Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Legally Recognized?

The legalization of same-sex marriage is a matter of fundamental human rights. In my view, denying individuals the right to marry the person they love, simply because of their sexual orientation, is unjustifiable. Happiness should not be denied to any human being, and in this particular context, the refusal to acknowledge and support same-sex marriage is particularly unacceptable.

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...

Contention 1: The legalization of gay marriage aids to society.For the following reasons, legalization of gay marriage has been beneficial to society, meaning that it has aided people at some level. The legalization of gay marriage has aided to society in the following ways:Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community. The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: " Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases.Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.The following evidence of economy after the passage of legalization of same-sex marriage shows us that the legalization is a great supplement to commerce because of the increase of demand for products.Contention 2: Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.Aside from the aids to society, however, gay marriage at some level better establishes equality. This idea is supported by the following points:Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.The equality within the promotion of same-sex marriage in society lies within the balance of interests of all members of society at a moral level, including the homosexual portions of society. This is a scenario similar to the idea against the legalization of interracial marriage, where two people from two groups of people couldn't acquire a legal marriage based merely on the fact that they were members of that social group and nothing else, which is the pinnacle of what embodies prejudice and discrimination in society. The status against same-sex marriage is similar in this manner.Sub 2b: Civil unions are not a good alternative.Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.References: Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <" target="blank">http://www.businesspundit.com......;. Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://userwww.service.emory.edu......;. Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://www.policyarchive.org......;.

Now that its been settled that we're talking mostly about the constitutionality of a federally enforced legalization and recognition of s.s.m. I think this debate will really become interesting. My opponent's argument pretty much comes down to this :"This is true that marriage is a state's rights issue.Congress does not have the power to force states to allow same sex marriage. However, the Supreme Court does." To start, My rebuttal is that just because the Supreme Court does have the power of judicial review doesn't mean that it should always be exercised, especially in a case such as this. Also, as previously ruled in Baker v. Nelson (1971), the 14th amendment applies in some instances regarding marriages, but not others. The majority opinion in that case is quoted as follows "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex." The above cited case occurred in the Minnesota State Supreme Court. The couple that was denied the ability to marry appealed to the US Supreme Court, and the Court refused to hear the case, "for want of a substantial federal question." This is unlike most denials, as in this situation, the refusal to hear the case codifies the decision that the Minnesota Supreme Court has made as the one that all lower courts must make. So basically, it has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and same sex marriage bans do not violate the 14th amendment. Onto the previously contended issues before I state my points. "If the Supreme Court of the United States forces all states to finally recognize same sex marriages, this will be an action taken by the federal government through the federal Supreme Court." The Supreme Court can't alter the law via an affirmative. They can only do it in a negative. So basically they can possibly make it illegal to ban same sex marriage, but they technically can't make same sex marriage legal. As stated before, the Supreme Court ruled in essence that states are not in violation of the 14th amendment if they ban same sex marriage. Your other point is moot now, as it is established that we are not talking about Congressional legalization of marriage. "However, you cannot just throw away basic American concepts. They have no legal value, but certainly have value. If we were only to follow law and abandon all American principles, our nation would be far less great." This isn't really a big issue in this debate, but still, the law is the law, inspirational quotes are inspirational quotes. To intermix the two at will would be a bad idea. "States have this power and yours, Maryland, uses it, but many states do not. Under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution they have to follow this rule. It is not optional. State's rights only apply when not in violation of the Constitution as the 10th Amendment reads." Back to Baker v. Nelson. Although my state has more to offer for gay couples, it did this by democratic legislative choice. Not by Constitutional force. Also, states rights are granted in the constitution, so to deny them would be just as unconstitutional as to deny the Congress the power to make and declare war. "We could clear up this debate of these last agreed upon points if you would concede." CONCEDE?! NEVER. "I was referring to the Supreme Court, which does have the right to regulate marriage if the current rule is unconstitutional." Yes it does, although its been ruled that bans on gay marriage are Constitutional. "The Constitution supercedes all law, including state's rights." States rights are part of the Constitution, so you're saying that the Constitution supersedes itself. "It clearly says, "the powers not delegated by the United States Constitution."" No, it says 'The powers not delegated to the United State BY THE CONSTITUTION." Its not up for debate, that's what the document says. Onto what I have to say. It is my belief that the United States federal government should not legalize and recognize same sex marriage. I do not believe that Congress should do it, as that would blatantly violate the Constitution, and I also believe that the Supreme Court should not do it. The Supreme Court should abstain from ruling that the 14th amendment is violated by states if they have a ban on Same sex marriage because this would overturn previously set precedent by the Court and because it is a proper argument that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex". I also argue that it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to use judicial review because this would be the greatest usurpation of state sovereignty by 9 lawyers the world has ever seen, (48 states currently find the marriage of same sex couples illegal.) and would go directly against the majority opinion of people in the United States. (Pew Poll, end of may, 49% opposed to marriage, 38% favor. Most recent example) This issue can be solved at the state level, that has been my argument the whole time. The Supreme Court's presence should not alter that fact. To end, I will quote Abraham Lincoln as he speaks regarding his opposition to Judicial review, which is the concept that my opponent is encouraging the Supreme Court to implement, making the banning of gay marriages at the state level illegal. "[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Thank you for accepting my challenge... To initiate my rebuttal, I will first address your claim "not allowing gay couples to be married is not discrimination by any means" First, let's define the term 'discrimination' Discrimination - 1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction. 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. 3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment http://dictionary.reference.com... In this particular case, the distinction being made is in reference to the both the gender and sexual orientations of the individuals involved. You are saying "You cannot get married, because you are not like me" which in this case would be classified as discrimination. If we were to look at this from a similar perspective (ie a couple with different ethnic backgrounds), this would also be classified as discrimination. Not allowing couples to marry because of their biological sex is in fact discriminatory by definition and is no less discriminatory than not allowing couples to marry because of their ethnicity. My sources regarding gender and sex discrimination laws are below, they also apply to gays and lesbians. Gender and Sex Discrimination Laws: http://www.eeoc.gov... Marriage is a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond. However, in the United States, marriage is more of a legal process. Couples who commit to marriage must sign a legally binding marriage contract which then grants them certain benefits that are only given to those under said contract who have established some sort of bond or commitment to one another. Obviously the government IS interested in the personal relationships of two people, because if they weren't, there would be no need for a legally binding contract. Marriage is far from ever being a 'private' issue. No legal matters are private if the government is involved. And as far as the government is concerned, the relationship between the two people involved is essential when considering whether or not they are allowed to be married in some cases which is why American citizens who choose marry immigrants must go through a process of "legitimization" of their relationship before their spouse can become a fully recognized U.S. citizen. Definition of Marriage: http://dictionary.reference.com... For Immigration purposes: http://www.immihelp.com... By claiming "The government recognizes marriage between man and woman because despite the private relationship they have, their relationship still has a natural link to children to be loved by their mother and father. " you are implying 1. Gay people are not capable of having, loving or raising children, and 2. Having children is some sort of requirement in marriage. Both are false. Gay couples are just as capable of raising and loving their children as any heterosexual couple. Not all heterosexual parents are 'loving' parents either. And when discussing marriage, whether or not you believe homosexuals should raise children is irrelevant. Having children is not a requirement for marriage. There are heterosexual couples who do not have children, either by choice, due to infertility or age and gay couples that do in fact raise children together. It is not the government's job to "promote" a hetero normative environment. That, once again, is discrimination. Gay couples marrying and raising children does not somehow hinder or deteriorate the survival of a society. And by saying it is acceptable for the government to "promote" this, you thereby go against your own claim that "the government could care less about what people do with their private lives." because according to you, that is the exact opposite. Regardless, one cannot "promote" heterosexuality. Whether or not gay couples are allowed to marry, that has no impact on the sexual orientation, personal lives or traditional values of other people. You add on by claiming "In addition, homosexuals can still be married, just like heterosexuals, regardless of sexual orientation." I assume by "married" you mean to the opposite sex, correct? Allow me to show you the error in that statement. Homosexuals are romantically/sexually attracted to the same sex, not the opposite. To say it is acceptable for a gay man to marry a woman is illogical and promotes dishonesty. What purpose does that serve and how does that benefit the couple involved? A gay man is incapable of falling in love with and having a healthy sexual relationship with a woman if he is not attracted to her. So why would a person want to marry someone if it only leads to conflict, stress, possibly adultery and eventually divorce. It would be ridiculous to think that is a good idea. You go on to claim "To say homosexuals are discriminated against would be nearly the same as saying any couple that is currently excluded from marriage is being discriminated against." And what couples would that be exactly? Please specify in detail. "Now that we understand the government"s role in marriage we can understand that there is no unjust discrimination going against any couple who cannot be married." No disrespect intended but clearly you do not exactly know the government's role in marriage. And none of your arguments really proved that denying gay couples the right to marry is not classified as discrimination because it clearly is under legal definition. All of your major points consisted of claims which implied that marriage is some sort of "heterosexual privilege" without any real evidence or logical argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage, only biased claims. All I really got from your argument was "Gays marrying is bad for families and society because I say so and it's not discrimination because I say so and they shouldn't marry because I say so" without any evidence or specifications, which to me is not a valid argument at all. Please present an argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage that is more direct and provide evidence to support your claims. I await your response.

Thanks! Again, I'll keep this as short as possible. My argument goes as follow: 1) Liberty is a default position in that we assume liberty unless given ample reason to place restrictions on it. (In short, we give liberty and freedom the benefit of the doubt. This is not to say that liberty is unlimited. ) 2) Marriage of any kind is cultural (and, therefore, unnatural. If there could be any kind of "natural" relationship between men and women, it would be one of promiscuity because we are not biologically monogamous. ) Words in parentheses are for further explanation. They are not actually part of the contentions. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be legal. As I thought was commonly known, most states presently restrict same-sex marriages. The first contention works perfectly, and Con has yet to refute it. The second contention was, more or less, added preemptively, and I was correct: Con attempted to naturalize heterosexual unions. For example he says, "There are emotional, sexual, and parental goods which are exclusive to heterosexual union. " Exclusive implies that heterosexuals have a "natural" quality that homosexuals do not. This focuses on the group rather than the individual merit of the parents, regardless of sexual orientation. If we accept contention two, which Con has failed to refute, we must accept the cultural foundation, and further subjectivity, of marriage. That is, there are no "natural" marriages in which to compare other concepts of marriage. This would make Con's entire argument invalid because he claims that relationships such as marriage have intrinsic value. This is simply untrue. The relationships are different in definition, but the relationships in themselves have no intrinsic value. For instance, bad parents are bad parents because they do not care for their children (i. e. they abuse or neglect their children). Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Any goods provided by any couple, or anyone for that matter, would be provided on an individual basis. Con raises a good point, however, on whether or not marriage should be recognized by the government at all. That is another debate entirely and not part of this one. Con had several options in which to attack my argument. He could have argued that same-sex marriages in someway deserved to be unrecognized based on some sort of wrongdoing. Instead, Con has focused his energy on arguing for discrimination against same-sex marriages. Con attempted to legitimize discrimination with several incorrect examples. The definition of discrimination would be as follows: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). This definition is more widely used and accepted in a social context. Con's usage,"To discriminate is simply to note or observe a difference between two things. .. ," would be more fitting outside a social context. I will address 2 points regarding Con's argument for discrimination. 1) "The state discriminates between convicts and the innocent, between combatants and non-combatants, between adults and children. " First, it is more correct to call these examples distinctions. Second, none of these violate my first contention; that is, they all have sufficient reason (except maybe adults and children because the age was only moved to eighteen so more troops could die in Vietnam). Nevertheless, adults and children are not discriminated against in such a way that could be comparable to the distinction (and further discrimination) made between homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2) "What is wrong is unjust discrimination, and thus far my opponent has failed to provide any valid argument as to why we should not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples in this sense. " This goes against my first contention, which Con has failed to refute. We need sufficient reason to limit freedom and should not assume that we must discriminate between any groups unless there is sufficient reason. It appears, however, that Con means to use "distinction" instead of "discrimination". In fact, Con's argument is based on distinction (concluding in discrimination). No one is saying that the two marriages are the same; homosexuals along with heterosexual allies are asking for equal recognition under the law. Thus far, Con has failed to provide a sufficient reason other than definitional differences in which to limit freedoms.

I accept, but on one small condition. Before we start the debate, we should at least define what same-sex marriage is so that we don't have any confusion on the definition of the term during the debate. With that being said, here's how same-sex marriage is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary. Same-sex Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. [1] With the definition out of the way, I look forward to a clean, and rational debate with my opponent. Citations: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Thank you for starting this highly controversial topic In order for a marriage to be 'fully legitimate', two things are necessary. One is recognition by the state. The other (which is technically optional) is recognition by a religous institution. Currently, the states of Iowa, Massachussets, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have legalized same-sex marriage (1). Each of these states contains a relgious institution somewhere or another in it willing to recognize a same -sex marriage. Therefore, homosexual marriages can be legitimate and the resolution is negated. More importantly, passing any statue to explicitly ban marriage by people of the sames-sex can have only one purpose, and that is to discriminate. As a result, laws banning gay marriage do not hold up to strict scrutinty, meaning that they stand in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (2). Moreover, homosexuality is not 'voluntary' or a 'lifestyle choice'. Most scholars are in general agreement that homosexuality is either caused by genetics or early psychological trauma (3,4). My opponent's point concerning homosexuals raising kids is disproved by these sources (5). Finally, I would like to point out that the Supreme Court's decision is "Lawerence v. Texas" (2003) stated that the constitution is not bound by any moral code, not even a Judeo-Christian one. As Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority opinion, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." (6). The right to privacy supersedes personal notions of morality not mentioned in the constitution. I think that I've more than negated the resolution. Thank You Sources: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.time.com... (4) http://www.home60515.com... (5) http://www.rossde.com... http://www.post-gazette.com... http://www.gay.com... http://www.bloggernews.net... (6) http://www.law.cornell.edu...

=====Counterarguments===== "First homosexuals already have the right to be together and have relationships and basically all the same rights as heterosexuals anyway. " ----> Quite untrue. Civil unions and marriages have the same rights, but only STATE-wise. This gives around 600 rights for participants in the civil union/marriage. Federally speaking, the government gives about 1,138 rights[1] also. HOWEVER, in 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act[2] was passed by Bill Clinton, and effectively a marriage was defined between a man and a woman in the federal court. This means that for the majority of states who grant homosexuals civil union, there is an imbalance in rights. Basically, gays in a civil union get LESS rights (about a 1000 of them) than if they were in a marriage or if DOMA wasn't passed. =====Conclusion===== My opponent's main argument is that the rights are the same. A simple research shows this is untrue, and thus my opponent's argument fails. ---References--- 1. . http://www.gao.gov... 2. . http://www.domawatch.org...

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.

This is a debate covering the topic of gays and lesbians being allowed to get married, Why its even a question is sick, they should be allowed to get married, they are people capable of love just like straight people.


Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Made Lawful?

Same-sex marriage
Indeed, as a person of Christian faith, I support the legalization of gay marriage. I hold the belief that God desires for everyone to experience happiness, regardless of whether they choose to marry someone of the same or opposite sex. Marriage is a fundamental right that should be accessible to all individuals, and therefore, gay marriage ought to be recognized and legalized in every state.

Before I start this debate, I would like to ask everyone who will eventually vote in this debate to please vote based upon the debate itself, and not upon the debaters or your own opinions. Thank you. I have put out this debate to challenge anyone who wants to debate me. However, I would not like to debate anyone who shares my same views. I would like to find out why there are people who want to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. Now to my actual argument: According to the Human Rights Commision, there are approximatley 10 million homosexual people living in the United States today. They have all the freedoms that hetrosexuals have, except for one: the right to marry whom they wish. Gay people in many areas of the USA do not have the right to marry another gay person. They do, however, have the right to have a civil union. Most would say, 'Civil Unions are the same thing as marriage!' You are wrong. Civil unions often only give the gay couple some of the rights of male and female marriages. They often limit the things that the couple can do. Civil Unions are not the same as marriages. The crux of my argument is simple and can be composed in a few questions: Why is it that just because a gay person is gay, they cannot marry who they want? Since when did the government have to right to limit our liberties and freedoms that do not matter in homeland security? Why do we discriminate based upon sexual orientation, even though we don't discriminate based upon race or gender. Thank you

I. Equal Protection Clause In the Supreme Court Case, Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that two people could marry each other even if they were different races. It overturned interracial marriage bans. This proves that you cannot stop two individuals from marrying based on one aspect of each of them. Gays have the right to marry each other, just like two races can marry each other. II. Violence is natural...so is homosexuality You obviously did not read my arguments well enough because I did not defend gays by saying that it is natural. I'm simply stating that there is no choice in the matter and it does not hurt anybody. Therefore, why would the government try to stop it? III. "Who are you or anyone else to say what parts of the Bible were or were not inspired by God?" A. This is a very flawed statement. Leviticus 20:2 starts off by saying "And say unto the children of Israel..." Not to the children of God or people of the world. The passage in Leviticus only involves Israeli priests. B. Leviticus also bans clothes of mixed fabrics and round haircuts. It is not for all of us. Just for these priests. "These priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves and carrying on drunken sexual orgies." IV. A. Romans 1:24-27 specifically states they were thrown off of their initial attractions for new, vile ones. This means they were once different sexually. Gays are born, not created later. This is proven in my naturality arguments. B. Romans 2 begins with the "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." The government and Congressmen have no right to judge. This is the Bible's message with Romans. How dare you twist the words! V. It says they had unseemly affections including castrating themselves and sex orgies, not the God-given gift of homosexuality. VI. The first statement in Romans 2 is "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." Nobody has the right to judge, even if the Bible agrees with your judgment, which in this case, it does not. VII. A. Maybe one of my sources was differing, but after re-reading it, I realize it is a biased source (pureintimacy.com). I tried to use unbiased sources, but I guess I slipped on one. B. AND YOU LIED ABOUT MY OTHER SOURCE!!! It says "There is no consensus among scientists about the EXACT reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation." This is true. However, the same sight says that nature plays a complex role in it. C. I'm upset that you would lie about the source and only include the first part of the statement "There is no scientific consensus on the exact reasons..." when after that it says that nature plays a complex role along with nurture. VIII. I only recognize sources that are scientific. My sources are not biased. They are scientific, mostly psychological. IX. Maybe the gay gene will die out overtime. Scientists say that we will all be mixed and all the races will die out overtime as well. So what!?!? X. Serrogacy proves that the gene will likely not die out. ...you're obviously not reading my argument... XI. There are mutations, recessive genes, closet homosexuals who reproduce. All of these will create a gay gene. XII. Sodomy is no more likely to kill you than vaginal sex. This argument is just dumb. I'm getting really annoyed. XIII. Maybe God wanted gays to adopt. Perhaps this is his plan. XIV. Serrogacy makes kids. Not sodomy. I understand that Snoopy. XV. My source was a mistake. I'll admit. I didn't look it over well enough. Ok. XVI. GAY MARRIAGE IS PROTECTED UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE! XVII. SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IT IS MOST LIKELY BIOLOGICAL AND NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE PROVES OTHERWISE! XVIII. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ANOTHER PERSON ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.

Well, you bring up some interesting points and still some that aren't quite valid. I would assert that whether America has laws or not they are subject to the human being interpreting them. Therefore, the American system is thoroughly flawed as all human beings are. There is absolutely no argument to this issue when you recognize the beginning of marriage. As I stated previously, marriage was birthed from God and as such there can be no other form other than Man and Wife. And, just as in constitutional law there are examples so to does the bible offer examples. I think the most profound and widely used is the idea of Sodom and Gomorrah. This example is certainly used more than any other however it sets a precedent, that is a town where debauchery and things which God called impure took place and he torched it. I think certainly the biggest argument against Gay marriage is the old adage that, a square peg does not fit in a round hole. Despite what progressive america says there is a natural order-Darwin called it natural selection. The idea that the majority will rule. When a species does not conform to the main idea they will be pushed away-to the point that they will become extinct. Therefore, gay marriage being the outsider and unnatural in humankind cannot last. Now, whether you take the scientific view that homosexuals cannot last in a world of heterosexuals or the idea that marriage does not exists without religion, I think that it really doesn't matter what the American government thinks or does. The government, as it always does, has its hands in the pockets of its citizens when it has no business. This issue as with many others cannot be governed by anyone except God. I say this because even the constitution refers to the Bill of Rights as God given rights. If the founding fathers felt that God has given us rights then certainly the question should be raised as to whether the first amendment is even legal. How can a superior being, a being that judges and grants rights be judged by humans. Sorry, I got off on a tangent.

I believe that gay marriage should not be legal. It is against many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which are some of the largest religions. Also, if you are thinking in the long term, the population will decrease because less people are actually marrying. Their only choice will be to adopt a baby, as they obviously cannot make one on their own. Also, with our children being brought up thinking that this is okay, we are corrupting what god and the founding fathers of our country believed.

My opening argument is that marriage is about love, not biological sex or gender. Who cares if two men or two women want to get married as long as they are consenting adults? My rebuttals: P1: Marriage, as properly defined, is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. As Girgis, et al, write, "The conjugal view of marriage has long informed the law -- along with the literature, art, philosophy, religion, and social practice -- of our civilization...It is a vision of marriage as a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond, distinguished thus by its comprehensiveness, which is, like all love, effusive: flowing out into the wide sharing of family life and ahead to lifelong fidelity. In marriage, so understood, the world rests its hope and finds ultimate renewal." [1] My rebuttal is that this creates a whole bunch of second class citizens. Are you really saying that old people, people who don't want children, people who can't have children should not get married? Limiting marriage and sex to those that do implies a positive answer to my question. Marriage is not just about having children, it is about having someone to grow old with. P2: Same-sex couplings do not have a special link to children. My previous argument is relevant for this too. Are people who can't have children wrong to get married? My Conclusion 1: Marriage is about companionship too, not just reproduction. My Conclusion 2: Please see my first conclusion.

1) No if they are married and they are treated with the same benefits as straight marriage than they shall have a nightmare too. Marriage will be a "sexless" nightmare regardless of sexual orientation2) But....there's not point in that3) LOOL my opponent here is clearly mistakenJonas Brothers does not equal the Joneses philosophy And Justin Beiber does not equal the Jonas Brothers (There is a difference between one little queermo selling sex to little girls and three little queermos selling sex to little girls) But I feel a little bad for the JonA$$ Brothers because Mickey Mouse forces them to be stupid and beats the sh1t out of them!!! 4) Yes all family dinners are awkward which is why no one should have to pay to have one!!5) Well then that should go for straight people too6) Lool I'm sensing some personal problems....oooh SHIIITTT7) Well....obviously I'm much more sophisticated and classy.... I think that that Santorum comment should be better worded as "I have a thought that maybe perhaps that Santorum should obstain from critisizing homosexuals until he attempts to insert a sex device up his rectum." I think that sounds a lot more pleasant...DON'T YOU?? :DNo being civilized just means you look cooler8) Lool well I guess i just worded that statement retarded. I meant that you saying that girls would f*ck guys that hang out with gay guys has nothing to do with gay people being married, you can hang out with a gay guy without them being married, so it was a non sequitur9) AND GAY PEOPLE10) Also for straight marriage: tell them you're gay and that will solve everything 11) I am going against the premise by saying that "no I don't agree that gay marriage should be legalized and straight marriage should be illegalized, I think that neither gay marriage nor straight marriage should be legal"

Civil union is open to anyone but it is but as separate from marriage which is not. In most states (there are exceptions) marriage is open to just heterosexuals. Just because a homosexual was never consider 3/5 of a human doesn't mean people aren't constantly dehumanizing them. "Homosexuals or Homo Sapiens: Who Deserves Protected Class Status?" That is trying to say being a homosexual is apart from being human. It's not just this one quote who is saying it either. The number one reason people were bullied in schools was because of their appearance. Number two? Their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. Nine out of ten LGBT teens reported being bullied in schools for their orientation. More than 1/3 have been reported for attempting suicide because of the way others treat them. Yes, other people are bullied. But this shows that the general population IS dehumanizing them. Vermont adapted civil unions to entitle same-sex couples to ensure the same rights as marriage while keeping "the institute of marriage." The same rights are not given. Proposition 22, passed in 2000, is there to ensure that same-sex unions are not given most of the state benefits that are given to opposite-sex marriage. The Marriage Defense Act, passed in 1996, keeps same-sex unions from receiving federal benefits. The only way same-sex is truly equal is through marriage. No matter who started civil unions does not change the fact they are still a step down from marriage although as stated above, they were suppose to be designed as equal to marriage. Just as women started getting jobs as secretaries and could do nothing more, they took the jobs as a step towards equality. Civil unions are that step to be taken, but not yet the step there. Not everyone believes that gays deserve the rights as others. That is an invalid argument that it should be easy to convince everyone when the majority looks down on the minority. Majority rule, minority rights down exist under the law in this country. It is there so no government or majority may take away the rights and freedoms of a minority group. Under the law marriage is a right. You cannot argue that it should be easy to convince everyone. The majority does not agree with it, the minority, under the law, still keeps their rights. I am gay and I don't need any scientific evidence to tell me whether or not I chose this. I don't know anyone who would choose to let society tell them to be someone else. Speaking from personal experience I would never choose to let my parents yell at me, ground me, and tell me how unnatural my choices are. If a choice was given, I personally would be heterosexual. Society first tells me to be myself, but then changes its mind. But I am not attracted to guys. It's as simple as that. You are incorrect about the no scientific evidence. Psychological science is a branch of science. Social science is based off the ABC's (affect, behavior, and cognition). They are looked at by both self and others. Affect is feelings. Feelings have been stated by the individuals. How you feel about others is stated. Other people have observed these feelings. Republican Wade Kach said "I saw with so many of the gay couples, they were so devoted to one another. I saw so much love. When this hearing was over, I was a changed person in regard to this issue. I felt that I understood what same sex couples were looking for." Yes, other people observe it. The behavior is apparent and doesn't have to be explained by the gay rights movement. Cognition is the thought. Homosexuals have clearly thought about through the way they're being put down to stand up for what's rights. There has been no evidence on what causes sexual orientation, so you are correct on that, but it has been proven that most (yes, some people do choose their sexuality, not everyone possesses that in their wiring) people do not choose their sexual orientation. I'll humor you and pretend it's a choice. That brings back to the discussion you can't discriminate for someone's choice. Everyone chooses who they like better. You can't take away a right because of their choice. You still don't need a wedding. The license needs to be signed, that does not make it a wedding. The wedding it the couple's choice. Yes, restrictions have always existed. Interracial marriage used to be illegal. Things progress. I am not arguing for or against the other restrictions. Am I saying those are correct or not? No. I have done research on those issues nor do I have the time at this moment. I will look into them for a future debate with you. Although your animal argument does not work because you cannot get consent from both parties. Restrictions are there but that doesn't mean they're right. Love is love. It was nice debating with you. I learned a lot about formatting, especially how to source them. I've always just sourced in alphabetical and your format will help in the future. But I'd suggest not using Wikipedia as a source. http://blog.chron.com... http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com... http://www.america.gov... http://www.apa.org... http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... http://www.infoplease.com...

Contention 1: Homosexuals should not get married.First let me give you a Bible verse that is against the Bible.Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."Now I state that homosexuals should not get married, because it is against many different religions and we can all agree that marriage is a religious Sacrament where that the church says it is between a man and a women. ( http://www.americancatholic.org...) Now the US has the Separation of church and state, so my point is that the federal government should stay out of a religious affair as it has no right to intervene.Contention 2: Civil Unions are a better alternative to Gay marriageNow I know my opponent will probably bring up that I don't want two people that love each other together, but that is false. I as fact have two homosexual uncles, but am still against Gay Marriage. I instead support Civil Unions. What are Civil Unions you may ask? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Civil Union is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Now reading this you may ask yourself why are you against gay marriage then? Simply for the reason stated in Contention 2. Let me show you it's effectiveness. New Jersey and Vermont both have legalized Civil Unions instead of Gay Marriage and they give you the same exact right as a married couple. Here's who can enter a Civil Union. the same sex over 18 years old (or meet requirements for an exception) not a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriage not closely related to each other (for example, not an ancestor, descendant, sibling, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle) (http://www.lambdalegal.org...) Also according to Pew research Center, 57% of Americans approve of Civil Unions (with a 37% oppose) while 53% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage (37% favor). Here are the support numbers between men and women. Men Civil Unions: 54% for 40% against, women Civil Unions: 60% for 35% oppose, Men Gay Marriage: 34% for 59% oppose, Women Gay Marriage 43% for 48% against. (http://www.people-press.org...) Contention 3: Financial gain from Civil UnionsCivil Union produce tons of money. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence. (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...)

Unfortunately I have never had an adequate debate on this topic before so I will try one last time. Full Resolution: Gay Marriage should be legalized everywhereI will arguing that gay marriage should not be legal everywhere. No semantics and please try not to forfeit a round.For clarity I will provide several definitions: same-sex marriage-the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriagelegalized-to give legal validity or sanction toSTRUCTURE:1st Round- Acceptance2nd Round- Cases3rd Round- Rebuttal4th Round- Conclusion/SummaryI await my opponent's response!http://www.merriam-webster.com......

>>Actually, marriage IS an institution of the Church. By "Church," I mean the religious institutions performing the marriages, not necessarily only Christians. Other religions besides Christianity frown upon homosexual marriages as well. Also, some atheists have been turned away by some churches due to their lack of belief. If they can find a preacher that agrees to do their marriage, then they can be married, no problem. However, homosexuality is expressly condemned in the religions writings like the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Koran to name a few. In the eyes of most religious persons, marriages are degraded by allowing those obviously against the teachings of their faith and unwilling to change to participate in the same religious marriage ceremony as those of the faith. Let me say this again. In the United States of America, it is not required to have a marriage through the Christian Church, or any religious institution. You can get married through the state. You just have to go to City Hall and register you and your partner as a married couple, and you are a married couple. I personaly know people who have gotten married without going through the Church (ie. my parents). Therefore, this point is irrelevant. This debate is about whether or not it should be legal to marry someone of the same gender, not if all the relgious institutions should accept gay marriage. I am not saying that. If there was any confusion, let me clear it up; I am arguing that gay people should LEGALLY be allowed to marry. Keyword: legally. >>I challenge you to find a legitimate religion that would happily marry a homosexual couple. Again, look at my previous statement. >>Marriages are religious. Are you saying that if you do not have a religion, you cannot marry? I refuse to believe this. Again, I personally know people who do not have a religion and have married. >>They are designed to be a covenant between partner and partner to declare before their religious deity that they are forever one. If the government is a religious diety, then I would agree with you. However, the government is NOT a religious diety, nor can it establish a certain diety to be the national diety of the USA. You can go to City Hall and tell them you are married to another person, and they will record it and you are married in the eyes of the state. You do not have to ask a priest to marry you. >>Civil Unions are contracts made with the state to ensure the same economic and civil rights as those with marriage. Civil unions do not give the same civil and economical rights as those with marriage. They may be similar in some aspects, but they do not give the same rights as a marriage does. >>The reason "separate but equal" didn't work was because the African-Americans were in very small minority and did not know how to stand up for their rights for a long time. Are you suggesting that it is the African Americans' fault that they were discriminated and considered inferior? >>Civil Unions can be changed to provide all the same rights as a marriage would. If they are given the same economic and civil liberties through civil unions, why do they wish to have marriage on top of that? Again, you are making a 'separate but equal' argument. Is there a reason they should not wish to be able to have marriage? Why do they have to have a civil union? Civil unions were created to give gay people the same rights as married people. However, history has shown us that separate can never be equal. Civil unions will never be the same as marriages. >>As for my last point about homosexual couples contributing less, I concede that it is possible for them to reproduce with the help of technology. Thank you >>Because marriage is not controlled by the government, and many religious institutions do not wish to perform homosexual marriages. Again, you can walk into City Hall, and tell them you are married to a certain person, and City Hall records that you are now married. You do not have to ask the Church whether or not you can be married. >>It also can't force you to accept homosexuality. I am not saying that the government has to force everyone in the USA to accept gay people. I agree, there are a lot of people out there who do not like gay marriage. However, why should the people who do not like gay marriage be allowed to say that there can be no gay marriage? >>You cannot stop religious institutions from condemning homosexuality as a sin and withholding their ceremonies, Yes, but you do not have to go through a religious institution to get married, so this point is irrelevent. City Hall! >>government does not have the right to interfere as long as no laws are broken. Actually, you are wrong. The government was created to ensure that everyone had the same rights and liberties, and if one division of the people do not have a certain right, it should be the government's duty to give it to them. All men were created equal. They all have certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. If one group of people do not have the right to marry, and they do not have the same liberties as everyone else, shouldn't we give it to them? >>Homosexuals have the right to a state-recognized civil union that should grant them the same rights marriages between heterosexuals do. Again, civil unions do not always grant the same rights as marriages. >> I ask you, why do Non-religious homosexuals wish to be married by a religious institution if they have the same rights as the heterosexual couples? You do not have to be married by a religious institution for you to be married. You can get married through the state. Also, CIVIL UNIONS DO NOT GRANT THE SAME RIGHTS AS A MARRIAGE. >>Why not just change civil unions to be equal to marriages in all legal matters? BECAUSE SEPARATE CAN NEVER BE EQUAL. You are a high school student, and I am sure that you have heard this phrase. You must also know, being a high school students, that it is true. If you do not know this phrase, please look it up. I shall conclude my argument with this: if the gay person wishes to be married through the state, and is a non-religious person, why can't they do so? The obvious answer would be that it is illegal. However, we must ask ourselves, why is it illegal? Because the majority of the USA does not want gay marriage. Why should the majority be able to tell the minority what to do? What gave the majority the ability to take away rights from the minority? My opponent might argue that it goes against their religion, and therefore they are against it. However, if the gay person is non-religious, why should someone else's religion affect their personal life? I leave you with this, and thank you for the debate.


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Made Legal?

The debate over the legalization of gay marriage centers on several key points, with the primary contention being the lack of a compelling rationale for its prohibition. When evaluating the arguments against gay marriage, it becomes evident that there is no substantial legal foundation to deny this right. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, defined marriage as between a man and a woman. However, this definition can be challenged and changed, as it is a law that can be overturned or ignored through legal processes. The comparison to polygamy is often raised, with the argument that there is no legal basis for banning polygamy, much like gay marriage. However, the legality of polygamy is often grounded in moral and traditional arguments, similar to the debates surrounding bestiality and pedophilia. The absence of a clear legal argument against gay marriage, akin to the prohibition of forks, highlights the lack of substantial rationale for its illegality.

Moreover, the argument that banning gay marriage would result in homosexuals being treated as second-rate citizens is crucial. While opponents might claim that gay and straight individuals have the same rights, this assertion is flawed. Straight individuals can marry without contradiction to their sexual orientation, whereas gay individuals cannot. This disparity underscores the inequality present in the current legal framework.

The opponents of gay marriage often present two primary reasons for its prohibition: the assertion that marriage is not a right and the potential for societal acceptance. However, these arguments are flawed. Firstly, the comparison to polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia is misplaced. While polygamy may require legal age and consent, akin to heterosexual marriage, the other two practices violate additional laws and are not comparable. Secondly, the concern over societal acceptance and the role of the state as a promoter of gay marriage is unfounded. The acceptance of interracial marriage, now widely accepted, suggests that societal attitudes can evolve over time. Furthermore, the argument that personal opinions should not interfere with justice is pertinent. Regardless of individual beliefs, laws must be based on principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that all individuals are treated justly under the law. The absence of a compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage, combined with the potential for societal acceptance and the principles of justice, supports the argument for its legalization.

Society is changing, and the traditional idea of the nuclear family with married mother and father is no longer the only acceptable alternative. The reason that many countries are beginning to award legal rights to gay couples is because the stability of such relationships is now recognised. There is no reason, therefore, why such couples cannot provide a stable and loving upbringing for children.

Homosexuals have the same right to marry members of the opposite sex

A New York Court ruled in 2006 presented what is known as the “reckless procreation” rationale in favor of gay marriage. "Heterosexual intercourse," the plurality opinion stated, "has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not." Gays become parents, the opinion argued, in a number of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”[3] In other words, the non-procreative nature of homosexuals is as much a blessing as it might be seen a curse.

Many children in the United States, let alone the world are orphaned. Same sex spouses frequently adopt children in need of a family. This is highly socially beneficial. A child receives a family and no additional children are added into an over-populated world. And, gay marriage would increase the adoption rate, since many homosexual spouses will want to start a family just like straight spouses.

Civil unions are not "separate, but unequal" if heterosexuals can do it

B.A. Robinson. "Same-sex marriages (SSM), civil unions & domestic partnerships". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. June 17, 2009: "For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples."

The law incorporates enough protection for couples with “common law marriages” and various jurisdictions over inheritance and ownership. Co-habitation is far more practical, and avoids lengthy, painful, and expensive legal proceedings in the event of a relationship breakdown. The only thing that marriage gains is a socially recognised sense of emotional stability, and divorce rates are indicative of the fact that if a relationship is set to fail, the institution of marriage itself will not save it.

The institution of marriage is dependent on its traditional definition being maintained as between a man and woman, and the traditional family/reproduction/child-rearing/mother-father-role-models function of marriage being upheld as well. Gay marriage breaks from many of these traditional functions. Civil unions uphold the institution of marriage by not interfering with them.

Gay marriage is a radical social experiment

Gay marriage does not help propagate society


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Legalized?

Same-sex marriage should be recognized as legal in the United States. Same-sex marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S., given that LGBTQ+ individuals pose no inherent threat to society. Their sexual orientation is a result of genetic variation, akin to traits such as race, eye color, and hair type. This innate aspect of their identity should not be a barrier to their legal rights and freedoms.

"Civil Unions Are Not Enough. Six Key Reasons Why." Lambda Legal: "4. A separate and unequal status invites others to discriminate. When the government decides one group cannot have the same choice as others, it marks them as inferior and invites others to discriminate against them as well, including employers, businesses, police, emergency room workers and others."

B.A. Robinson. "Same-sex marriages (SSM), civil unions & domestic partnerships". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. June 17, 2009: "For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples."

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."

While the law should not penalise gay relationships, it also exists to encourage the nuclear family as the ideal for child-raising. 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.

"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."

Gays are taxpaying citizens, deserve marriage benefits

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."

All anti-gay-marriage arguments are ultimately anti-gay

Gay marriage "slippery slope" argument is scare-mongering

The institution of marriage is already broken, with divorce rates as high as 50% in many countries. Therefore, what exactly are people trying to protect against polygamy? The "institution of marriage"? What institution? It doesn't seem that there is much to protect, so polygamy shouldn't be held up this account.


Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Legally Recognized?

Same-sex marriage should be legalized

I will counter the arguments made by my opponent and provide evidence for the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. The definition of marriage, as my opponent has stated, is incorrect in some countries where gay marriage is indeed legal. Here are some examples:

- Netherlands: On April 1, 2001, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, granting the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to adopt.
- Belgium: Homosexual couples in Belgium have almost the same rights as heterosexual couples. They won the right to marry in 2003 and in 2006, the parliament passed a law allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.
- Spain: In 2005, Spain became the third member of the European Union to pass a law allowing same-sex marriages. Gay couples can adopt children, whether they are married or not.
- Canada: Canada adopted a national law allowing gays to marry and adopt in July 2005, although most provinces had already allowed same-sex unions before that date.
- South Africa: The country legalized same-sex unions and adoptions by gay couples in November 2006, becoming the first African nation to do so.
- Norway: A 2009 law allowed homosexuals to marry and adopt children. Civil partnerships have existed in the country for 20 years.
- Sweden: Sweden's homosexuals have been allowed to wed in religious or civil ceremonies since May 2009.
- Portugal: Under a 2010 law, Portugal legalized gay marriage, excluding the right to adoption.
- Iceland: Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir married her long-time partner in June 2010 as a new law legalizing homosexual marriages came into force. Same-sex couples who have lived together for at least five years have had the right to adopt children since 2006.
- Argentina: Gays in Argentina became the first on the South American continent to be able to wed and adopt, after legislation passed on July 14, 2010.
- Denmark: Denmark, the first country in the world to allow gay couples to enter into civil unions in 1989, voted overwhelmingly in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry in the state Evangelical Lutheran Church in June 2012.
- Uruguay: Uruguay voted in April to allow same-sex marriages nationwide, making it only the second Latin American country to do so.
-

Thanks! Again, I'll keep this as short as possible. My argument goes as follow: 1) Liberty is a default position in that we assume liberty unless given ample reason to place restrictions on it. (In short, we give liberty and freedom the benefit of the doubt. This is not to say that liberty is unlimited. ) 2) Marriage of any kind is cultural (and, therefore, unnatural. If there could be any kind of "natural" relationship between men and women, it would be one of promiscuity because we are not biologically monogamous. ) Words in parentheses are for further explanation. They are not actually part of the contentions. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be legal. As I thought was commonly known, most states presently restrict same-sex marriages. The first contention works perfectly, and Con has yet to refute it. The second contention was, more or less, added preemptively, and I was correct: Con attempted to naturalize heterosexual unions. For example he says, "There are emotional, sexual, and parental goods which are exclusive to heterosexual union. " Exclusive implies that heterosexuals have a "natural" quality that homosexuals do not. This focuses on the group rather than the individual merit of the parents, regardless of sexual orientation. If we accept contention two, which Con has failed to refute, we must accept the cultural foundation, and further subjectivity, of marriage. That is, there are no "natural" marriages in which to compare other concepts of marriage. This would make Con's entire argument invalid because he claims that relationships such as marriage have intrinsic value. This is simply untrue. The relationships are different in definition, but the relationships in themselves have no intrinsic value. For instance, bad parents are bad parents because they do not care for their children (i. e. they abuse or neglect their children). Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Any goods provided by any couple, or anyone for that matter, would be provided on an individual basis. Con raises a good point, however, on whether or not marriage should be recognized by the government at all. That is another debate entirely and not part of this one. Con had several options in which to attack my argument. He could have argued that same-sex marriages in someway deserved to be unrecognized based on some sort of wrongdoing. Instead, Con has focused his energy on arguing for discrimination against same-sex marriages. Con attempted to legitimize discrimination with several incorrect examples. The definition of discrimination would be as follows: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). This definition is more widely used and accepted in a social context. Con's usage,"To discriminate is simply to note or observe a difference between two things. .. ," would be more fitting outside a social context. I will address 2 points regarding Con's argument for discrimination. 1) "The state discriminates between convicts and the innocent, between combatants and non-combatants, between adults and children. " First, it is more correct to call these examples distinctions. Second, none of these violate my first contention; that is, they all have sufficient reason (except maybe adults and children because the age was only moved to eighteen so more troops could die in Vietnam). Nevertheless, adults and children are not discriminated against in such a way that could be comparable to the distinction (and further discrimination) made between homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2) "What is wrong is unjust discrimination, and thus far my opponent has failed to provide any valid argument as to why we should not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples in this sense. " This goes against my first contention, which Con has failed to refute. We need sufficient reason to limit freedom and should not assume that we must discriminate between any groups unless there is sufficient reason. It appears, however, that Con means to use "distinction" instead of "discrimination". In fact, Con's argument is based on distinction (concluding in discrimination). No one is saying that the two marriages are the same; homosexuals along with heterosexual allies are asking for equal recognition under the law. Thus far, Con has failed to provide a sufficient reason other than definitional differences in which to limit freedoms.

Hello. I am a student that lives in the United States of America. However, I am against gay marriage. ***NOTE*** I am sorry if I offend anybody by writing this. If anybody who reads this happens to be homosexual and/or takes this offensive, then please do NOT read. It is one thing for gays to be together, but it is another for them to get "married". Strictly from the bible (I happen to be Catholic) it has a section stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. If two homosexuals want to be together forever, they should not be taking the name of marriage. It would be fine if it was to be called a union, but when two of the same genders are being blessed together, then that should not be re-considering the holy bible. It is very aggravating to me (and many others) that two people who are both of the same sex are taking the name of what should be a man and a woman. I realize this is becoming cliche, so I will leave my first round point at this. Good luck and let the debating begin!

--------------- BURDEN: I must prove that Homosexuals have the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals. -------------- CASE: A heterosexual man has the following rights to marriage: He can marry 1 woman (and in 4 states, 1 man). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... A heterosexual woman has the following rights to marriage: She can marry 1 man (and in 4 states, 1 woman). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... The 14th ammendment grants all people "equal protection" under the law. . http://www.usconstitution.net... Because of the 14th ammendment, these same rights are bestowed on homosexuals: A homosexual man has the following rights to marriage: He can marry 1 woman (and in 4 states, 1 man). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... A homosexual woman has the following rights to marriage: She can marry 1 man (and in 4 states, 1 woman). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... --------------- CONCLUSION: Both homosexual men and heterosexual men have the same rights to marriage. Both homosexual women and heterosexual women have the same rights to marriage. So, on can conclude that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights.

I am of course referring to human homosexuals living within the United States. DEFINITIONS: same- Conforming in every detail . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... rights to marriage- (divided up) right- Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... marriage- The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (though my opponent may prefer:) marriage- The state of being married; wedlock . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

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.

I believe that gay marriage has become a highly controversial issue which people have blown out of proportion. Exclude the fact that these people are homosexual. They are people just like the rest of us and if it makes them happy to be together, then who are we to deny someone of their happiness? Gay marriage should be allowed throughout the United States.

Arguments are made that GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered) people should not be aloud to raise children. First of all, this argument is null and void. Statistics have shown that children raised in GLBT families are just as well off and possibly better off then those raised in straight families. And no, children raised by GLBT parents aren't always GLBT. All respectable medical, psychological, and children based organizations have come out stating that children are all of the above (APA, AMA, ect). Secondly arguments are made that this opens the door for marrying your livestock or even multiple partners. The people who say anything about marrying livestock have certain issues, Two people marrying. And sadly, yes marriage has been redefined before. It now includes interracial couples. I can't even fight the argument that SSM would open the door for Polygamy because there is no basis, any first year law student could tell you that, it's illogical. Civil rights are unalienable to all people. A government cannot deny rights to any citizen. There are over a thousand benefits offered to Opposite Sex couples that are denied to Same Sex couples.

Thank you for your retort >>"Same sex marriage is not morally wrong and should be legal" To begin with, Let"s look at issues the way they should be looked at; is what a person doing morally right or morally wrong, sinful or not sinful. We"re not supposed to or are we capable of making internal judgement, but we are expected to make external ones. And when two women or two men want to "marry" each other we know, or should know, it"s morally wrong. It"s unnatural. out of place. Statistics show that between ages of 18-44 who reported that they were either homosexual or heterosexual, 96% of men and 94% of women said they were heterosexual, and 1.7% of men and 1.1% of women said they were homosexual or gay. (1) http://www.robgagnon.net... Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. This will be forcing the practices and morals of the "minority" on the "majority" --How in any way is this not harmful to society. We know that they (Homosexual) don"t have a "right" to get married, but an obligation to do what is morally right by not getting married. That obligation is based on a strict moral code that in turn is based on God"s Ten Commandments (in the Bible) Which is also a reliable source for condemning homosexuality wrong. : : : : :Things to think about: : : : : : Homosexuality goes against everything God has created marriage to be. God has created the male and female species for pro creation. He gave the human race marriage between one woman and one man to have a strong healthy family. To lead on the next generation, and the next generation after that. Thank you, i look forward to my opponents next argument.

Contention 1: The legalization of gay marriage aids to society.For the following reasons, legalization of gay marriage has been beneficial to society, meaning that it has aided people at some level. The legalization of gay marriage has aided to society in the following ways:Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community. The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: " Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases.Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.The following evidence of economy after the passage of legalization of same-sex marriage shows us that the legalization is a great supplement to commerce because of the increase of demand for products.Contention 2: Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.Aside from the aids to society, however, gay marriage at some level better establishes equality. This idea is supported by the following points:Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.The equality within the promotion of same-sex marriage in society lies within the balance of interests of all members of society at a moral level, including the homosexual portions of society. This is a scenario similar to the idea against the legalization of interracial marriage, where two people from two groups of people couldn't acquire a legal marriage based merely on the fact that they were members of that social group and nothing else, which is the pinnacle of what embodies prejudice and discrimination in society. The status against same-sex marriage is similar in this manner.Sub 2b: Civil unions are not a good alternative.Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.References: Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <" target="blank">http://www.businesspundit.com......;. Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://userwww.service.emory.edu......;. Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://www.policyarchive.org......;.

Firstly, I will present my arguments and refute each of my opponents arguments next roundResolved: Gay marriage should be legalized. Contention 1: Gay marriage goes against the Bible's will. [1]There have been numerous instances where the bible has credited gay marriage as immoral. Leviticus 18:22 (ESV) 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. This identifies homosexuality as an abomination. Romans 1:26–27 (ESV) 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless. This declares homosexual actions and desires to be shameful and unnatural.1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV) 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,This states homosexuality is unrighteous. Contention 2: Gay marriage will have a negative impact on education. [2]"But the changes it will bring to our schools make this unlikely. A California task force appointed in 2001 recommended all curriculum's there be changed to include alternative sexual lifestyles. In 2006, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that schools have a duty to teach children that there's moral equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships - and have no obligation to let parents opt their children out of such instruction. "I will refute each of my opponents point's next round.