Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

ARGUMENT 1:

1. The law is composed of Rights (declarations of what you can legally do) and Restrictions (declarations of what you cant legally do). 2. For any given action, you either legally can or can not do it, meaning that you either have a right to do the action, or there is a law disabling you from doing it, meaning there is a restriction. 3. There is to be no law restricting same-sex marriages from happening (as determined by the Supreme Court). 4. The law must determine whether or not you can have a same sex marriage (since it should be complete, recognizing the possibility of doing or not doing all desirable actions desirable among all people) 5. Thus having a same-sex marriage would be an action to which you have a right, not an action from which you would be restricted.

ARGUMENT 2:
1. If you were to say that people could only marry a person of the opposite sex, the reason would have to be: a) sexual reproduction must be possible for married couples, b) Only men should marry women and only women should marry men, c)"the parts don't fit", or d) If the popular opinion opposes gay marriage, it should be illegal. 1a. Suppose that since sexual reproduction is not possible in same-sex relationships, same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed. 2a. You effectively eliminate all marriages in which sexual reproduction is impossible (since the condition of not being able to sexually reproduce is defined as the reason that a marriage should not be able to take place). 3a. Heterosexual couples who can not sexual reproduce can be married 4a. Therefore, no matter the relationship, being able to sexually reproduce shouldn't be the issue that determines whether or not two can be united (By 3a.s contradiction of 1a.s reason). 5a. So, we've ruled that not being able to sexually reproduce should not be a factor used to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. 1b. You cant support a position by using the position as the reason for why it should be true. 2b. The overlying question is: For what reason would you be able to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples? 3b. 1(b) says that only heterosexual couples should be able to marry and claims that as the reason answering the question in 2b, which asks why only heterosexual couples should be married. 4b. Hence, this reason does not support the viewpoint that only heterosexual couples should be able to marry (by 2c and 3c over the rule 1c). 1c. Suppose "the parts don't fit" in homosexual sexual activity is the reason that homosexual marriage cannot exist.. 2c. Sex is putting body parts together (Yes, it has degrees - physical contact) 3c. Some people have sex with someone of the same sex, as defined in 2c. 4c. "The parts fit" making this reason wrong as well. 1d. When there is no viable reason that exists to support a certain opinion, that opinion is nullified. 2d. All possible reasons supporting heterosexual-only marriages (that I can think of) have been disproved, making them not viable 3d. Therefore all opinions against same-sex marriage are nullified. 2. None of the reasons in (1) hold true.

3. If none of the arguments against a proposed right are true, that proposed right should become official 4. Therefore, since all points in the argument have been fully supported, proving all opposing notions to be false, it can be said with no room for interpretation otherwise that same-sex marriage is an undeniable right for the people living under the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America!