Gay marriage should be illegal
[Arguing that same-sex couples can have equal rights without use of the word "marriage" is not allowed, since that's entirely semantic, and the resolution concerns the institution of gay marriage itself, not what we call it.]
Konbanwa! Today, we will not only be arguing the morality of gay marriage. We will be arguing many key facts that gay marriage would put on this country.
Case 1: Gay Marriage Will Cost The Government Money
You may be perplexed by this statement at first. However, let me elaborate. Married couples get many exemptions from taxes and benefits by being married. In this argument, we will briefly go over said exemptions and benefits enjoyed by married couples.
In a normal situation, an estate tax will be deducted when a loved one gives a property to whoever they choose. An estate tax would apply to single men and women across the country. However, married couples have what is called an "estate tax marital deduction". With said deductions, the government could lose millions of dollars of potential profit. As the article explains:
"Estate taxes are a concern for all filers, but the good news is that the Internal Revenue Code exempts millions of dollars of assets from this tax. The better news for married couples is that they don't have to worry about limits. You can leave an estate worth any amount to your spouse and, thanks to what is known as the estate tax marital deduction, there are no federal estate taxes to pay." (1)
Although the spouse isn't tax free, this code defers many oppurtunities for potential taxation.
Home Sales Tax:
A home sales tax is a taxation that occurs when an individual decides they would like to sell their property. Married couples can get a tax break twice the size of their single counterparts. A married couple can receieve a $500,000 tax break when a singe individual can only get a $250,000 tax break. This will cost the government money. (1)
This taxation can be a double edged sword. If the people in the marriage make around the same, they will receieve a tax penalty. If the people in the marriage make significantly less or more than their partner, they receieve a tax bonus. As quoted by the article:
"Some couples still could face a bit of marriage penalty. This occurs when their combined earnings push them into the four higher brackets (25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, and 35 percent), where the income amounts are not strictly doubled.
And some couples actually enjoy a marriage bonus. This is often the case when there is a large difference between a husband's and wife's incomes." (1)
Case 2: Marriage Isn't A Right
Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.
Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.
Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. The law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.
Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.
So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.
Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?
If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?
Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.
Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.
It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.
Race doesn't matter. Gender does.
The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination."
"Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father.
Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biological children and for men and women to marry before having children. The concern is not so much that a handful of gay or lesbian couples would be raising children but that it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when it has redefined marriage to make fathers optional.
In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that marriage is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds.
However, if marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive (as opposed to “open”). Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands.
In other words, if sexual complementarity is optional for marriage, then almost every other norm that sets marriage apart is optional.
Redefining marriage marginalizes those with traditional views and leads to the erosion of religious liberty. The law and culture will seek to eradicate such views through economic, social, and legal pressure. If marriage is redefined, believing what virtually every human society once believed about marriage—that it is a union of a man and woman ordered to procreation and family life—would be seen increasingly as a malicious prejudice to be driven to the margins of culture. The consequences for religious believers are becoming apparent.
For example, after Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes." (5)
Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Because I agree with him, I negate.
I. Harm principle
The debate has to establish a framework that shows at what times the government can properly exercise its authority without embracing some form of authoritarianism. The government's own authority is determined by its purpose. There are multiple theories that try to find what gives the government legitimacy and authority, and they all have agreed that a government lacks legitimacy if it suppresses individual liberties without reasoning. According to John Locke, "the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others."  But Locke did not mean people can do *anything.* He agreed that there had to be some limit on liberty.  But what decides those limits? John Stuart Mill found a solution: he argued that a person could do anything as long as it doesn't cause harm to non-consensual others. He distinguished between "other-regarding acts" and "self-regarding acts," the former being an act that affected non-consensual others and the latter being one that was a decision of oneself.
Why should we buy the harm principle? First, the government's legitimacy is entirely decided by the harm principle. The government can't be justified at all, except by the sole purpose of helping its people. A government exists to maximize pleasure and minimize pain; its laws are made to ensure that people are happy. If a government doesn't follow the harm principle -- and exists for some other purpose -- it lacks any legitimacy; therefore, the alternative is absolute liberty and anarchy. Second, the harm principle is inherently utilitarian, since it hinges on minimizing harm and maximizing benefit. The government legislates on utilitarian purposes. Pro's own argument is entirely based on cost-benefit analysis. Utilitarian judgements are based on the harm principle.
The harm principle has to be applied to the resolution. The link to the resolution is pretty simple. I argue that gay marriage doesn't harm anyone, so there is no rational basis to ban it. Of course, Pro disagrees, and holds that gay marriage *does* pose harm (e.g. economic harm). So I'm using this argument as a sort of resolutional analysis: if Pro doesn't convincingly show that gay marriage causes harm, presume Con because of the harm principle.
The government has to make logically justified decisions in cost-benefit analysis. As such, its judgement of people has to be based on the choices they make, and *not* based on their characteristics. Basing government decisions on characteristics is absurd. For instance, it is intellectually dishonest and absurd for the government to favor blue-eyed people alone, or only men. The reason patriarchy and racism are rejected are that it is intellectually dishonest and non-utilitarian, and is inherently unjust. The government making unjust decisions is unacceptable. Reject the resolution because arbitrarily basing policy on a person's sexual orientation legitimizes further discrimination. Yep, et al. explain, "Heteronormativity, as the invisible center and the presumed bedrock of society, is the quintessential force creating, sustaining, and perpetuating the erasure, marginalization, disempowerment, and oppression of sexual others."  That's a little difficult to understand, so let me explain: the idea that heterosexuality is the norm sexual orientation encourages gender roles, that lead to marginalization and oppression of women, transgendered people, and homosexuals.
Making gay marriage illegal is an inherent acknowledgement of this discrimination. It would be a symbolic gesture accepting the idea that homosexual love is not equal and would reject it. This rejection causes psychological harm. A study by Wight, et al. shows that same-sex couples that are married have significantly less psychological harm than those that aren't and attributes the cause to the recognition of them as an equal part of society.  Not recognizing same-sex marriage promotes stigmatization and expresses the idea that same-sex couples are fundamentally different. As such, it promotes people treating them with discrimination, and further promotes heteronormativity. All recognizing heteronormativity does is encouraging gender roles, since by differentiating heterosexual marriage, it *categorizes* male and female. Gender roles have led to oppression in many circumstances. The government acknowledging heteronormativity is harmful.
R1) Economic harms
a) Economic benefits outweigh
The recognition of gay marriages actually brings more economic benefit than harm. 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.  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.  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.  Pro also doesn't provide a clear impact, since he doesn't provide the *amount* of money lost from gay marriage, so I have nothing to weigh against. Discount Pro's impacts against mine for that reason as well.
b) Arbitrary rejection of same-sex marriage
Pro's argument is that the more marriages that the government allows, the more revenue it loses. I've already shown above that this is objectively false. But even if it were true, Pro is *arbitrarily* rejecting same-sex marriages alone. Note that, in the status quo, both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are legal. Pro's advocacy is to ban same-sex marriage. But there's a failure of the link: why is it same-sex marriage that has to be banned and not opposite-sex marriage? If opposite-sex marriage is to be banned, it will, by Pro's logic, generate more revenue (this is given that (a) is wrong; if (a) is right, discard Pro's argument anyway).
I also have an impact turn here. By Pro's logic, better for the economy would be to privatize all marriage and distance government from marriage affairs. If this is the case, gay marriage would not be illegal. Note that "illegal" is different from abolition of an institution. If the resolution was "gay marriage should be abolished," Pro would win, but the resolution states "gay marriage should be illegal." So if the contention is turned into privatization, vote Con. Note that I am *not* advocating for privatization: it is not an advocacy of mine. I am merely saying that by Pro's logic, privatization is the best state of affairs, so Pro is arguing against his position.
R2) Marriage is not a right
This is a defense; it doesn't provide offensive reason to vote Pro. I never argued that marriage is a "right," only that if it exists, it has to apply to everyone. Furthermore, if marriage is to exist, the government should not impose restrictions based on a persons characteristics -- that is discrimination. But Pro preempts my racism point here by arguing "race doesn't matter, but gender does matter." That is a bare assertion. Why does a person's gender identity matter when the government legislates? How is that relevant to same-sex marriage?
a) Pro doesn't establish a clear moral framework. He doesn't establish what is "moral" or what is "immoral," and whether the government is a moral actor rather than an amoral one. As seen in my harm principle framework, the government should legislate on cost-benefit analysis and base itself on the practical concerns of society.
b) Same-sex parents are as good as opposite-sex parents. Pro doesn't prove that a male parent is important as well as a female parent. It is a demonstrated fact that same-sex parents are as good as opposite-sex parents, and the scientific conensus lies with that idea. [8, 9, 10]
c) The right to freedom of religion is not absolute. There are multiple exceptions to the freedom of religion. For instance, people are banned from baking cakes for only marriages of a certain race, or from making such racist decisions on the basis of religion (which was one of the major justifications for racism). The freedom of religion can be infringed to prevent discrimination and ensure basic equality within society. Furthermore, this debate is *not* about whether anti-discrimination laws should be abolished; it is whether gay marriage should be legal. Thus, this is also irrelevant.
d) Whether people are faithful to their spouses or not is not significant to making same-sex marriage illegal. As long as the knowledge and approval of the partner exists, there isn't going to be any harm to, for instance, the children or the couple. Apply the harm principle here. Furthermore, their open relationships has little to do with them being homosexual; this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
A vote for Pro is a vote for sexism and oppression. Voters, you don't want them in your world.
 Google ("define gay marriage")
From Con's own argument:
" But what decides those limits? John Stuart Mill found a solution: he argued that a person could do anything as long as it doesn't cause harm to non-consensual others. He distinguished between "other-regarding acts" and "self-regarding acts," the former being an act that affected non-consensual others and the latter being one that was a decision of oneself. "
From my argument:
"Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes."
If anything, Con is strengthening my point made in the last argument. The government legalizing gay marriage and forcing people to go along with it and betray their morals is ridiculous. This hurts "non-consensual others" who did not want gay marriage to be legalized.
If this is Con's principals, I have already won this debate.
Con tries to assert that gay marriage would minimize pain and maximize happiness. However, he neglets that my economic case does indeed apply to hapiness. We all know that if the government is in debt, moral in the country will be low. The more in debt the country, the less happy the people. Therefore, lowering our debt would make the people of a country happy. I would like to assert that the purpose of government isn't always to make the people happy. The purpose of government is to make the country good. The purpose of government is to take action to ensure that the country will be around to see another day. My first argument is the only argument based on cost-benefit analysis.
I would like to assert that cost is an important factor in determining whether or not action should take place.
This standard could apply to common decisions in everyday life. For instance, no matter how happy it would make me to have an anime box set of Black Bullet along with a Rentaro figure, I simply don't have the money to make my dream a reality. Thus, cost plays a role in determining whether or not I should get something that would make me happy.
While my opponent is focusing on making everyone happy, which is impossible, I am focused on the benefit of the country as a whole. No matter what my opponent does, nothing he does will make every single person happy. Gay marriage being legal makes me unhappy. Therefore, Con's measures to appease the people of a country are only beneficial to one side; while it neglects the other. Therefore, Con is making one side happy; while he's making the othesr side unhappy. If happiness is what he stands for, he is commiting a logical fallacy.
From Con's argument:
"I argue that gay marriage doesn't harm anyone"
Thus, he acknowledges that gay marriage does in fact harm some people. Therefore, he entire stance on making the country happier is a lost cause. There is no exact way to find the measure of happiness in such a broad area such as a country. Therefore, Con's arguments are shaky.
"So I'm using this argument as a sort of resolutional analysis: if Pro doesn't convincingly show that gay marriage causes harm, presume Con because of the harm principle. "
Con admits that Gay Marriage causes harm in his earlier quote. Therefore, I have won the debate.
Rebuttals to Discrimination.
There are three definitions to the word, "discrimination".
": the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
"OurR33;currentR33;abhorrenceR33;ofR33;discrimination,R33;whichR33;inR33;manyR33;areasR33;isR33;validR33; andR33;perfectlyR33;justified,R33;reliesR33;onR33;twoR33;featuresR33;ofR33;behaviour:R33;first,R33;thatR33;someoneR33;isR33; treatedR33;differentlyR33;toR33;someoneR33;else;R33;butR33;secondly,R33;thatR33;thisR33;differentR33;treatmentR33;isR33; providedR33;forR33;anR33;irrelevantR33;reason. 2.R33;HenceR33;isR33;notR33;enoughR33;toR33;claimR33;thatR33;thereR33;isR33;discrimination,R33;simplyR33;toR33;pointR33; toR33;differentialR33;treatment.R33;OneR33;mustR33;alsoR33;beR33;ableR33;toR33;argueR33;thatR33;theR33;reasonR33;forR33;thisR33; treatmentR33; isR33; notR33; aR33; goodR33; reasonR08;R33; thatR33; itR33; isR33; irrelevant.R33; IfR33; IR33; denyR33; someoneR33; aR33; jobR33; becauseR33;ofR33;theirR33;race,R33;inR33;almostR33;everyR33;conceivableR33;circumstancesR33;thatR33;willR33;beR33;anR33; irrelevantR33;reason,R33;becauseR33;theirR33;raceR33;willR33;notR33;impactR33;onR33;theirR33;abilityR33;toR33;doR33;theR33;job.R33; (ThereR33; areR33; ofR33; courseR33; someR33; limitedR33; circumstancesR33; whereR33; thisR33; isR33; notR33; trueR08; employmentR33;ofR33;anR33;actorR33;toR33;playR33;someoneR33;inR33;aR33;film,R33;provisionR33;ofR33;supportR33;servicesR33; toR33; peopleR33; whoR33; willR33; beR33; suspiciousR33; ofR33; thoseR33; fromR33; aR33;majorityR33; racialR33; group,R33; etc.R33; InR33; thoseR33;casesR33;thereR33;willR33;beR33;differentialR33;treatment,R33;butR33;sinceR33;itR33;hasR33;aR33;goodR33;reason,R33;itR33; isR33;notR33;“discrimination”.)"
I will get back to this later in my rebuttals.
I would like to ask how heteronormativity help reenforce gender roles; and how that's bad.
Homosexual love is not equal. I have addressed that with my cheating statistics and more which Con has simply marked off as irrelevant and not important. However, it proves that homosexual love is not equal to heterosexual love.
"I estimate that same-sex marriage legalization would increase federal income tax revenues somewhere between $20 million and $40 million. "
From Source 5 of Con's argument.
I would like to disqualify this man as an expert. He does not have a basic understanding of taxation and economics. I will provide numbers now.
"The Atlantic authors claim that due to laws favoring married couples, a single peson earning $40,000 a year pays $6,181 in taxes on that income, while a married individual with the same income pays only $5,162—a savings of more than $1,000 annually."
"Using averages from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a single person in his 20s spends about $9,964 on housing where a married couple the same age averages $8,844. Over 60 years this can add up to over $67,200 in savings for a married couple."
"The same pattern emerges for expenditures on healthcare. Singles spend about $570 per year on healthcare while couples average about $963, which is only $482 per person—far less than their single peers, because of the reduced costs of coverage." (3)
These studies clearly show the amount of potential money the government could earn by keeping homosexuals unmarried. The economist in his source does not understand basic taxation of married couples as I have shown here. Therefore, I urge voters to disqualify his work.
The rest of his sources only address the imediate money that will come for it. My arguments states the longterm cost it will have. With these numbers, including the numbers I gave with the other taxes which Con says I didn't, you can clearly see how all the money the government gets will eventually be used up by the cost which will then lead the country into more debt.
Rebuttal to Right:
Con makes the assumption that if it exists, it must apply to anyone. The logic is not good. With that logic, certain benefits given to people who are not criminals should be given to people who are criminals. He is addressing that sexuality is a choice. I will cover this later.
Rebuttal to Morality:
A). It is clear that I do unless Con did not read my arguments.
B). It is interesting you say that, I have studies that say the opposite. (4) (5) and fallacies of pro-gay studies. (6)
C). Weren't you saying hapiness of the people mattered? If they don't want to bake a cake, why should they have to? What religion doesn't allow their followers to deny a race a cake and what law forces them to make that cake? Also, why is said law bad? Under your argument, this would make the person unhappy, which isn't good.
D). When you assert homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love and there is no basis for discrimination, that is pretty important. You even ignore the quote I gave explaining how it isn't a point of being equal anymore.
Discrimination of Homosexuality and Choices:
I am running out of characters so I'll try to keep it short. Homosexuality is a choice. (7) (8) (9)
Thus, people are held accountable for their actions. If one chooses to be homosexual, they will face discrimination. As I mentioned earlier, discrimination can also mean the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not. I have proven through my arguments that being homosexual is inferior to being heterosexual through the infidelity statistics, statistics of sexual activity and STDs (should be in my sources. If it isn't let me know and I'll get it for you.), and my statistics on gay parenting. My other sources prove homosexuality is a choice. Thus, people shame bad choices. You assume that higher mental disorders are because homosexuality is not accepted by some people. Some people do not accept homosexuality and rightfully so. If one needs validation from other people, it proves they are insecure about their positon. For instance, I've seen people who were bullied for liking anime. Did they stop watching anime or got insecure? Did they develop a mental condition? No. They simply carried on with their day and didn't care what they had to say. You also ignore bulling to heterosexuals for other reasons besides their sexuality; which is a problem of its own. You also blindly assume people are bullied just because they are homosexual. If someone would bully me for being heterosexual, I would laugh. This is because I believe heterosexuality is right.
Character limit. I wish I could write more. I can only put in around 50% effort because of this. It bugs me.
== Rebuttal ==
R1) Harm principle
A single religion cannot enforce its beliefs on non-consensual others either. Here, the religious believers are also causing harm, and the government is infringing on a liberty for appeasement. Appeasement isn't sufficient to constitute as "harm" for the government to ban something. Furthermore, this debate is *not* about whether schools should teach children about gay marriage -- I could even disagree with the court and still affirm the resolution. This debate is about the legality of gay marriage alone, and nothing else. A gay couple marrying doesn't affect an individual's beliefs at all. Just because a person doesn't like it does not mean it is actually harmful to that person. As long as it doesn't affect that person, vote Con. Furthermore, I'm not necessarily arguing this as hardcore offense -- I'm merely asserting that the default position in this debate is to support my side.
I also fully concede that budgets are important and constitute a violation of pleasure; so the point of contention will be entirely topical to that argument.
Pro's argument formatting is messed up, but I'll still take it from Pro's source. Pro's source simply says this: discrimination is only considered "discrimination" if there's no rational basis for the differential treatment, and that denying gay marriage has a rational basis for the denial. The former proposition is one I agree with, and one I outlined in my argument already. The second part, though, is typical con-gay marriage nonsense. There is absolutely no rational basis for denying gay marriage. The economic argument, for instance, is fully impact turned, because it suggests that marriage privatization is the best way to go, which would mean allowing gay marriage; it also seems to irrationally differentiate between gay marriage and opposite-sex marriage, failing to justify why the former should be banned but not the latter (when there are more opposite-sex marriages). There's no unique benefit to banning gay marriage. The benefits Pro presents are addressed below. The source also says something about "redefining marriage," which isn't a clear harm.
Pro asks how acknowledging heteronormativity enforces gender roles. Banning gay marriage is equal to saying the only true marriage is one with both a man and a woman, which is creating a social difference between them. This categorization is essentially the root of gender roles and sexism. There isn't any unique benefit to this, but all it does is make a social difference between men and women, thus treating them differently. Treating them differently and classifying them based on that (when the only differences are biological, which is no rational basis to differentiate) is essentially what sexism is. Furthermore, extend that this categorization causes psychological harm. Psychological damage is the strongest impact in this debate, because we're judging from a utilitarian standard, in which psychological damage includes things like clinical depression. Depression is among the worst forms of suffering, and being denied marriage can cause that. It has been demonstrated that allowing gay marriage reduces depression and similar psychological issues. 
Pro then argues that "homosexual love is not equal," because of greater rates of unfaithfulness -- specifically, via open relationships, by Pro's own R1 source. Open relationships means both partners accept it. Since Pro accepts my utilitarian framework, it means there is no pain and only pleasure caused by this. Which means open relationships don't render homosexual relationships "unequal." Pro fails to demonstrate how this forms a rational basis for inequality.
R3) Economic harms
(1) Pro *drops* that this is a non-unique benefit. Extend that Pro doesn't explain how same-sex marriage should be banned because of this, rather than opposite-sex marriage or generally marriage privatization. Also extend that Pro's own logic would mean marriage privatization is the best course, under which gay marriage would be legal. This turn dooms Pro's argument.
(2) I accept that there would be some impact on tax money. But that would be *outweighed* by the other benefits. Pro addresses Stevenson by highlighting some tax exemptions for gay couples. But that doesn't show poor calculations by Stevenson, because the study *also* weighs marriage penalties. There are marriage bonuses and marriage penalties. Pro highlights some of the bonuses, and his source only says they *exist.* It doesn't talk about whether marriage penalties outweigh them. Stevenson's study actually *addresses* marriage bonuses and says marriage penalties *outweigh* them totally. [Note: I would like to correct my last round; I accidentally typed $20 to $40 "billion," when it should be "million."]
(3) Pro claims the other benefits are all "short term ones." He is wrong. The business benefit is, according to the studies, a *long term* benefit, since the marriage business will gain a lot of money, create more jobs, and allow more tax payment to the government. Revenue will significantly increase anyway. Also extend the argument from safety net programs: marriage will make people relatively financially secure (due to a working spouse, for instance) and that will mean less government spending on welfare and other safety net programs.
R4) Right to marriage
(1) Extend that this is a defense, not an offense. It doesn't provide a positive reason to vote Pro. Pro drops this point entirely.
(2) I'm not saying it "should apply to everyone." I'm saying if there's a benefit being provided to a certain group of people while being denied to another group of people with no rational basis to it, *then* it should be extended to the latter group as well. There's no question that marriage is a benefit. It allows for greater psychological well-being.  It also allows people to balance work between each other, thus creating more financial security. If both people in a couple earn an income each, then there naturally would be a greater income. Marriage poses a significant benefit, and it is illogical to deny that benefit to same-sex couples, especially when -- with regards to their resolving issues between each other better than opposite-sex couples, and similar things -- they often reap the benefits of marriage *better* than opposite-sex couples. 
(1) Pro is confusing the meaning of claiming something is immoral and establishing a moral framework. All Pro's argument did, from R1, is that it claimed gay marriage is immoral because of a certain set of reasons. It doesn't establish *why* those reasons are immoral. For example, Pro claims same-sex couples are often more unfaithful, but doesn't explain how it is *immoral* for them to be unfaithful. Also extend that Pro doesn't prove that the government should legislate based on what is moral as opposed to what is desirable. The United States currently rejects legislation based solely on moral concerns. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that it isn't just going to make something law based on moral concerns -- it has to pass through *some* form of benefit/harm review.
(2) Pro's first source (source 4) regarding this is *not* a study, so it does not represent the research here. Pro says he has "studies that show this," but the first link he sources isn't even a study. Pro's source 5 doesn't even deal with gay marriage. There are only four mentions of the word "parenting," and they are with regards to parenting by a single parent. They have nothing to do with same-sex parents. Pro is merely source-mining. Source 6 argues that the samples made by the majority of studies are wrong -- but the article doesn't mention the studies I cited. The article also cites a study by the NFSS. That study is a bad one. The NFSS study has multiple problems. It examines children who witnessed their parents having a same-sex relationship, but it doesn't at all consider the *duration* of the relationship, and many other major factors. In fact, Mark Regnerus -- the scientist who carried out the study -- admitted under questioning that "only two of the subjects in his study were raised from birth by committed same-sex couples and both had positive outcomes." 
(3) Baking a cake is irrelevant -- that is with regards to anti-discrimination laws. This debate is about same-sex marriage, not anti-discrimination laws. Furthermore, happiness matters insofar as it is weighed against the suffering/sadness caused, and I've already proven with my sources  and  that non-recognition of the sexual orientation of homosexuality itself, and similar discrimination, causes psychological damage.
(4) Pro says there are enormous differences between men and women, which is why non-recognition of same-sex marriage isn't discrimination. This is nonsense. The differences between men and women only matter to society as much as the differences between people of different races. That's why sexism is considered as bad as racism.
(5) Pro says homosexuality is a choice, and people who choose to be homosexual are merely making themselves victims of discrimination. But Pro's sources are bad ones. Source  is merely a media article of an "admission," which doesn't match peer-reviewed research. Source  says homosexuals are not *born* homosexual, which is *not* identical to saying it isn't a choice -- environmental factors that influence homosexuality are also non-consensual. Finally, source  merely represents the individual views of a person, and is an appeal to authority. On the other hand, scientific consensus suggests that homosexuality isn't a choice. [14, 15]
For all the above reasons, Vote Con.
 Mary Ann Lamanna, et al. "Marriages, Families, and Relationships," p. 82
I feel as if this is a battle between L and Lelouch who aren't trying very hard. (Anime reference)
Rebuttals to R1:
First, I never claimed that the opposition to gay marriage was made only by religious members of a faith. This is simply not true. I am a monotheist. I do not follow the Bible. I used to be Catholic. I have no religious doctrine telling me to think a certain way. This is my own autonomous decision to uphold the basic moral principals of the country. Con suggesting that the stance against gay marriage is held exclusively by members of a religious faith is ridiculous.
From my opponent in round 2:
"Why should we buy the harm principle? First, the government's legitimacy is entirely decided by the harm principle. The government can't be justified at all, except by the sole purpose of helping its people. A government exists to maximize pleasure and minimize pain; its laws are made to ensure that people are happy"
From my opponent in round 3:
"Appeasement isn't sufficient to constitute as "harm" for the government to ban something."
Appeasement- Findings were as follows:
NOTE: Data from the Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census shows that only 29% of gay/lesbian relationships last more than 7 years. " (4)
I'll start with a quote, from Justice Anthony Kennedy who best phrased the case against discrimination against homosexuals:
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were . . . [M]arriage embodies a love that may even endure past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. [We must] grant them that right." 
(1) Harm principle
My mention of religion doesn't significantly impact my argument, since I clearly mentioned that "a gay couple marrying does not affect an individual's beliefs at all." Regardless of whether those beliefs are religious, the *same* standard applies. Just because a person doesn't like it does not mean it is actually harmful to that person. Also extend Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that an individual's conception of morality is not sufficient to implement law. The happiness caused by same-sex marriage easily outweighs this.
Note that Pro concedes the application of the harm principle as a framework in this debate, and merely holds that gay marriage causes harm. As such, the lens of the debate as a whole is to see whether the harm caused by gay marriage outweighs the benefit. Through this debate, Pro has incorrectly held that the harms of the status quo outweigh the benefits. I've shown that to be objectively wrong, and will continue to affirm the mentioned position through this round.
Pro entirely misinterprets my argument regarding his source. I agreed with his source insofar as the standard to judge discrimination is based on the irrationality of the same. And I have proven time and again in this debate that it is just as irrational to discriminate based on sex as it is based on race. Pro *drops* that heteronormativity enforces gender roles. Pro then brings up new evidence of infidelity (when all he talked about previously was open relationships). Don't consider because: (a) per debate convention, new arguments or evidence cannot be presented in the final round, and (b) Pro still fails to explain how infidelity or unfaithfulness is *bad* or in any way undermines the equality of same-sex relationships. I brought up the lack of coherence of such a claim in previous rounds, and Pro *drops* it all.
Pro's rebuttal to my psychological argument is nonsense. Pro picks up a quote from my source, and the quote merely says, based on its results, it supports same-sex marriage. That is not bias. "Bias" is holding the conclusion and then finding justification for that conclusion. The study finds premises, and gains the *conclusion* to keep same-sex marriage legal. Pro doesn't explain how my source is biased, while I've shown that it is a reliable peer-reviewed studies. Pro also doesn't explain how believing in the idea that same-sex marriage should be legal undermines the conclusion that discrimination causes psychological damage to gay couples.
(a) Pro's response to marriage privatization is entirely *new,* so it should not be considered under any circumstances. For the purposes of fairness and by debate convention, new arguments in the final speech aren't permitted.
(b) Pro straw-mans my case. I'm not advocating marriage privatization. I'm saying Pro's *own* case seems to indicate that. Furthermore, just because Congress and the candidates haven't considered it does not mean it should be considered. This is a classic is/ought fallacy. Just because it *is* not considered doesn't mean it *should* not be considered.
(c) Pro drops that he is arbitrarily applying the economics standard to same-sex marriage without doing the same to opposite-sex couples. Even banning opposite-sex marriage (i.e. privatizing it) would benefit the economy, but Pro is only advocating for the ban of same sex marriage (which is basically the same as privatizing it, i.e. not acknowledging government benefits to those couples). So Pro is actually advocating for privatization of same-sex marriage *alone* without applying the same standard to anything else. Vote Pro down on this inconsistency.
(d) If you see my last round, you'll know that my source *also* addresses all other forms of weighing mechanisms, including housing taxes. Let's look at the definition of the term "marriage penalty." "A marriage penalty or bonus is the change in a couple's total tax bill as a result of getting married and thus filing their taxes jointly."  The usage of the term by Pro's source is merely the usual understanding of it, not the universal one. I was referring to it as any tax penalty caused by filing taxes together.
(e) Pro *drops* the long-term economic benefits, including benefits to businesses and reducing unemployment, which link turn Pro's case.
(4) Right to marriage
(a) Pro, once again, *drops* that this is defense, not offense. Extend that it doesn't provide a positive reason to vote Pro. (b) I've clearly addressed Pro's bad arguments on psychological damage. His accusations of bias in my source hold no ground. Note that the bias accusation is also a new argument, since I brought up psychological damage earlier as well. (c) Pro largely drops my point about there being no relevant differences between men and women. The existence of women-only night clubs doesn't prove anything, since it is an is/ought fallacy. A women-only night club *is* sexist. It doesn't provide a reason for denying that sexism is a form of discrimination. Pro fails to prove there is a rational basis for basing different actions depending on one's gender.
(a) Pro basically drops this, because "inferior love" has nothing to do with morality. Pro argued from morality without applying a clear moral standard by which to judge how coherent a claim of right or wrong is.
(b) Pro says this is irrelevant. I'm perfectly fine if Pro thinks that, because it was *him* who argued this, not me. All Pro does to defend this is to re-assert his position, which isn't sufficient because I provided a clear refutation of his source and Regnerus's study.
(c) I did make this point, but that doesn't make it relevant. It is irrelevant anyhow, and shouldn't imapct Pro's victory. Pro also drops this, and, therefore, concedes this by omission.
(d) Pro hasn't proven any differences. This is clearly addressed above -- Pro's argument regarding night clubs is irrelevant, and other "proofs" have been substantially refuted by me.
(e) Pro just *asserts* that his sources are right after dropping my elaborate refutations of those sources. He hasn't proven that his studies are valid. He offers a new source, which I shall analyze. This is merely a study that shows that homosexuality is not *entirely* genetic. This doesn't mean it is a choice. Furthermore, the study presumes that identical twins are genetically identical. It is a demonstrable fact that that is false. 
There's no reasonable way in which Pro wins this debate. Pro has essentially dropped most of my case in this previous round, and has failed to address most of my points. Here's why I win this debate:
(1) I've shown that not legalizing gay marriage promotes discrimination, both LGBT discrimination and general sexism by reinforcing the idea of gender roles. I've also shown that this causes severe psychological damage, including clinical depression.
(2) Pro's economic argument is turned with both its links and impacts. It arbitrarily applies a standard to same-sex couples while not applying it to opposite-sex couples, and I've shown that the economic benefits of the status quo easily outweigh the harms to the status quo that Pro brings up.
(3) I've torn down Pro's notion that marriage isn't a universally applicable right, and shown how discrimination isn't a positive at all.
(4) Pro doesn't explain how same-sex love is "inferior" due to infidelity or open relationships, fails to establish a coherent moral framework, fails to demonstrate successfully that homosexuality is a choice, and fails to explain how homosexuals make worse parents (and even concedes my point regarding the latter).
[Sidenote: per the rules of this debate, Pro must leave the last round blank except to post "no round as agreed." If he violates that rule, voters should not read that round of Pro's since it is in explicit violation of the rules. Even a small conclusion isn't allowed.]
The economic benefits, prevention of psychological harms, and lack of discrimination in the status quo easily outweigh Pro's only standing, small impact of economic benefits which is also arbitrary and seems to argue against his own position. For those reasons, and for the reasons outlined above, Vote Con.
 Obergefell v. Hodges, 567 U.S. ____ (2015)
As agreed I will skip this round.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|