Our honorable and benevolent judges decided to categorize the debate over gay marriage as a social issue, but I must affirm the stance that it is more of a moral issue. It is upsetting to say that the majority of the opposition of same-sex marriage falls under the moral category, and their reasoning often stems from their religious beliefs or upbringing. (3) For the sake of a proper debate, I will address both social and moral reasonings and opinions behind support for gay marriage, and I will dispel improper arguments against gay marriage. My argument will clearly move from the social to the moral issues at hand.
Before I begin, it is important to recognize the Catch-22 argument that comes into play during the debate over gay marriage. You cannot legitimately argue against the rights of gays to marry on the basis of the definition of 'marriage.' The cultural definition of marriage, taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, begins with "the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." If only debate were that simple. As the affirmative argument, I must iterate that the goal of gay marriage would change the cultural definition of marriage, and citing the cultural definition of marriage as evidence against gay marriage is simply fallacious opposition to change. Simply stated, if we are arguing that the definition needs to be changed, you cannot cite the definition as fact or as your argument. That is the Catch-22 which must be avoided by my opposition as long as they plan to hold a legitimate debate.
Without further ado, I begin socially, with our rights as citizens of the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence provides us with confirmation of our inalienable rights, "among these [being] Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Common acceptance of behavior is that as long as you do no harm to another, they should not be allowed to stop you from what you are doing. When applied to gay rights in laymen terms, 'we aren't forcing you to get a gay marriage. We are demanding our rights.' Thomas Jefferson's quintessential phrase, specifically the "Pursuit of Happiness," is extremely relevant to any argument over marriage -- for example, we look to
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The ruling of this specific Supreme Court case overturned the so-called "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" on the basis that anti-miscegenation (or opposition to marriage between two races, ex. a black man and a white woman) is unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Interracial marriages harmed no-one, but were unjustly deemed illegal. The court corrected this egregious mistake. Homosexual marriages harm no-one, but are unjustly deemed illegal. The court has yet to correct this mistake, which is without a doubt on par with its former counterpart. To reiterate, individual opinion has no bearing on another's rights; you cannot tell another man how to live his life if his lifestyle does not harm or affect you.
Making a transition from the social to the moral issues, it is the duty of the American government to decide whether homosexuality is immoral. No religion or religious text can be cited as evidence that gay Americans should not be allowed to marry. I have yet to hear a non-religious stance that argues the immorality of homosexuality. If one cannot be found, then it is apparent that gay individuals should be allowed to marry. Stripped of its religious context, a marriage is a contract. Two adults, of any sexual orientation, can buy a home. Two adults, of any sexual orientation, can contract a lawyer. Two adults, of any sexual orientation, can enter a contract. There is no legal reasoning that two adults, of any sexual orientation, cannot marry.
In the majority of the United States of America, homosexual couples have the right to enter a civil union. This contract permits them victim's and worker's compensation related to their spouse, use of laws prohibiting discrimination based on marital status, and the ability to make medical decisions for their incapacitated partner, among other benefits. However, federal rights not covered by civil unions include immigration rights, the collection of benefits upon the death of a spouse via social security, and the ability to file their taxes jointly as a married couple, among other benefits. There is no reason for gay couples to be denied these benefits by simply settling for a civil union to 'protect the sanctity of marriage.'
In conclusion, I would like to simply dispel more common illogical arguments against gay marriage. The first is that the government simply cannot allow gay marriage. The California Supreme Court has made movements to strike down their state's ban on same-sex marriage, stating that sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." The second is that gay marriage is simply crazy. It is incorrect to state that homosexuality is a form of mental illness that can be 'cured;' the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of official mental illnesses in 1973, and the American Psychological Association did the same in 1974.
I present my argument as such, and I am prepared to debate the points I have made and the points that my opposition will make. Thank you.
---
Sources:
http://www.speakout.com/activism/gayrights/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/
(3)
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsheet/gay_rights_facts
http://www.gayfamilysupport.com/homosexuality-facts.html
(If a quotation has been made and the source is not found in this list, then the source has been outrightly stated in the argument. This includes the Declaration of Independence and decisions made by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and the dictionary.)
