Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Legally Recognized?

Gay marriage should be legally recognized in the United States.

Before proceeding, I'd like to clarify the resolution and establish some ground rules. Firstly, I request that my opponent refrain from semantic arguments regarding the legality of gay marriage in certain states, as the resolution pertains to federal legalization. Secondly, the resolution implies that gay marriage should be recognized in the U.S. as long as heterosexual marriage is legally recognized. The definition of gay marriage should be understood as the legal union between individuals of the same sex. Let's delve into the discussion.

Contentions:

1) Sex vs. Gender
2) Minority Discrimination
3) Marriage vs. Religion
4) Civil Unions vs. Marriage
5) Sanctity of Marriage
6) Family Values

1) It's important to differentiate between sex and gender. Sex refers to biological differences, while gender encompasses cultural aspects of masculinity and femininity. A person of one sex can identify with the opposite gender and live their life accordingly. Con must explain why biological chromosomes should determine legal rights over personal characteristics or traits.

2) Denying legal recognition of gay marriage constitutes minority discrimination. As society becomes more accepting of the gay lifestyle and recognizes the rights of homosexuals, the government's stance on marriage rights for heterosexual couples only becomes discriminatory. Con must justify why marriage rights are exclusive to heterosexual couples and explain why discrimination based on sex is acceptable in marriage but not in other areas, such as employment.

3) Opponents argue that marriage is a religious institution, but the legal binding of marriage falls under the government's jurisdiction. While some religious institutions recognize same-sex unions, the federal government does not. Discrimination based on religion is unconstitutional, and the government's stance on which unions it recognizes is discriminatory. Religion should not influence legislation in a democracy that supports the separation of Church and State.

4) Civil Unions are often proposed as an alternative, but they lack the legal benefits of marriage. Marriage grants over 1,050 state and federal benefits, while Civil Unions only provide 300 benefits at the state level. Civil Unions deprive couples of 750 benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. Con must justify why these benefits should be exclusive to heterosexual marriages, despite the equal love and commitment present in same-sex relationships.

5) Some argue that gay marriage would undermine the sanctity of marriage, but the divorce rate and infidelity among heterosexual couples already challenge this sanctity. Legalizing same-sex marriage would not affect the commitment and love between heterosexual couples. The focus should be

Interesting how you spend half of your argument talking about religion, as if that is the only motivation for not supporting gay marriage. Marriage- "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." (1) Now we must ask, why is government in the business of marriage in the first place? The purpose is to ensure the procreation of the next generation. The government has a duty to make sure that there is another generation so that the country can maintain population and keep everything going. Therefore the government has no interest in allowing gay marriage, as reproduction is nearly impossible. "It is about love" Well yes but where do we draw the line? Should a 45 year old man be allowed to marry a 16 year old girl even if they love each other? I do not think so, I wonder if pro does. And why is a civil union not good enough? I am not arguing against homosexuality and honestly I could not care less what you do in the privacy of your own home, but I do have a problem when my rights are infringed upon. So you may ask, how can it infringe on the rights of others? Now that gay marriage is legal, the rights of private business owners are being infringed upon as we saw with the baker that refused to service a same sex wedding. (2) This is unconstitutional, as private business owners have the right to freedom of association, which is demonstrated in this case (3) where a bake shop refused to make a cake that had bible quotes speaking against homosexuality. This double standard is allowed now that same sex weddings are allowed. 1.(https://www.google.com...) 2. (http://www.nytimes.com...) 3. (http://www.thedenverchannel.com...)

I appreciate that my opponent has posted this debate, and I gladly accept. For starters, I am a Catholic, and I am a liberal. I think that gays should be given the same rights and privileges that are given to whites when it comes to marriage. My argument is based upon the "Separate but Equal" clause that was shot down in Brown v. the Board of Education, because the Supreme Court ruled that separate was inherently in-equal. It is the same case when it comes to gay marriage. They should be given the same rights under law that are given to strait people, and they should be called the same also. To me, the term "garriage" is a derogatory term based upon the sexuality of the people involved. Marriage is called marriage, not because of the sexuality of the people involved, but rather because it signifies a loving bond between two human beings. Homosexual people are more than capable than loving each other with the intensity and intimacy of strait people, because that is the way that their brain is wired. Gay people don't wake up one day and decide to be gay. It is a scientific fact. People should not be denied happiness over something that they have absolutely no control over, just because of religion, which has no place in the affairs of the state. http://www.cnn.com...

Pro proposes, "I want you to imagine the perfect someone, whether you have found them or not, they would make you happy right? Hair, what shade is it, how does it part? Eyes, what color are they, how do they make you feel? How about character, humorous, caring, independent or even emotionally strong? Now, unfortunately, that perfect someone, is swiped from you! Not in a sense that someone else loves them, but you can"t be with them. It"s forbidden, similar to a fairytale but it"s heartbreaking, and shakes your world until it"s upside down. Do you think this can happen in the world around us? Of course." The following is an appeal to equality. More on that here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... . Essentially, your assertion presumes what is equal and what isn"t. Pro proposes, "Marriage has changed drastically throughout time, but now people think of it as a representation of love and compassion, joining two souls for eternity." Perhaps, but this is discounting the nearly 4 million Muslims and 280 million Christians in the United States. Regarding Christianity and Islam, they believe in traditional marriage, the instituted wedding of man and woman to God. Keep in mind that people that identify as queer make up for only 3% of the United States. This heils in comparison to the demographic of Christians and Muslims who make up for 87 percent of the U.S. Regardless of what marriage may be recognized in today, ignoring the masses of people supporting traditional marriage would be audacious. Pro proposes, "Gay marriage also has many benefits to society and our country, so I don't think there is any real reason to ban gay marriage." Provide these supposed "benefits to society and our country". However, if referring to the economic benefits of marrying, there are benefits to marriage and not specifically Gay marriage. Pro proposes. "Marriage is a right that gays should be allowed The mistake is identifying marriage as a right. In accordance to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, marriage is defined as the, ""union of a man and a woman [that] always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons". While the Court recognizes that there are more legal benefits granted to marital unions, they decreed that the "States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples". These prosperities are ancillary to the status of marriage and are not isolated to marriage as a sole entity. Civil rights are fundamental and a violation of civil rights outside of lawful process is a crime under U.S. federal law, and in certain conditions is a felony offense. See Title 18 United States Code Sections 241 and 242. (18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242). However, this does not prevent the state from denying the right of marriage from pedophiles, zoophiles or incestuous people from marrying. Hence, one would conclude that marriage is not a civil right but a privilege. Pro proposes, " and should be able to do so without grief or shame." The idea of shame and grief cannot be deemed by any individual. Rather, the relativity of morality deems no one is worth to make decisions for everyone. Looking to past societies, there are clear laws that we see as cannibalistic or even cruel. Hence, societal morals are not necessarily morals that should be urged. [1] http://www.dictionary.com... [2] http://www.jurist.org... [3] http://bigthink.com...

I believe you are misinterpreting my previous arguments about the foundation of marriage, I never mentioned the bible or any books of, not even Leviticus. I was and still am saying that the purpose of marriage, as it was even in ancient Jewish times, is to bind a couple spiritually. My opponent says he does not believe man has spirit, then there would be no need to marry at all, since living together would be satisfactory enough and marriage is an institution of the spirit, not a social status like dating. Since there is no proof against spirit and far more proof of, such as ghosts, spirits, stories, and encounters, then I believe this point leans in my favor. Secondly, my proof for same sex couples marrying for tax cuts is not bigoted like you attacked with. They are not marrying for religious purposes, and living together provides almost the same aspects, just not the binding of a spirit, then the only worldly part remaining are the tax cuts that follow marriage. As you say on your point number four, Saying religion doesn't have a patent over marriage is like saying governments don't have patents over taxes. As the definition states, it is recognized by law, not made or defined. We can agree, I feel that living together can provide them with what they are seeking. As for samesex adoption, it is only illegal in one state, Florida. And a current study is finishing the largest survey of the academics and social interactions of those raised by same sex couples. In short that study is not looking good for those raised in same sex homes. (. http://www.adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org...) Point five seems to be an attack on religion, since priests and ministers would be required to marry the couple if it becomes federal law. And since priests and ministers are parts of the religion that does not recognize gay marriage as being gods will, then it is more than offensive, it is a sheer destruction of the first amendment by making them conform to something that is against their religion. (The Constitution of The United States of America) In regards to your points, it would only be democratic if their were absolutely no person in America that opposes it. If they do, then the constitution serves no person and is destroyed. When that happens we will no longer be a country run off democracy, but one which the happiness of people rules. And everyone knows that money and objects make people happy so there will be an increase in crime. In this beautiful country we have now, all people ARE created equal. They are not created the same though, and this is where the debate has started. Allowing same sex couples to adopt children also hinders democracy. The child will not have a say and, they can not choose a home with both a motherly and fatherly figure. They will be denied the access to one no matter what. And studies are currently coming in against modern trends of the media to be in opposition of allowing this. But since modern media and activists claim that marriage is a right, and that men should be able to marry men and women marry women, then they must provide legiment proof that marriage is a right granted to all citizens. And, if that proof is indeed enough, then all people must have the right to marry whomever, whenever, and whatever they want. Wether that be polygamy, beastiality(which indeed some people are fighting for), or underage marriage. If we were to accept gay marriage, then we would be forced to accept other things which we know are morally wrong, also. This will in turn destroy American values and tradition. Thank you pro for this debate, it has been the first one I've enjoyed and actually taken part in for a while so again thank you. To the audience, I hope you have enjoyed it as much as I have.

As Con/against, your aim is to provide reasons as to why gay marriage should be legal (hence, the burden of proof is on you). As Pro/for, my job will be to rebuke your claims, but I will also provide arguments that you must successfully rebut. We're not arguing about a relationship between two people of the same gender, we're talking about a legal contract that recognizes the two as together. Issues involving 'the right to raise children' are expected to be brought up despite not being necessarily involved in every marriage. To avoid any confusion, please ask any questions in the comments section. Please jump straight into argument once you accept (no acceptance round) as you're the one who has to start this debate. I look forward to your acceptance.

You have only addressed one of my arguments. "Opposite-sex couples can get married whether or not they are able or willing to procreate." This does not subtract from the principle of marriage and procreation is still a possibility. However, same sex couples cannot procreate, it is not even a possibility. "equal legal treatment." Heterosexual marriage is not equal to same marriage. Discrimination on the basis skin color, gender etc is wrong but discrimination on the basis of skill, talent, charisma, social skills etc is not. In this case the discriminating factor is procreation. Same sex couples are awarded legal rights under civil unions which is sufficient. "Same-sex couples have and raise children" Opposite couples are better equipped to raise children then same sex couples. WHY has nature endowed us with a mother and father? "higher suicide rates than their heterosexual counterparts" Is this not the the cause of this their homosexuality. Higher suicide rates and lower life expectancy is common among homosexuals and to attribute this to other people ignores all internal factors. Take regions where homosexuality is accepted thoroughly but yet these statistics remain. The source of these problems is in the lifestyle itself. "celebrate their love and commitment...social recognition" All of your arguments can be applied to any non traditional marriage relationship. "Same-sex marriage is already a reality in a growing list of countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa." Morality and laws are not based on what everyone else is doing and so this argument is arbitrary. I believe in absolute morality as given by God. I feel as if your argument is a copy and paste so please respond directly to what i have said (QUOTE what i have said and say why i am wrong). Answer This: If two sisters came up to you and said they love each other and are deeply committed and wanted to adopt children, what principle would you rely on to dismiss them access to marriage? Are you not "discriminating" and denying them equal social and legal recognition etc.

I would like to clarify that this is the only legitimate reason that I know of to be opposed to gay marriage. Terms clarified: Marriage - the legal definition Civil Marriage - a term that I use to illustrate the concept of a type of marriage that does not include financial factors. Civil benefits - refers to all of the explicitly non-financial benefits of marriage ~~~~~~~~ Argument ~~~~~~~~ Contention 1: Homosexual marriage violates the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The 14th amendment guarantees all citizens of the United States equal protection under the law [1]. Citizens that are married are granted rights that are not afforded to those that are not married. In fact the number of individual rights granted to those who are married outnumbers those granted to individuals not married by over 1000 [2]. Some specific examples of unjust freedoms gained through marriage is that it allows any non-resident of America to gain an immigration 'fast lane,' or it makes it easier for them to move to this country and they can ignore many traditional immigration regulations. Marriage also grants spousal exemption from estate taxes [3]. I do not believe that a person deserves special treatment simply because they had an emotion that made them want to spend their life with another person [2]. Contention 2: Most of the civil benefits of marriage can be gained through alternate legal avenues that do not involve marriage. For instance there are forms that you can fill out online that grant another individual your power of attorney [4][5]. I ask that you read the provided link [4] to learn about this concept if you are currently unaware of what it entails. You can also cerate a last will and testament that does many things for you legally, even if those involved are not married. It is for these reasons that I believe that homosexual marriage should not be legalized and marriage should be demoted to a lifestyle in kind with other lifestyle choices that people make such as veganism or nudism, or there should be some form of legal contract that grants most of the civil benefits granted by marriage to a couple. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.hrc.org... [3] . http://www.shusterman.com... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://www.expertlaw.com...

I would like to start this round by apologizing for saying the word "whites" instead of "strait." I have aboslutely no idea where that come from. I will now start my rebuttal. "You have already labeled my word "Garried" derogatory, when I was very clear that it was intended as a place holder; is there something wrong with calling a union between a man and a woman different from a union between two men or two women?" I was merely making the point that this an extremely derogatory term when it comes to dealing with the marriage of two homosexual people. That is all. As far as your second point, I do believe that I clearly put forth a statment of fact refuting that fact in my last argument, namely that it violates the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. the Board of Education, when the Supreme Court ruled that separate is inherently unequal, which is exactly what you are proposing against them. "The very question is necessary to understand the fabric of the person before you, yet requires an extra question about sexuality that I really don't care to ask." The point that I am making is that it should not matter whether they are gay or strait. Whether that particular person is married to a person of the same, or opposite sex should make absolutely no difference whatsoever. It is a learned habit that makes people think the way that they do about gay people that can change, but the laws have to change first. A good example of this is the dying out of racism in the United States. Compared to 50 years ago, there are markedly less racists in the United States today. The same can and will be the case should gay marriage be legalized throughout the nation. "Gays have all of the rights that straights do." This is an absolute and unequivocal lie. It has been well documented that gays do not have the same rights as straits. On the news the other day, they had a special about how a number of Fortune 500 companies have a "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the company. http://www.hrc.org... In addition to this, there are gay couples who have been in Civil Unions for as much as 20 years, but should one of them die, the other, in most cases, is left with no financial support, even after their grievous loss. Here is a story of a gay couple, which I think you'll find quite disturbing. http://www.marriagefairness.org... In closing, I have addressed all of your arguments and look forward to your response!

Marriage is the institution of a church, whether gay marriage is accepted by a church is not of concern to those outside the church. No religious institution, including marriage, should have legal standing. A contract of civil union should be available and legally binding to those who sign it, and there should neither be limits on the gender nor number of parties. In accordance with the establishment clause of the constitution, the appropriate legal solution is to remove the legal standing of marriage, and replace it's function with a secular contract.

Seeing as you didn't present any definitions, I will. By the way, your argument to not wanting to define your terms is detrimental to your case. Undefined terms are the bane of any debate.Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationshipSame-sex marriage: same as above, except between two of the same sex.Now, I will rebut your points.1) I believe that same-sex marriage is fine. Gay people don't hurt me, trust me I'm not saying that they don't commit crimes, but they are just normal human beings.To paraphrase the validity of your argument by simply using a different term, stealing:I believe that stealing is fine. I haven't had my wallet stolen from me before, trust me I'm not saying that they don't commit crimes, but they are just normal human beings. Your argument breaks down once we analyse why you believe it is not wrong, specifically, that "they don't hurt me." This doesn't make something morally correct, it makes you ignorant to the repercussions that are caused to others. Just one of the victims in a same-sex relationship are the children. "A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion (1)." I'd recommend you read the article I'll link below, it discusses these issues in detail.2) We are not trying to define the meaning of marriage (the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.)... We just want gay people to be able to get married, there is absolutely no harm in that.This is the same argument as above. There are harms that the media doesn't want to tell you; harms that affect the children and the couple themselves.3) So having sex with someone of your sex is a sin, so what? Judging, lying,and eating shellfish are sins, but we all still do those things. It doesn't make to sense to me how we throw a fit on a single sin in the Bible when there are hundreds of sins mentioned.The Bible outlines: 1) Same-sex intercourse is a sin. 2) Those who sin and do not repent are condemned to death. 3) Therefore, engaging in same-sex intercourse and not repenting for these actions condemn you to death. However, the Bible is misinterpreted by many different people. Some radical Christians ignore a fundamental part of Christianity: All men have sinned (Romans 3:23). In other words, homosexuality is a sin, but it is no worse of a sin than if I were to be sexually promiscuous. However, it is not more of a sin to let it continue? I'll put it a different way: if I knew my friend was stealing, would it be alright for me to shrug it off? After all, he's not stealing from me.4) A lot of people say "It is unnatural" but what's unnatural about two people falling in love with each other?A lot of people say "It is unnatural" because a male and a male cannot reproduce, and neither can a female and a female. Basic biology, Pro.5) Gay couples, can't have biological kids (Unless they use a sperm bank," but isn't that good. We have 7 billion people on this planet, and we are definitely running out of room and materialsTo the contrary, Pro. Overpopulation is not an issue, and never will be. This myth has been seriously debunked, and believing in it is, to put it simply, blind faith. "Other instances of phony overpopulation occur when humans create artificially closed environments. If someone locked me in my office, most people wouldn’t blame my resulting demise on “the overpopulation of the office” but on the cruel person who locked me in. Similarly, if government policies prevent food from being transported to where it is needed, or distributed to those who are hungry, “overpopulation” is not to blame (2)." The site linked discusses other "evidence" for overpopulation, and shows how they are not even relatable to having more humans on earth.6) Most of the stories you hear now a days are priests molesting little girls, so the whole gay pervert stereotype has died out. It does not promote polygamy or incest either. Incest a lot of the time leads to birth defects because of how similar the genes are. Actually, most of the stories you hear now a days are about the Presidential Campaign. The media's role in information should not show that something is or isn't a stereotype. Also, incest leads to these adverse reactions because it is not natural. In the same sense, homosexual marriage leads to adverse reactions (STD's) because it is not natural. Your own argument backfires against your resolution. In conclusion, Pro has offered no real evidence for his position, other than his speculative and clearly flawed opinions on the issue. Pro has not meet his burden, and therefore, vote Con. Sources:(1) http://www.frc.org...(2) https://www.pop.org...


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Legalized?

Gay Marriage: An Argument Against Legalization

Homosexual marriage should not be legalized, as it goes against the intrinsic purpose of marriage and discriminates against the institution's core values. The argument against gay marriage does not rest on the choice or nature of homosexuality but rather on the essential function of marriage, which is to unite a man and a woman capable of procreation and proper child-rearing.

The debate on gay marriage often involves claims of discrimination, but such assertions are misguided. Marriage is not a human right granted to all individuals regardless of their circumstances. Rather, it is an institution that recognizes and supports the unique bond between a man and a woman, which is inherently linked to procreation. This intrinsic capacity for reproduction is not present in same-sex relationships, and thus, they do not meet the fundamental requirements for marriage.

Furthermore, the government's role in marriage is to encourage stable relationships that contribute to society by providing a conducive environment for raising children. Heterosexual marriages have historically been favored for this reason, as they are the only unions capable of producing offspring naturally. The benefits and privileges accorded to married couples, such as tax breaks and paid leave, are intended to facilitate child-bearing and child-rearing. These incentives do not apply to same-sex marriages, as they do not have the same positive impact on society.

Another common argument for legalizing gay marriage is that it would help alleviate the social stigma and psychological distress faced by homosexuals. However, research has shown that even in countries where gay marriage is legal, homosexuals still suffer from higher rates of psychiatric disorders and suicide. The legalization of gay marriage does not address the root causes of these issues and may even exacerbate them.

Moreover, children raised by homosexual parents are at a disadvantage compared to those raised by heterosexual couples. Studies have found that children of same-sex couples are less likely to graduate and that same-sex partnerships are more unstable, leading to less suitable conditions for child-rearing. These findings suggest that legalizing gay marriage would not be in the best interest of children's welfare.

In conclusion, gay marriage should not be legalized as it contradicts the fundamental purpose of marriage and discriminates against the institution's core values. The intrinsic capacity for procreation and proper child-rearing is essential to the institution of marriage, and same-sex relationships do not possess these qualities. Legalizing gay marriage would undermine the social value of marriage and potentially harm children's welfare.

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "how, exactly, does the freedom of a gay couple to marry weaken a straight couple's commitment to the same institution? The obvious answer is that since homosexuals are inherently depraved and immoral [according to opponents], allowing them to marry would inevitably spoil, even defame, the institution of marriage. It would wreck the marital neighborhood, so to speak, and fewer people would want to live there. Part of the attraction of marriage for some heterosexual males, the argument goes, is that it confers status. One of the ways it does this is by distinguishing such males from despised homosexuals. If you remove that social status, you further weaken an already beleaguered institution. [...] This argument is rarely made explicitly, but I think it exists in the minds of many who supported the DOMA."

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled to infer a "separation of church and state" all the way from federal to local levels. In this way if the government put the millenia-old definition of marriage as "man and woman" into the legal system that is purely in violation of this legal inferrance. If the government redefines a religious term, both in origin and use, than the government would effectively violate the "separation of church and state". It would be paramount as to saying that Parliament in the U.K. would redefine Queen Elizabeth II as King Elizabeth II. Obviously we can see that this is something that violates the inferrance of the Supreme Court to establish a "separation of church and state".

Once, we condemned homosexuality as "unnatural" and "immoral". Now we know that that was wrong and that many suffered as a consequence of that prejudice. Should incest suffer the same fate? No. We should realize that our opinions will become more tolerant over time to incest, and we should move to increase such tolerance sooner than later.

"Let them wed." Economist. January 4th, 1996: "It is true that the single most important reason society cares about marriage is for the sake of children. But society's stake in stable, long-term partnerships hardly ends there. Marriage remains an economic bulwark. Single people (especially women) are economically vulnerable, and much more likely to fall into the arms of the welfare state. Furthermore, they call sooner upon public support when they need care—and, indeed, are likelier to fall ill (married people, the numbers show, are not only happier but considerably healthier). Not least important, marriage is a great social stabiliser of men."

The burden of proof is on opponents of gay adoption to prove that homosexuals make worse parents. In the absence of such proof, it is unjust to restrict the rights of homosexuals to adopt.

"Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States : A social science perspective." American Psychologist. 2006 "The relevance of this question to policy is dubious because homosexuality is neither an illness nor a disability, and the mental health professions do not regard a homosexual or bisexual orientation as harmful, undesirable, or requiring intervention or prevention."

The homophobia in some sections of society is wrong, and must be fought however possible. Couples from ethnic minorities are not barred from adoption even in racist areas. Only through the full inclusion of gays in society and all its institutions can we hope to overcome prejudice.

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "Marriage, under any interpretation of American constitutional law, is among the most basic civil rights."

Gay marriage would reduce pressure on gays to marry straight.

See Debate: Civil unions vs. gay marriage Civil unions are "separate, but not equal" During the 50s and 60 in the United States, a segregationist principle was established called "separate but equal" under the Jim Crow laws of the time. This was struck down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who wrote: "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."[6] Civil unions are precisely the same arrangement, attempting to give gays a "separate" arrangement than marriage, while conferring "equal" benefits. But, because "separate can never be equal", civil unions can never equal. Civil unions, therefore, are unequal, segregationist, and discriminatory, just as were the "separate but equal" laws of the past.


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Made Legal?

Should the legality of gay marriage be upheld?
Matrimony is fundamentally a religious institution and should be preserved as such. The state should grant the title of civil union to all married couples, or to any pair aspiring to wed. Moreover, given that every form of marriage is currently lawful, my adversary is essentially advocating for the status quo. Since my argument has not been challenged, I kindly request your consideration.

Adam Kolasinksi. "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." The Tech (M.I.T.) February 20th, 2004: "Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society [...]."

Lambda Legal on OppossingViews.com: "The exclusion from marriage also impairs the ability of employers, large and small, to attract and retain the most comprehensive pool of talented and committed employees. Current and prospective employees place a value on whether they live in a place that supports their commitment to take care of and be responsible for a loved one. They often will make their employment decisions based on whether the state respects that value."

Just as married couples receive tax benefits and unmarried mothers may suffer cuts in welfare, legal prohibition of adoption by gays is a natural step towards this ideal. The traditional nuclear family is still an ideal that should be clung to, and which deserves the protection and motivation of the state. Evolution and nature has shown that the natural development of the young is aided by both these influences.

Gays can already obtain most benefits of marriage

Gay marriage does not harm heterosexual marriages

This is because it is not a legal factor in ordinary marriages. Many characteristics of individuals would lead one to believe that there is a high probability that they will be bad parents, but this cannot cause the state to ban these individuals from becoming married parents. Neither should it for gay couples.

Adam Kolasinksi. "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." The Tech (M.I.T.) February 20th, 2004: "state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing."

Gay marriage is civil rights issue about ending hardships

Gay exclusion is just to protect procreative marriage

Legalization would approve incest and increase it.


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Legalized?

Legal Recognition of Gay Marriage

In this debate, I will address the definitions, offer rebuttals to the opposing case, and defend my stance that gay marriage should be legal in the United States. Let's clarify the terms and discuss the implications of legalizing gay marriage.

Definitions

There seems to be a disagreement on what "in the United States" means in this context. The opposing side argues that it should refer to the federal level of government, while I argue that it should mean any jurisdiction within the United States, be it municipal, state, or federal. Ultimately, the decision rests with the voters. However, the opposing side has not provided a reason why "in the United States" should imply federal government and not any jurisdiction within the country.

The opposing side also has not offered a reason to believe that marriage should be considered a purely social union rather than a legal one. This debate should not center on a social union, as such a union is already allowed without government recognition. Even if we consider marriage a social union, there is no reason provided for why such a union should not be legal.

Opposing Case

The opposing side begins by arguing that legalizing gay marriage grants the federal government authority to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. However, the government already defined marriage to exclude gay couples, and I have provided reasons why marriage should be legal for all couples. Since the government initially defined what constitutes a legal union, they have the authority to change that definition.

Rebuttal 1: Government's Role in Defining Personal Relationships

The opposing side's argument hinges on the distinction between a purely social union and a legal union with legal consequences. They argue that marriage should be a social institution without government involvement. I disagree, but even if we accept this notion, my argument still stands that gay people should be allowed to marry. The opposing side's focus is on the government's role in defining personal relationships, but what actually occurs is government recognition of an existing relationship, allowing couples to receive certain benefits through legal recognition. These benefits include inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, and more. Without legal recognition, spouses would not be legally acknowledged as family members. Legal unions are crucial for ensuring these rights.

Rebuttal 2: Marriage as a Strictly Private Institution

The opposing side suggests that marriage would benefit all parties involved more if it were a strictly private institution, with contracts setting the terms for marriage termination. However, a contract is a legal document. Legal unions are essentially contracts recognized by the government, signifying the legal

During the 50s and 60 in the United States, a segregationist principle was established called "separate but equal" under the Jim Crow laws of the time. This was struck down by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who wrote: "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."[2] Civil unions are precisely the same arrangement, attempting to give gays a "separate" arrangement than marriage, while conferring "equal" benefits. But, because "separate can never be equal", civil unions can never equal. Civil unions, therefore, are unequal, segregationist, and discriminatory, just as were the "separate but equal" laws of the past.

The burden of proof is on opponents of gay adoption to prove that homosexuals make worse parents. In the absence of such proof, it is unjust to restrict the rights of homosexuals to adopt.

Legally, marriage represents a more solid and protected base for both parties. In addition to protecting against inheritance disputes, loss of belongings etc. if the couple break up, it also may provide a stopcheck for separated couples who may decide to work harder at the relationship, being bound together by a legal contract as well as an emotional one.

[[Argument: Marriage is a sign of affection and a symbol of further closeness and intimacy among two people. It shows love. As long as the two people have strong feelings for each other and wish to legitimise their relationship, why not? Sex and reproduction takes place in and out of marriages, just that only children born within a marriage is a legitimate child. However, who said marriage is for reproduction? Are you going to ban all couples from getting married if they don't want children? Already the world's population is increasing at very high rates. There is no need to reproduce like flowers as required in the 20th century when growth was the most important.Please, move on to the 21st century.

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "[Many argue] that marriage is primarily about procreation. [...] The only trouble with this argument is that it ignores the fact that civil marriage is granted automatically to childless couples, sterile couples, couples who marry too late in life to have children, couples who adopt other people's children, and so on."

Definition of marriage can and should evolve to include gays

While exceptions occur, the norm in nature is that offspring are nurtured by mother and father. To legally allow adoption by gay couples is to encourage what is an unnatural upbringing.

Steve Swayne. "The Case for Federal Civil Unions." Independent Gay Forum. February 28, 2004: "And one more suggestion: To avoid charges of separate but unequal, make civil unions open to straight couples."

Ted Olson. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Newsweek. January 12, 2010: "When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so."

Gail Mathabane. "Gays face same battle interracial couples fought." USA Today. January 25, 2004: "Critics of gay marriage point to polls that seem to support their position. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll last month, 65% said they oppose same-sex marriage. But mass opinion should not dictate judicial decisions. In 1948, when California became the first state to strike down a ban on interracial marriage, nine out of 10 Americans opposed such unions."


Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Made Legal?

The legalization of gay marriage in the United States is a matter of civil rights and equality. The argument that states should have the authority to define marriage does not negate the obligation of the federal government to ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens. The Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is a fundamental civil right. As long as the definition of marriage includes same-sex unions, gay marriage becomes a civil right, just as heterosexual marriage is. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does not alter the fact that the United States has a duty to enforce its laws, and this includes the obligation to treat all citizens equally. States should not be permitted to deny same-sex couples the same benefits and rights afforded to heterosexual couples. Historically, same-sex marriages have been recognized in various cultures, including ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, and some secular laws during the Middle Ages in Europe. Rational arguments for including gay marriage in the definition of marriage include providing equal benefits, not harming society, allowing couples to express love through marriage, promoting family values, and encouraging child adoption. The question of whether polygamy is a civil right is irrelevant to the debate on gay marriage and should not detract from the central issue of equality and civil rights for all citizens.

Rules:-Please keep language simple, I don't like looking up more than one word per post.-This debate should not be based on semantics. Use comments if you think a person's statement could mean two different things and you do not actually know what they are trying to say. -No new information in the 3rd round. Just rebuttals/conclusions. -By ‘language’ I mean laws, issuing ‘marriage’ license, things like that.I'd like to start out by stating I am for 'marriage' being a religious unity. I state this because I have never been to a wedding, including civil ceremonies, that did not mention God. That does not mean they do not exist, but because of the statistics, I consider 'marriage' a religious thing.That being said, I see the religious stand on why same sex marriage (SSM) should not be allowed. I also agree with them. Which is why I think the word ‘marriage’ should be removed from all government language. I believe unities are vital for our society. When it comes to children, two parents are more often better than one (1). More so if one of them stays at home, but that’s not the topic of this debate. Well, why not just live together? Government benefits of course. Not just tax breaks, but also death benefits and other public benefits. I believe states are making their own civil union laws, but some believe these laws are still not equal.(2) In short, I believe ‘marriages’ are religious and religious unions should be separate from legal unions. (1) http://www.census.gov... (2) http://www.saltlaw.org...

In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples." ~ It is true that this union could be known as the engagement period, but it is also obvious that a heterosexual union can be a civil union. Firstly, marriage itself discriminates against nothing, does it? That is a fallacious assumption which states that married couples intentionally lord their married status over that of others. One couldn't be more wrong. It is not the married couples' fault that civil unions and homosexual marriage aren't recognized with the same degree of rights. Marriage is the most intimate relationship that can be found. It is also the most moral union of people. The reasons homosexuals and civil unions aren't completely recognized is because their union, though their right, is not officially moral. Neither is prostitution or living with each-other or sleeping together without being married. I believe that the majority of humanity still realizes that these things are morally wrong, even if they aren't religious people. "The two are entirely different. One is a religious ceremony endorsed by a Priest of some sort. One is private contract between two citizens endorsed by the Government" A marriage ceremony can be conducted by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge. I think also that a ship's captain still maintains the authority to perform marriage in some areas of the world. These people aren't priests - marriage doesn't have to be religious - it just has to be recognized as such on moral guidelines by an authority. "False. Marriage is legally defined as the union of a male and a female. As such, and with respect to it economic benefits, it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of the 14th Amendment." I don't believe your sources are correct or applicable everywhere in the world. Marriage is often defined as so if the couple is legally united. This does include common law marriage. As I have before stated, by completely abolishing marital status, you would be breaking the 14th. Rather, all status should be granted as marital as long as it is officially performed. No, marriage is the most intimate result of true love that can be found. It cannot be abolished or the people forced to apply for civil union. Rather, the civil unions should need to apply for marriage. In some churches, Homosexuals and civil Unions can be officially married. Abolishing slavery and abolishing the status of marriage are two entirely different and irrelevant comparisons. Slavery was cruelty in keeping one in a state of servitude. Marriage is not a cruelty. Rather, marriage is the purest form a couple can apply for. It is the peak of morality. Abolishing the status would be as unjust as personally forcing each person into servitude. "My resolution in no way abridges the rights of religious people to get "married" if they choose to. Instead, my resolution extends those rights previously exclusive to heterosexual couples to all couples. This is a distinction you cannot refute." Exactly what I have been saying. If all couples were officially married and granted marital status, then there would be no purpose for abolishing that status. Thank you for clarifying my point. The basis behind the benefits of marriage is obviously not discrimination. It is rather a reward for bring morally proper. It is incentive for couples to do what is right and become officially and legally married. I do believe that certain species roam in packs, such as lions. One male to a bride of lionesses, correct? does that mean that polygamy is morally proper? Of course not. If you abolish marriage, as your argument states, then you are, in fact, creating a deterioration of society.

Homosexuals SHOULD be allowed to marry one another in ALL 50 states. There is no real logical/legal reason to hamper this ability.

Opponent’s First Proposition: Legalizing gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples My opponent continues his argument that gay marriage is discriminatory toward religious beliefs, suggesting that it is analogous to forcing a sirloin steak down the throat of a vegetarian. As such, I will reiterate my point that gay marriage does not force churches or religious believers to alter their beliefs nor would they be required to marry gay individuals. Marriage between a man and a woman is currently legal and recognized by the government, yet religious institutions can refuse to marry straight couples for any reason, or no reason at all. If gay marriage were legalized, religious institutions would still have this same power to refuse marriage. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion and guarantees the freedom to practice religious beliefs without government intrusion. Due to these protections, no religious institution can be forced to marry any couple, of any sexual orientation. To state that legalization of gay marriage would force churches to marry homosexual couples necessarily misunderstands the protections of the First Amendment. Similarly, many churches and religious groups believe that gay couples should be free to marry. One could argue that the illegality of gay marriage is discriminating against these churches and their religious beliefs that homosexual couples should be free to marry. Opponent’s Second Proposition: If gay couples aren’t willing to become civilly unionized, then they don’t deserve to be married My opponent previously argued that civil unions and marriage were legally identically, but now, seemingly admitting that is not the case, shifts his argument and states that if gay couples aren’t willing to become civilly unionized, then maybe they don’t deserve to be married. My opponent is essentially arguing that if gays are not willing to accept some lesser right (i.e., civil unions), then maybe they don’t deserve the full right (i.e., marriage) that everyone else is entitled to have. Imagine how offensive and discriminatory this assertion would be if applied to any number of rights that the government currently recognizes. Imagine if the government said to African Americans, “if you aren’t willing to accept that you are 3/5ths of a person, then maybe you don’t deserve to be a full person.” Or, imagine if the government said to women, “if you aren’t willing to accept 70% of the pay that a man receives for the same job, then maybe you don’t deserve the equal pay that the men receive.” No one is required to accept some lesser right to “prove” that they deserve equal rights. My opponent also states that “[a] marriage should be about love, not about legal stance.” This is an admission -- that is widely accepted -- that one of the primary purposes of marriage is as an expression of love and unity between two individuals. Civil unions do not share this same historical and cultural importance. Gay couples, both religious and non-religious, wish to be part of the institution of marriage, an institution that encompasses this cultural significance, not the sterilized union created by a bureaucracy to recognize a legal relationship. Opponent’s Third Proposition: Allowing gay marriage would offend God and religion My opponent argues that marriage is the “bringing together of 2 souls under the eye of their God.” However, the institution of marriage pre-dates modern religious belief systems and has historically existed in societies with many religions, many gods, or no gods. Marriage is a social contract between two individuals that originally existed to ensure paternity and transfer property. It is not limited to any religion or belief system – for example, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Jews, and atheists all may get married, yet their beliefs systems, gods, or lack of gods, conflict with one another. My opponent states that allowing gays to be married would offend “a certain religion’s God.” Yet, Catholics are free to get married despite that it would offend the Muslim god, since Muslims believe Catholics are infidels that will go to hell, and vice versa regarding Muslim marriage. Alternatively, most religious believers think atheists will go to hell, yet atheists are free to marry. Marriage is not specific to any particular religion or belief system. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, simply because a religious person will be offended by gay marriage is not relevant to whether gay marriage should be legalized. Many religious people were offended and opposed freeing the slaves, opposed women’s rights, opposed black rights, and currently oppose gay rights. The fact that they are offended is of no consequence to whether gay couples should be given equality in the institution of marriage.

Observation: To win this debate all I have to do is prove that there is a country/society that should not legalize gay marriage. Due to the fact that the resolution states everywhere proving any country/society would negate the resolution, as my opponent accepts. C1: Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values related to procreation. To truly understand what marriage is, we have to consider the state's interest for it is the most potent factor when we determine if same-sex marriage should be legalized or not. Marriage is not a recognition of love and compassion. Marriage entails love and compassion however the underlying principle of marriage is procreation. If marriage was simply a recognition of love and compassion why would the state have any reason to recognise marriage? The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation. [1] To allow same-sex marriage, or SSM as we will refer to it throughout this debate will defeat the very purpose of marriage, to recognize procreation. As I stated earlier the purpose is to maintain the sanctity of society. That is, marriage is fundamentally about children and the civilization of society both now and for the future. My opponent must provide a sufficient reason for the state to recognize SSM. Just because the homosexual population may be relatively large in the U. S. , doesn't meant that the state should recognize marriage. This means that the state should grant rights to the relationship between two homosexuals, not grant marriage. In other words, I am advocating for "separate, but equal". This can be practiced through civil unions. Thus the state's interest in marriage is for procreation and the state has no apparent reason to grant marriage, to homosexual couples. C2: Due to the fact that this debate about all countries, the governments of countries have no reason to grant marriage to such a minority. My opponent must provide a compelling reason for granting SSM in EVERY country, as I clearly stated in the first round. That means, that if I can find one country that shouldn't recognize SSM, I have won the debate. Many countries do not have large homosexual population. For instance a survey in the United Kingdom found that only 1% of Britons were gay or lesbian. [2] Also, in a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had a homosexual experience sometime in their life. [3] The point is, many countries are at an extreme deprivation when it comes to homosexual populations. Thus they have no reason to recognize marriage for them. There is no evidence in many countries that homosexual marriage is wanted. In fact some countries consider homosexuality an abomination, such as Angola, Ethiopia, Iran Tunisia, and Trinidad and Tobago. [4] The reason for this differs from religious beliefs to pure bias. I am not advocating that this is correct by any means, but that certain countries have no obligation whatsoever to grant marriage due to lack of population and lack of aspiration. Thus there are several countries that have no reason to recognise marriage, and my opponent must provide reasons as to why they should. C3: There are apparent health risks that come with homosexual behavior. This doesn't mean necessarily that homosexuality is bad, but that for a government to encourage homosexual behavior would hurt the sanctity of a society. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. [5] In more recent years, the U. S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25. [6] One might argue that these statistics are outdated, however as of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men. [7] As we can see there are several potent health risks that come with homosexual behavior. The reason for this is promiscuity. If my opponent would like I can provide more, but for the sake I debate I will end the statistics here. The point is, if every country recognizes gay marriage, these numbers might go up due to the fact that homosexuality is illegal in countries. To argue that the number will not go up is fallacious. When one advocates the practice of something, especially globally, numbers will go up. Thus, countries who encourage homosexual practice will cause an increase in health risks and will negatively impact humanity. Conclusion:The state's interest in recognizing marriage is procreation. To allow SSM would destroy the purpose of marriage. Marriage would no longer be solely based on procreation, but rather love and compassion. If marriage based off of love and compassion, what interest does the state have? Also, many countries have an minuscule homosexual population. In many countries homosexuality is an abomination and is illegal. There is no apparent reason for every country to recognize SSM. Finally, there are several potent health risks that come with homosexuality, which SSM encourages. For these reasons the resolution has been negated and I wait to hear my opponent's rebuttal. Thanks. Sources:1. . http://www.avemarialaw.edu...;2. . http://en.wikipedia.org.........3. Sundet, J. M. , et al. Prevalence of risk-prone sexual behaviour in the general population of Norway. In: Global Impact of AIDS, edited by Alan F. Fleming et al. (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1988), 53–604. . http://www.publicagenda.org.........5. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978. 6. "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999). 7. "Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www. cdc. gov/hiv/stats. htm. (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS. )

Because the negative is the instigator of this debate, I will be using this round mainly to address the points made by my opponent, as well as bring up a point that I would like to defend for the rest of this debate. Definition(s): Marriage - A social union or legal contract between people that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. The affirmative argument: Marriage is a right that should be enjoyed by all people, not just those that meet certain requirements. Historically speaking, the reasons for which two people get married have changed dramatically throughout the years. Early recorded history displays marriage not as a display of love between two consenting adults, but as a strategic ploy to establish diplomatic ties between two individuals. Whether or not two people would get married was entirely up to their parents, whose job it was to marry off their children to establish connections with families just as wealthy as their own. In the 12thcentury, this was completely changed by the Roman Catholic Church by declaring marriage a holy sacrament, which defined marriage as a divine tie between two individuals that were destined by God to be together. This idea of marriage was almost completely forgotten by the time the 17th century rolled around and British Parliament passed an act that allowed an individual to divorce his wife. What does any of this have to do with same sex marriage? Well, the point is that marriage is an institution that has changed several times throughout the course of history. Defining marriage based on what it has been “traditionally” is a near impossible task, because the institution of marriage along with the reasons people have to get married have been constantly changing. Currently, marriage is about love and commitment, and these two attributes are not limited to being shared by a man and a woman ONLY. The negative would like to convince you that there exists a certain set of requirements for a marriage that reflect the best possible conditions for which two individuals can happily live together. The big question is this: How do you know YOUR set of requirements is the correct conditions for whether or not to allow a marriage? Who has the right to decide what these requirements are? If the negative would like to suggest that there should be certain limitations on the institution of marriage, then there must be a follow up explanation that explains why the negative has the right to impose such limitations on the rest of humanity. The negative arguments: a) Marriage and Procreation To summarize the negative’s first argument, he states that marriage should be restricted ONLY to individuals who are able to procreate. He states that because of this reasoning, marriage should only be permitted as long as it is between a man and a woman. There is an obvious, inherent flaw with this line of reasoning. In short, if the negative’s procreation requirement were enacted, the following individuals would not be allowed to get married: Homosexual men and women. Men and women who are naturally unable to produce offspring. Men and women who, by choice, do not desire to produce offspring. Unlike the negative, I see no reason to restrict these individuals from the right of marriage. The negative covers their ground on this issue by saying that heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate can simply adopt offspring to make up for their shortcomings, to which I respond that homosexual couples can also do this, making the negative’s point non-unique. b) Marriage between man and woman The negative’s second argument goes on to say that procreation isn’t the only reason that same sex marriage should be disallowed, but because men and women are complimentary to each other, and are capable of loving each other and having intercourse that is not based on lust. The problem with this argument is that the negative fails to explain why all of these things cannot also be shared between two homosexual individuals. Why exactly can intercourse only be done without lust between a man and a woman? Why can only men and woman have a loving natural relationship? Why is a relationship between a man and a woman beneficial to society, but not a relationship between two homosexuals? All of these are questions that are left completely unanswered. This argument should be disregarded unless the negative can provide detailed answers to these questions. c) Government had a role in marriage, however that role should be limited In short, the negative’s argument here is that the government’s involvement with the institution of marriage should be limited as much as possible. The negative concludes that the government must inevitably decide upon certain terms and conditions that determine whether or not a couple can get married, and that these terms and conditions should disallow same sex marriage, because of the negative’s procreation argument. The negative goes on to say that if the government decides that same sex marriage should be legalized, “the meaning behind marriage is lost”. This entire argument is based off what the negative calls “the meaning of marriage”, however, the negative does not give an accurate description of what exactly “the meaning of marriage” really is. He fails to mention this at all in the entire argument. On that note, he fails to give a definition of marriage at all. Fortunately for the readers, I have given a definition of the word marriage, and with this in mind, the negative’s third argument can be completely dismissed, because same sex marriage does not conflict with the definition that I have provided. d) Parenting among homosexuals In this argument, the negative argues that homosexual couples would be unfit parents when compared to heterosexual couples. The negative attempts to demonstrate this by citing the results of a study conducted by the Journal of Human Sexuality in 2012, which unlike any of the negative’s other citations, was not hyperlinked back to the original study. I was unable to find the study on my own, and thus, I am unable to respond to it. I urge the voters to disregard all claims made by the negative in this argument until he is able to provide the actual study that he references. Unlike my opponent, I will actually link to a study that is essentially a compilation of research done over the course of 30 years that directly contradicts everything my opponent has said in this argument. The study concludes that sexual orientation of parents has nothing to do with either competency or the ability to raise a child.[1] In fact, the study goes on to say that competency of homosexual parents is negatively affected by the popular notion that same-sex marriage should be illegal and that homosexuals are unfit parents. That’s right, any negative parenting traits that my opponent can slap onto homosexual parents is directly correlated to societal restrictions on their livelihood, which is exactly what my opponent is advocating for in the first place. Conclusion: In conclusion, never has the institution of marriage been solely about how many offspring you can produce, and I don’t believe it ever will. There is no reason for anyone to believe that homosexual couples cannot share the same love and commitment as heterosexuals, and it is for this reason, that I urge a vote for the affirmative. “Families don’t derive their sense of worth from being told ‘You’re married, congratulations’. No, the sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other; to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us; that’s what makes a family.” [2] Citations: 1: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... 2: http://www.youtube.com... YouTube video above

I will answer my opponents concerns about gay marriage. First my opponent states that we should not legalize gay marriage in every country because it goes against some religions .but there are religions where gay marriage is okay so if that is the only argument than countries ho use that as an argument to ban gay marriage are respecting some religious beliefs and banning others. What makes this not a solid argument. Religions that condone gay marriage: -Christian groups : Support and affirmation of marriage rights for same-sex couples increasingly come from certain Christian denominations that are theologically considered liberal. Some examples of religious organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ "Marriage Equality and the UCC"., the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),[1] the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America and the Unitarian Universalists church which has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry both in the church and through the state.[2][3] Numerous progressive congregations and organizations within mainline Christian denominations, that have not yet officially voiced official support for marriage equality, have spoken out themselves in support of equal marriage rights in the church and through the state.[4] -Liberal Buddhists -Liberal Hindus -Wicca Native American religion But the real argument is the one you put as if gay marriage would be legalized a big conflict would emerge between church and state what is true .But a state should not base their laws on religious beliefs . And big conflicts also happened when people defended other basic human rights(American civil war). In most countries where gay marriage has been legalize it has not been a major conflict. With major I mean a war scenario. Then my opponent says that if gay marriage gets legalize in every country than the Democrates are going to take over the U.S. First this is an argument for your case only if the voters are republican and it is one for my case only if the voters are democrats. Why didn"t I make a point to my case? Because laws are written are made to prevent bad things from happening murder, stealing" But laws are not written to ban things ho do not hurt any one and that do no bad to society . So it is your job to prove that gay marriage is wrong and my job is to prove their isn"t any thing wrong with it and if all your counter arguments fail than you have failed to prove Gay marriage is wrong . And if there isn"t any thing wrong with it why should it be banned in some countries? Note: This debate is about gay marriage in general not in the U.S.

In my humblest opinion, Gay marriage is wrong. It is contradictory to everything the LGBT community is preaching. They criticize the people who discriminate against their beliefs yet they are campaigning to allow gay marriage to be legal? Why? First off, you can get a civil union, It is just as legible as a marriage except with no religion involved. Second, you can't preach non-discrimination when you are trying to force a church (who is openly against the LGBT community as part their religion) into allowing gay people to get married? That, if I recall correctly, is discriminating against a belief system is it not? And thirdly, I am gay myself so this is from the most un-homophobic point of view a person can have.

To start things off I'm going to point out the fact that marriage in and of itself is a religious institution and should have no place in government anyway. The very concept of "marriage" is a religious concept that should be defined only by the church that is marrying the couple be the gay or straight. However civil unions are something that the government should regulate and endorse. These unions should most definitely be able to be between homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Let's put marriage back where it truly belongs, in the hadns of the religious institutions that define it. Let each church and religion define marriage for themselves and let the religious marriages have no bearing on the civil standing of any citizen. That is mainly semantics yes but it is a very important distinction that must be made for this argument to ever be won or lost. The biggest issue that I have with your argument is that you fail to offer any real reasons for your stance. Yes you tell a wonderful story but in the end pulling the heart strings is no way to truly win an argument. Also the Constitution of the United States is still important no matter what good ole George W. would have you believe and nowhere in the Constitution is the topic of marriage addressed. Thus it would fall under the 10th amendment as something the states must decide for themselves. So a law that would mandate legalizing gay marriage across all 50 states would be struck down as unconstitutional by the supreme court. The only defense for your point is the whole issue of tax breaks for married people and again this issue is easily solved by instituting civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

I think my opponent isn’t going to post any arguments, so I’ll make this round brief. I will have one contention and one rebuttal. Argument #1: Unalienable Rights In the Declaration of Independence, one of the United States’ most important documents, it states that all people have three unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, those rights cannot be taken away from someone. Taking away a homosexual’s right to marry violates all three of those rights. Hence, homosexual marriage should be legal in order to protect the unalienable rights of homosexuals. Rebuttal #1: Religion My opponent made a religious claim to defend his argument in the beginning of the debate. “I believe gay marriage should be illegal its inhumane and against the bible.” However, religious arguments aren’t relevant. Part of the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” So, we cannot use religion to make something illegal or legal. Therefore, this argument that my opponent uses is irrelevant. Conclusion: With two important US documents, I have established not only why homosexual marriage should be legalized, but why religious viewpoints aren’t good for arguments against homosexual marriage. This has been very brief, but like I said, I’m pretty sure my opponent isn’t going to continue this debate. Resources: http://billofrightsinstitute.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...