. Natural law dictates that society should not condone an action that violates the natural law. Marriage should be the contract between 2 people admitting themselves in the natural process of sex. The reason for a married couple is to be the basis for child making, and thus a natural family. Gay marriage violates the natural law because 2 men cannot naturally make children, that goes for 2 women as well. Marriage should be the sacred bond for the fulfillment of this natural law of sex and family.

[Affirmative Burden]

My opponent has claimed in his opening round that the reason he thinks gay marriage should be legal is because there are no arguments that say it shouldn't. As a reminder, my opponent is the one with the burden of proof for this round. He must submit an argument/contention affirming the resolution. If not, then you must vote Con.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Both of these contentions will be addressed.

-Contention I: "Slippery Slope" Argument

This is invalid because:

1. There is no "slope" or "floodgate". Each step in the proverbial slope must be analyzed, critiqued, and evaluated on its own merits. To make gay marriage legal would be just that: making only gay marriage legal. This does not mean that polygamous marriages and incestuous marriages would instantly be made legal once gay marriages were. We can only determine whether it is fundamentally unfair to bar an entire class of citizens from a privilege afforded to the rest of us.
2. One can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state. None of these arguments can be made against gay marriage.

-Contention II: Natural Law

This is invalid because:

1. Gay animals are found in nature.
2. If the reason for marriage is to produce a child, we should not let elderly people or people who are unable to have children marry. The fact that both can marry proves that marriage is not for the sole purpose of producing children.
3. There is no requirement that two people who marry have sex.

1. There is no "slope" or "floodgate". Each step in the proverbial slope must be analyzed, critiqued, and evaluated on its own merits. To make gay marriage legal would be just that: making only gay marriage legal. This does not mean that polygamous marriages and incestuous marriages would instantly be made legal once gay marriages were. We can only determine whether it is fundamentally unfair to bar an entire class of citizens from a privilege afforded to the rest of us.

My Response: Making only gay marriage legal would open up a door to multiple other parties. I never said that polygamous and incestuous marriages would be made legal, I am saying that by making gay marriage legal you are violating there rights as well because according to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more. If that is the underlying premise, then any other person should marry whom they love. This is flawed. Thus a definition of marriage must be heterosexual.

"2. One can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state. None of these arguments can be made against gay marriage."

My Response: Turn this argument against my opponent. Essentially, then, my opponent is basing marriage off more then love, which inherently collapses his idea that gay marriage should be legal. He is now basing a marriage off of economics, not just love. This attacks the very premise of his argument.

"1. Gay animals are found in nature."

My Response: The term gay animal is intrinsically flawed. An animal is not "gay." An animal could possibly be pan-sexual. Pan sexual is the sexual tendency towards sex itself rather then the agent helping. Furthermore, I am arguing against gay marriage, not homosexuality itself. When the natural law and marriage is intertwined, then the result is a family. Gay marriage undermines this natural order of family making.

"2. If the reason for marriage is to produce a child, we should not let elderly people or people who are unable to have children marry. The fact that both can marry proves that marriage is not for the sole purpose of producing children."

My Response: Yes, but the old people had the ability to make children. Yes, they may not be able to anymore. This, is irrelevant because the possibility and the natural organs are all there. That doesn't violate the natural law. Gay marriage violates the natural law because 2 men/women are purposely getting married when it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children. The opposite sex is necessary for this.

"3. There is no requirement that two people who marry have sex."

My Response: I never said they had too. The possibility is there. In gay marriage, there is no possibility for it is impossible with two people of the same sex. That's where the difference lies.

[Affirmative Burden]

My Opponent has yet to make a case fulfilling the affirmative burden. For this reason an affirmation is impossible regardless of my arguments or not. If my opponent doesn't fulfill this, then you must negate.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

My opponent's arguments will be addressed below.

Paragraph 1: "Making only gay marriage legal would open up a door to multiple other parties. I never said that polygamous and incestuous marriages would be made legal, I am saying that by making gay marriage legal you are violating there rights as well because according to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more. If that is the underlying premise, then any other person should marry whom they love. This is flawed. Thus a definition of marriage must be heterosexual."

1. How do you know that it will open up a door to other parties? Even assuming that it did, how would heterosexual marriage also not open up a door to other parties? And even THEN, like I said originally, each group looking for marriage rights must be considered on their own merits. It isn't as if once gay marriage is legalized, every other kind of marriage that the imagination can think of will also be made legal instantly.

2. My opponent said "According to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more". I never said that or even implied that, so this is an assumption on his part, making the rest of this paragraph based on an assumption.

Paragraph 2: "Turn this argument against my opponent. Essentially, then, my opponent is basing marriage off more then love, which inherently collapses his idea that gay marriage should be legal. He is now basing a marriage off of economics, not just love. This attacks the very premise of his argument."

1. My opponent was the one who brought up polygamous marriages (" .. If this was true, why isn't polygamy allowed? .. "), so I listed some reasons against it that cannot be used against gay marriage in response to that sentence. This was to illustrate how gay and polygamous marriage are different.

2. Again, my opponent makes an assumption that I said that marriage should be based on love and nothing more. Even if I had said that, my argument differentiating the merits of gay marriage and polygamous marriage does not collapse or discredit my position that gay marriage should be legal, and certainly not inherently.

3. I also did not base the idea of marriage "off of" economics. I simply listed reasons that people have used to be opposed to polygamous marriage that cannot also be used to be opposed to gay marriage. I also did not claim it was MY position; rather, I said that "One can plausibly argue that..". However, my original claim still stands: Gay marriage must be evaluated and considered on its own merits, not on the merits of a seemingly endless variety of paranoid possibilities.

Paragraph 3: "The term gay animal is intrinsically flawed. An animal is not "gay." An animal could possibly be pan-sexual. Pan sexual is the sexual tendency towards sex itself rather then the agent helping. Furthermore, I am arguing against gay marriage, not homosexuality itself. When the natural law and marriage is intertwined, then the result is a family. Gay marriage undermines this natural order of family making. "

1. My opponent claims that animals are not gay and that the term itself is intrinsically flawed. A couple of sources that I will provide to argue his claim are the August 2008 issue of Scientific American Mind ( "..Animal homosexuality has been documented in as many as 1,500 species, including insects.." ), which reports on a study spearheaded by University of Oslo zoologist Petter Bockman. Another source is "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D. ( "..In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality.." ).

2. I understand that my opponent is arguing that animals who engage in homosexual activities are probably pan-sexual - the desire to have sex regardless of the partner's gender. While it is true that not every sexual act has a reproductive function, some scientists have also proposed that being gay may serve its own evolutionary purpose - it could be a way to strengthen bonds. As proposed by biologist Marlene Zuk, gay individuals could contribute to the gene pool of their community by nurturing their relatives' young without diverting resources by having their own offspring. Regardless of the explicit reason, the fact still exists that homosexual animals exist in nature.

3. My opponent says he is only arguing against gay marriage and not homosexuality. However, the two are obviously closely related. I will clarify my position about why gay marriage SHOULD be legal at the end of this response.

Paragraph 4: "Yes, but the old people had the ability to make children. Yes, they may not be able to anymore. This, is irrelevant because the possibility and the natural organs are all there. That doesn't violate the natural law. Gay marriage violates the natural law because 2 men/women are purposely getting married when it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children. The opposite sex is necessary for this."

1. My opponent said that older people should still be able to marry because organs necessary for reproduction exist. He solidifies his position by saying "it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children". This implies that reproduction ability should be a prerequisite for marriage, which still means that straight people who are medically unable to have children (perhaps they're missing an organ - maybe it had to be removed or due to a defect?) should not be allowed to marry, under this philosophy.

2. Regarding natural law in relation to homosexuality and ultimately gay marriage, natural law is premised on an observation of nature and homosexuality clearly exists within both human and animal nature.

Paragraph 5: "I never said they had too. The possibility is there. In gay marriage, there is no possibility for it is impossible with two people of the same sex. That's where the difference lies."

1. If my opponent claims that two married people do not have to have sex - only the possibility to have sex has to exist, I will assume that my opponent is again trying to say that straight people can reproduce while gay people cannot through sex. This weak argument was disputed above.

Affirmative Burden: "My Opponent has yet to make a case fulfilling the affirmative burden. For this reason an affirmation is impossible regardless of my arguments or not. If my opponent doesn't fulfill this, then you must negate. "

It is sad that I could still be "forced to negate" if I don't clearly state my position as to why gay marriage should be legal, regardless of the fact that I've argued all of your contentions. Please, let me be more clear.

Gay marriage should be legal because gay people should be allowed to marry as long as straight people are allowed to marry. I believe that they should be afforded this same right because the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution states: "No state shall .. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Not offering equal protection to gay people under marriage laws is unconstitutional.

Since there are many arguments against gay marriage which, as we have seen from above, are really about homosexuality at their core, it is important to argue the merits of those as well. This is a complicated and controversial issue and all sides need to be carefully considered.

"How do you know that it will open up a door to other parties? Even assuming that it did, how would heterosexual marriage also not open up a door to other parties? And even THEN, like I said originally, each group looking for marriage rights must be considered on their own merits. It isn't as if once gay marriage is legalized, every other kind of marriage that the imagination can think of will also be made legal instantly."

My Response: The door has already started to open. E.g. In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas. You then ask, wouldn't heterosexual marriage do the same thing? No. Why? Because heterosexual marriage is already seen as the traditional value of marriage. Anything that steps out of this, like gay marriage, would open up the door to non-traditional views of marriage. Furthermore you claim that it won't lead to the automatic legalization. This is true. However you fail to see the big picture. Once gay marriage is established and a non-traditional view of marriage is adopted other people who are polygamists, etc, would say that their owns rights are being violated. Look at above example.

"My opponent said "According to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more". I never said that or even implied that, so this is an assumption on his part, making the rest of this paragraph based on an assumption."

My Response: First off, you never cited a case that defends homosexual marriage. Secondly, you claim that family making isn't the main reason. If that isn't? Then what is? This leads to my conclusion that gay marriage is upheld by only love.

"My opponent was the one who brought up polygamous marriages (" .. If this was true, why isn't polygamy allowed? .. "), so I listed some reasons against it that cannot be used against gay marriage in response to that sentence. This was to illustrate how gay and polygamous marriage are different."

My Response: My opponent didn't understand my attack. If economics is the reason for marriage then heterosexual marriage should be the sole one. By claiming economics he devalues his own stance.

"My opponent claims that animals are not gay and that the term itself is intrinsically flawed. A couple of sources that I will provide to argue his claim are the August 2008 issue of Scientific American Mind ( "..Animal homosexuality has been documented in as many as 1,500 species, including insects.." ), which reports on a study spearheaded by University of Oslo zoologist Petter Bockman. Another source is "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D. ( "..In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality.." )."

My Response: What I am saying is that animals aren't gay for the fact that it doesn't wish to "love" their gay partner. They look to indulge in mere sex. That's what makes us different then animals (Most of the time). Saying that animals are gay cannot be linked to human homosexuality. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear. Extend this for his responses about homosexuality and animals.

"My opponent says he is only arguing against gay marriage and not homosexuality. However, the two are obviously closely related. I will clarify my position about why gay marriage SHOULD be legal at the end of this response."

My Response: I am not saying that gays are evil people. I am saying that they shouldn't not have the right to marry. Some friends of mine are gay, I don't hate the. I just feel for consequentialist reasons that gay marriage should not be legal.

[Affirmative Burden]

My opponent finally says a case, however I believe too late in the round. However, that's for the voters to decide. I don;t think he has given me adequate time to respond. But still, I will.

His case:

14th Amendment: Equal Protection Clause

This is a good point, however has a flaw to it. the Power of Marriage was given to the states rather then the Federal Government. (10th Article) Furthermore, this amendment only applies to laws under federal statue. My opponent will likely claim the Virgina Court Decision. In this case the court did go in favor of love, or w/e her name was. Some people take this as a point that marriage is federal. This is not the case at all. Nowhere in the court decision did it make marriage a federal "umbrella". Therefore, you can drop my opponents argument.