args

Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

I would like to remind my opponent that he has not yet argued in favor of his proposition, and that the burden of proof is on him for: a) Making a universal statement in his main proposition. "(Same-Sex Marriage) doesn't hurt anyone;" b) Propounding a change from the status quo; as Same-Sex Marriage is currently illegal in most states, and he declares it should by right be legal in all; and: c) Stating categorically that the Fourteenth Amendment (to the US Constitution) grants a right to Same-Sex Marriage. I would like to point out also that for (a) to be true, there cannot be even ONE case, in all of history, that marriage between individuals of the same gender caused no harm to anyone. I ask my opponent how he intends to defend a universal negative? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Refutation ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My opponent's first contention: "Same-Sex Marriage should be legalized in every state because there is no reason for it to be illegal, as it doesn't hurt anyone." His syllogism, as I construct it, is as follows: Same-Sex Marriage is a thing that does not hurt anyone All things that do not hurt anyone are things that should be legal Therefore, Same-Sex Marriage should be legal. This is, I believe, a fair rendering of his statement into logical form. His second premise is implied in his sentence. I will remind the voters and those reading that my opponent did not clarify anything in his second round; and left me, as it were, to my own devices. If I am treating his contentions unfairly, I apologize in advance; and ask that his third round argument set me straight where I have wandered from his meaning. ---------------- Taking this one piece at a time: "...doesn't hurt anyone." I contend that Same-Sex Marriage may hurt people. Same-Sex Marriage involves homosexual activity. As per my sources, homosexual activity carries with it a higher risk of AIDS/HIV than heterosexual activity: http://www.nytimes.com... http://online.wsj.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... My syllogisms: Same-Sex Marriage involves homosexual activity, Homosexual activity carries a comparatively high risk of AIDS/HIV, Therefore Same-Sex Marriage carries a comparatively high risk of AIDS/HIV. Same-Sex Marriage may give people AIDS/HIV,* AIDS/HIV is harmful (e.g. "hurts people"); Therefore, Same-Sex Marriage may harm people. *(as in, "carries a comparatively high risk of AIDS/HIV") I contend that Same-Sex Marriage may harm people, and thus the universal negative "Same-Sex Marriage...doesn't hurt anyone" may be false. Further, I contend that to verify a universal negative, which this preposition is, one must have universal knowledge of the subject. This is impossible in such a broad, subjective subject; if there was even one Same-Sex Marriage in all of history that caused "hurt" to anyone, this preposition is false, and negates my opponent's argument. ---------------- A brief look at: "All things that do not hurt anyone are things that should be legal" Again, quote from my interpretation of his reasoning. His actual words: "Same-Sex Marriage should be legalized in every state because there is no reason for it to be illegal, as it doesn't hurt anyone." So, he says: Same-Sex Marriage should be legal, because there is no reason for it not to be legal. There is no reason for it not to be legal, because it does not hurt anyone. I would challenge this statement, and provide an impossibly vague definition for "hurt;" however, I am not here to fight with semantics. As so far I have provided all the definitions used in this debate, I challenge my opponent to provide a definition for "hurt" that will clarify his ambiguous statement. ---------------- My opponent's second contention: Same-Sex Marriage is a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (to the US Constitution). The text of the Fourteenth Amendment (to the US Constitution): Amendment XIV "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu...... The issue boils down to those important words in the first Section: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." We have already defined a privilege as: "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor." http://www.merriam-webster.com...... This section is concerned with the states making laws infringing on the rights peculiar to American citizens. There are rights spelled out in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, which pertain to all American citizens; but as the Tenth Amendment provides: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." http://www.law.cornell.edu... Thus, in areas that the US Constitution leaves open, the states and local governments may limit the rights of their citizens. Examples of these limitations would be gun control laws, traffic regulations, safety regulations, waste water controls, littering prohibitions, and so on. Also included in this would be the issue of Same-Sex Marriage; hence the recent rush of State Legislatures to debate enacting laws concerning Same-Sex Marriage. The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution in its first Section forbids the States from making laws that deny the rights basic to US citizenship; it does not guarantee a blank slate of freedom from law. If it did there could be no state-made law, and my opponent's contention would fail, as he requires that "Same-Sex Marriage should be legalized in every state..." Whether the right to Same-Sex Marriage is guaranteed in the first ten amendments is a separate debate; I only need prove that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution does not give the right to Same-Sex Marriage for my contention to stand. I contend the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution leaves the issue of Same-Sex Marriage to be decided by the States; and thus does not protect this proposed "right." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To summarize: 1) Same Sex Marriage carries a high risk of AIDS/HIV, and thus my be reasonably supposed to hurt people; 2) My opponent's argument contains unverifiable universal negatives, and thus is invalid; 3) The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution leaves the issue of Same-Sex Marriage to be decided by the States; and thus does not protect this proposed "right." I hold that my contentions stand as stated. Again, I thank my opponent for this thought-provoking debate; I have enjoyed the exercise in logic so far, and look forward to reading his arguments.