Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.
This round is for acceptance only.
Contention 1: The legalization of gay marriage aids to society.
For the following reasons, legalization of gay marriage has been beneficial to society, meaning that it has aided people at some level. The legalization of gay marriage has aided to society in the following ways:
Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community.
The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: " Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases.
Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.
The following evidence of economy after the passage of legalization of same-sex marriage shows us that the legalization is a great supplement to commerce because of the increase of demand for products.
Contention 2: Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.
Aside from the aids to society, however, gay marriage at some level better establishes equality. This idea is supported by the following points:
Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.
The equality within the promotion of same-sex marriage in society lies within the balance of interests of all members of society at a moral level, including the homosexual portions of society. This is a scenario similar to the idea against the legalization of interracial marriage, where two people from two groups of people couldn't acquire a legal marriage based merely on the fact that they were members of that social group and nothing else, which is the pinnacle of what embodies prejudice and discrimination in society. The status against same-sex marriage is similar in this manner.
Sub 2b: Civil unions are not a good alternative.
Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.
Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <" target="blank">http://www.businesspundit.com.....................;.
Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://userwww.service.emory.edu.....................;.
Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://www.policyarchive.org.....................;.
Skynet forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments for now.
I'd like to thank my opponent for his graciousness to me in the comments.
My opponent argues here from "Tolerance and HIV" by Andrew M. Francis and Hugo M. Mialon, which leans heavily on the logic of the book "More Sex is Safer Sex." It's in print, so I can't give a link to the whole thing, but here's a link in which the points pertinent to "Tolerance and HIV" are discussed.
Landsburg's argument goes something like this: If promescuity were more widely accepted, more people without AIDS who have been monogamous would start having multiple partners, thus decreasing the traffic to the high risk people who have AIDS. Sex would be more common, and disease less. This strikes me as illogical in that the disease vector would be more common, and increasing the vector would increase the disease. Those who abstain have a very low chance of contracting STDs. Until they stop abstaining.
In  a blogger puts it this way:
"Just step back and think of what Landsburg is saying. There are sexually active people out there who are HIV . So how can we reduce the number of people they give HIV to, over the next 12 months let's say?Landsburg's reply is that we should encourage a bunch more people to get off the sidelines and start having sex.It's true, the HIV people are less likely now to pass on the virus to someone who was originally promiscuous, because now there is more competition. But this doesn't prove the HIV people will go home alone more often now, because there are an influx of new people for them to hit on."
Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.
My opponent argues that because something increases commerce, it is beneficial to society. This may be true, as increased commerce is generally a good thing. However a trade or product is not beneficial to society merely because there is a demand for it. Demand for certain things may point to a cultural problem. The legalization of methanphetamine would likely lead to increased use and commerce for a time, and more people would practice in a safer manner than illegal users currently do, but that does not mean that among all the new users, there are not a number using in an unsafe manner. I grew up in the #1 meth producing county in the US, and I am certain that the number of newly legal, unsafe users would be greater than all current, illegal users. This would not be a an increase in commerce that is beneficial to society.
Tobbacco, prostitution, casinos, and lifing the ban on polychlorinated biphenols are also things that could be done to increase commerce, but are not very beneficial to society.
My opponents argument is here is incomplete.
I will now show some arguments from my opponent are irrelevant unless bigger objections are put to rest.
Homosexuality is incompatible with the founding ideals of the United States.
John Adams, second president, said
"...we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." 
The religion and morality common in the day and place were the Judeo-Christian faiths, and that was the morality expected in the common citizen which was considered neccessary by the founders to maintain the Constitution. Homosexuality is not compatible with Christianity and Judeism.
If homosexuality is incompatible with the founding of the United States, the legalization of Gay marriage should not be legalized, because undermining the founding puts in jepordy all the other essential freedoms that all men, homosexual and heterosexual, enjoy by undermining the morality which the founding depends upon.
I thank my opponent for his response, and while I am glad that he was able to show up to the debate at hand, he will without a doubt agree that I should deserve the conduct point for actually being punctual to the debate. With that said, I will move on toward my rebuttals:
Sub-point 1a: My opponent explains the logic of a book used as part of the research, but not the actual study itself. This is a borderline strawman argument considering that he's arguing against the wrong thing. What the study itself is saying is that an increased tolerance for homosexuals will lead to a decrease in AIDS rates in direct correlation, and while my opponent states that this entire study relies heavily on the book, he fails to explain in what segments of the study itself the quote was book as research material, so there's no real way to evaluate that he's saying that this study is heavily reliant on this book. Furthermore, he fails to respond to the rest of my evidence pointing to the same conclusion(s).
Sub-point 1b: Demand for certain things would not be good. Meth is an example. My opponent is absolutely right in every way when it comes to saying that, but when it comes to actually proving that gay marriage would be negative in any way, shape, or form, that's where the flaw begins, and he substantiates this flaw with another one in the next argument:
John Adams argument: First, John Adams wasn't the only Founding Father of the United States. In order to prove to us that all of the Founding Fathers were set on this idea, he needs to prove that an overwhelming majority of them were in support of having religion as a foundation for this country, and as other Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin have explained...they didn't want religion in any way being part of government. Second, even if he is right, he's making the assumption that the Founding Fathers were 100% correct in how they built the country and that this is the king of America we should always strive for. What about slavery, which had been a part of the 3/5 Compromise within the original Constitution directly discriminating against black people. He states that legalizing gay marriage would jeopardize all essential freedoms, but he doesn't explain how, and I explained my case that just the opposite would occur.
“...he will without a doubt agree that I should deserve the conduct point for actually being punctual to the debate.”
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion just yet. The debate is not yet in the final round, and while my forfeit gained my opponent an advantage toward getting the conduct point, the final decision will be made by the voters, not the opponents. Either one of us may yet do something to lose the conduct point.
“My opponent is absolutely right...saying that, but when it comes to actually proving that gay marriage would be negative in any way, shape, or form, that's where the flaw begins...”
My opponent is attempting to shift the burden of proof. While both of us may have some burden of proof, the greater falls upon Pro for insisting that our nation change it's laws and even our society.
If someone were to go to the Capitol and insist that a law be passed to change the definition of a basic societal and legal institution, the burden of proof would be upon that person as why it should be changed, not so much the rest of society to tell him why not.
More simply put, if you were sitting on your porch, and someone walked up to you and told you to dig up a large tree in your yard, you would probably refuse, especially if he told you you should, unless you can give him a good reason why you shouldn't.
But backing up a little, what Pro is responding to is my response to his “Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce,” argument. My contention there was that his specific point is incomplete. Saying something is beneficial to society because it increases commerce leaves out so many dynamics of society. I gave examples of things that could be, or are legalized, that are generally not seen as beneficial to society, yet do increase commerce.
My point is that my opponent must drop this argument and show that legalization of gay marriage would aid society in ways other than commerce, as increased commerce can be a poor indicator of societal worth.
The Founding Fathers arguments:
“...he needs to prove that an overwhelming majority of them were in support of having religion as a foundation for this country, and as other Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin have explained...they didn't want religion in any way being part of government.”
My opponent insists that I need “to prove that an overwhelming majority of them were in support of having religion as a foundation for this country...” I can supply evidence of this, but I don't know why “an overwhelming majority,” would be necessary, nor do I know what percentage my opponent requires as a threshold for “overwhelming.”
“...Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin have explained...they didn't want religion in any way being part of government.”
Pro insists that I provide evidence for a requirement he arbitrarily came up with, then in the same sentence, makes a claim about specific beliefs of specific people who are very well documented in history, but supplies no evidence to back up his claims about their beliefs.
“Second, even if he is right, he's making the assumption that the Founding Fathers were 100% correct in how they built the country...”
I am not making that assumption, and among other things I do have a major contention with “pursuit of happiness” being declared and inalienable right in lieu of “property.” But that's an entirely different subject.
Furthermore, considering how many debates and disagreements happened during the founding (see Federalist Papers, Jefferson vs. Hamilton ), and afterward between founders for elective offices, I wouldn't even say that the Founding Fathers would claim they got everything right. After all, our bicameral legislature is a compromise between the conflicting interests of small and large states.
“What about slavery, which had been a part of the 3/5 Compromise within the original Constitution directly discriminating against black people?”
There is a huge misunderstanding about the 3/5 Compromise in many people's minds. The Southern States who legalized slavery wanted slaves counted as whole persons for the census. The Northern States who abolished slavery did not want slaves counted at all. If the Compromise was discriminatory, were Southern States noble for insisting slaves be counted as whole people, and the abolitionist Northerners discriminatory for wanting them not to be counted? No on both counts. The original purpose of the census was to apportion representatives in Congress. The South wanted their whole population counted, but refused slaves the opportunity to vote, for obvious reasons. The North saw this as getting an unfair advantage over them at the expense of their slaves. The more power the North had, the more likely their policies (including abolition), would become national. And unless that compromise was reached, and all 13 Colonies broke away from Britain, there seemed little hope slavery would ever be abolished since even the freemen were denied basic rights, like taxation only by representation at the time.
“He states that legalizing gay marriage would jeopardize all essential freedoms, but he doesn't explain how...”
I certainly did. Let me repeat what John Adams said.
"...we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Without the Constitution, we have no other legal recourse to defend our basic human rights. Remember the prerequisite Declaration of Independence:
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
These basic rights are “Endowed by [our] creator.” This document was signed by no less than 56 men, Founding Fathers. At the signing, the aforementioned Benjamin Franklin, who according to my opponent wanted government and religion completely separate, remarked “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
So much did he believe that the creator was integral with government, that he knowingly signed his own death warrant that stated that fact.
The Founders based our freedoms and documents on Inalienable rights given to us by a specific Creator. Those rights acknowledged by the Founders were known to them only because of the Bible. If God's moral law is void, those rights taken from the Bible and laid forth in the Documents are void. Promoting homosexuality and it's unions is a breech of God's moral law, and therefore incompatible with the Constitution.
This is the final round of the debate at hand, and as such, I am going to provide to the judges so main reasons why they should inevitably vote for me on this day:
1. Regardless of what my opponent thinks, at the end of the day, I have been more punctual than he has for this debate, meaning that I am already winning the conduct point as a result of my opponent's forfeit.
2. My opponent's general argument doesn't seem to have any warrants in order to substantiate it, especially when it comes to the arguments about the Founding Fathers.
3. The same applies to my opponent's rebuttals against my case, where he doesn't necessarily address what I am saying.
Economics Argument: My opponent is basically saying that not only do I need to prove that gay marriage is beneficial for commerce, but that the actual legalization of gay marriage will not result in other negative effects to the society. This is exactly what I did in the sub-point 1a. I talked about how gay marriage is able to better the relationship between homosexuals and heterosexuals by having the law legitimize the idea that equality is good, as my evidence explains, promoting tolerance in the community that creates for the copacetic environment that moves homosexuals away from the negative statistics they are stereotyped for. This would be a success for public health, which has had for the longest time initiatives in order to bring down these problems within the gay community. The only time my opponent ever addressed anything in my Sub-point 1a was when he talked about how part of their research was based on the information from another book that wasn't totally credible apparently, and I explained to you that not only does my opponent fail to provide exactly where in my research this book is quoted nor how much of my research is based off this book, but I have other pieces of evidence stating the exact thing, meaning that my sub-point still stands, thus upholding my burden in this point.
Founding Fathers Argument: This seems to be what the majority of the debate seems to boil down to. First, when I talked about my opponent making an assumption that what the Fouding Fathers said is right, to clarify, I'm saying that he's making an ad authoritatum argument here. He's saying that because a Founding Father said that the US government's laws should reflect on the ideals of religion, then the US government should do just that. He doesn't explain why John Adams is right; the only argument that he does post is that he's a Founding Father, and that's it. Second, even if it's not a logical fallacy to go in the direction that my opponent wants to go, he only provides the ideals of one Founding Father on religion. He doesn't provide an overarching view of all of the Founding Fathers on such an idea as to placing religion into government. Thomas Jefferson felt differently when he said "Thomas Jefferson had the following to say: " I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Benjamin Frankling had the following to say: "I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I
mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long
prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much
less capable of pleasing the Deity."
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this
coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to
support roguery and error all over the earth."
In fact, if you want to look toward the freedom and justice argument, I suggest that the judges look at the entirety of my second contention, which goes completely unresponded, giving to you exactly why it would be giving justice to gay people. We know what John Adams says, but is he right? My opponent gives no warrant that he is.
Reasons for voting PRO:
Not only do I win the conduct vote for being the most punctual, I win the conduct vote for the following reasons:
1. My opponent barely scratches the surface of my Contention 1 and completely ignores my Contention 2, meaning that pretty much the entirety of my case has been extended across the flow.
2. My opponent lacks serious warrants for many of the things he's saying, most specifically in the Founding Fathers argument, as I pointed out.
3. I have proven to you that gay marriage is indeed beneficial for the American society based on my first and second sub-points in my first contention and that it is also justice, according to my second contention.
“Regardless of what my opponent thinks, at the end of the day, I have been more punctual than he has for this debate, meaning that I am already winning the conduct point as a result of my opponent's forfeit.”
It is correct that my opponent has been more punctual in this debate, and that increases the likelihood of him getting the conduct point. If my opponent had waited until the final round to make this argument, I would not have contended it so much. However, he made it at the beginning of Round 4, when either of us could have been forced to FF another round, making us equally tardy. Also, either of us could have flown off the handle in round 4 or 5, and that might trump punctuality to most voters. I was not about to concede a point which I still could have won, even if my opponent did ask politely.
My opponent says that I do not provide sufficient reason why religious morality is the at the base of our founding, and “...he only provides the ideals of one Founding Father on religion. He doesn't provide an overarching view of all of the Founding Fathers on such an idea as to placing religion into government. “
In lieu of going through the beliefs of all the Founding Fathers one-by-one, I went to a document that 56 of them agreed upon enough to all sign, one that they all knew was their death warrant (as Ben Franklin said), and one that was the official declaration of the Revolution in which the Founders believed. The Declaration of Independence, a basis for foundation apart from the British government. If there's one thing that the Founders would agree upon, it should have been this document. It famously states self-evident truths:
All men are created equal...
Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights
Among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
...and goes on to list grievances the colonists have against the Crown which remain unresolved.
The ideals are of 56 Founding Fathers, not just one.
My opponent cites 3 quotations from 2 Founding Fathers that don't really back up his argument that well, have no citations, then articulates a popular but fallacious interpretation of Separation of Church and State.
The quote from Benjamin Franklin can be found in it's entire context (which was a letter to Rev. George Whitfield) on Google Books. When read in context (p.128-129), you can see that Dr. Franklin was most certainly NOT disparaging of Biblical morals, but rather religiosity for show. Ironically for Pro, the book containing the letter is Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic.
As for the Jefferson quotes, the second is neatly dispatched as a misquote by Ed Brayton, a liberal journalist.
The first Jefferson quote merely praises Separation of Church and State, which is not what my opponent apparently thinks it is. This civil doctrine can be accurately understood with historical context.
King Henry VIII famously created the Anglican Church when the Pope refused to annul one of his marriages. At that time, the civil government (British Crown) was beholden to an “establishment of religion.” (The Catholic Church) When he created the breakaway Anglican Church, it was a religious establishment beholden to the civil government. The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church.
If you fell out of favor with the Catholic Church, the State would think twice before supporting you, since they are beholden to the religious establishment of the Papacy.
If you fell out of favor with the Anglican Church, you also fell out of favor with the Crown, since items like the Book of Common Prayer were also legal items.
Puritans famously fled to the Netherlands and the Colonies to escape religious persecution. The founders wanted to separate human establishments of power as much as practical, as we can see in the Separation of Powers, 10th Amendment, and small state/big state separation of the two Houses of Congress.
My point in all this is that a basic understanding of the Founding documents, historical context, and skimming of the book in  will show you that religion in no way was meant to be left out of government. Religious morality was “self-evident truth,” and it was establishments of religion, not religion, that were separated from civil government.
Equality, other unanswered arguments, and clarification of my last statement in Round 4:
I did not leave these arguments unanswered. Rather, I showed logic that bypasses them. “All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.”
“All men” includes children, but excludes age.
“All men” includes plumbers, but excludes plumbing.
“All men” includes black and white men, but excludes ethnicity.
“All men” includes thieves, but excludes theft.
“All men” includes homosexuals, but excludes homosexuality.
You have rights because you are human, and I wish homosexuals, etho-centrists, and all sorts of other people would quit trying to exclude themselves from humanity and recognize their worth because of HUMANITY.
“All men” are created equal, but do not act equally. All have certain rights (not any right they want). Homosexuals have a right to get married, as do I, but no one, including myself, has the right to redefine marriage. It was defined by God in the Bible, along with the other rights all of us were endowed with. These rights were recognized by the founders, and clearly listed as endowed by Him. When you throw out God's definition of marriage because you want to, you act with the same mindset as those who want to throw out other inalienable rights defined by God. Life, freedom, property.
If you throw out the guiding principals the Founders used, you must completely start over with new basic rights, if you can determine any, because they are no longer self-evident, and we don't know what's been endowed to us, or who, if anyone, endowed it. It would not be beneficial to society to set a precedent approving the throwing out of our basic rights.
Homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical principals upon which the Founding is based, and therefore incompatible with the Founding.
Gay marriage is an institution of homosexuality, it is incompatible with the Founding principals.
Homosexuals or any other sub-grouping of Americans do not have special rights because of their profession, action, appearance, or belief, but all have the same rights because of their humanity.