Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Legally Recognized?

LGBTQ individuals deserve equal rights under the law.

Indeed, it's disheartening to observe that some would argue for lesser rights for LGBTQ people. Although I'm on the opposing side of this debate, I maintain that my stance is not to completely deny rights to the LGBTQ community. Rather, I argue that their rights should be more clearly defined. For instance, you've mentioned that LGBTQ individuals should have rights. However, you've only specified the right to donate blood as an example. My position is that LGBTQ individuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, with the exception of your singular argument. This means that LGBTQ individuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, excluding your sole example. If I had only stated that "LGBTQ individuals have the same rights as heterosexuals," it would have been incorrect, which is why I've included the exception. I appreciate that you've provided additional arguments. I'll address each of them, but I'll clarify that technically, LGBTQ individuals could gain these benefits if they pretended to be heterosexual. Not that this is a desirable solution, but it is technically feasible...

The right to have the option to donate blood - I will discuss this further below.

Marriage - As I've mentioned before, both LGBTQ and heterosexual individuals are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Their rights are the same, although LGBTQ individuals might not be content with this.

Adoption - This issue was not included in your source. I assume this pertains to single-parent adoption or adoption by same-sex couples. Both topics are controversial and would require a separate debate.

Hospital Visitation Rights - This would only be denied if they weren't married. Essentially, you're reiterating that same-sex marriage should be legal.

Health insurance - You make it sound as though LGBTQ individuals can't have health insurance, which is incorrect. According to your source, an unmarried couple can't automatically make decisions for each other. Aside from restating that same-sex marriage should be legal, this isn't a significant issue.

Spousal Privilege - I believe that this right is already legal even if you are married.

Family leave - Once again, you're arguing that same-sex marriage should be legal.

Pensions - Once again, you're arguing that same-sex marriage should be legal.

Nursing homes - You make it seem as though LGBTQ individuals can't reside in nursing homes, which is untrue. Other than that, you are once again essentially arguing that same-sex marriage should be legal.

Home protection - I've never heard of that

A civil union is NOT equal to marriage. One of the biggest differences between a civil union and a marriage would be that civil unions do not include federal benefits that are given to married couples. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) issued in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits. Another equally important difference between civil unions and marriage would be that because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines. This isn't something that happens to people who have the right to marry. Another example of inequality would be that now, after New Jersey's Civil Union Law took effect, at least 1 out of every 7 civil-union couples in New Jersey are not getting their civil unions recognized by their employers. That is 14 percent of civil unions. If 14 percent of married couples in New Jersey were being denied full, legally guaranteed marriage benefits by their employers, then people would be completely outraged, and there could even be riots in the streets. And as far as adoption goes, under the current state of the law, many gay and lesbian parents are unable to assume full legal parenting rights, which results in children being denied health care coverage from their parents' employers. Children are also being denied survivor benefits when a parent in a same-sex relationship dies. So, in conclusion, I believe I have responded to all of y opponents arguments, and have proved that Civil Unions are NOT equal to a marriage, in any sense of the word. I thank my opponent and the people who are voting. Vote pro. Sources: civil unions: . http://www.factcheck.org... DOMA: . http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...

Legal benefits can be given without calling it marriage. And breaking with tradition (that is, the acumilated wisdom of hundreds of years of human expirience) can sometimes have bad effects. As I said, the Ancient Greeks kept with Tradition and accepted Homosexual relationships. Homosexuals don't need marriage.Earlier, you told me that the definition of marriage has nothing to do with sex. Now you say Marriage is a commitment with sexual attractions as well. Do tell me, which is it?

I'm probably gonna be crucified for taking this position but oh well. People of the same sex should not be allowed to marry. Here is one reason and that is the definition of marriage. This plainly says husband and wife. Husbands are male and wives are female. 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

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!

I appreciate it. 1) You start by stating that "marriage is the sacred bond of a man and a woman, not a man and man or woman and woman. " Tell me why two human beings who love each other can't have the same privileges, rights, and responsibilities because of their gender. This blatant discrimination is unacceptable. Also when you say that marriage is a sacred institution, divorce rates are at an all time high, infidelity in marriage is an epidemic, and when someone can compete on a television reality show to "Marry a Millionaire", the argument about saving a sacred institution seems kind of pointless. 2) You stated that "If gay marriage is legalized, there will be many riots. " I do not understand and if you could elaborate, please do. This is a foolish assumption and there isn't any evidence that such events will manifest. 3) You also state that "it wasn't thought in the time that the Consitution and Declaration of Independence were written, because back then, there were barely, if not any homosexuals. Our Founding Fathers never thought of this as an issue when these great documents were written. " 1st of all, these are very important documents, but there is no denying that they were written over 200 years ago. Many things aren't defined in the Constitution. 2nd of all, you coveniently forgot to mention when speaking of the Constitution that there is a clause in the Constitution named the "Elastic Clause" that grants Congress the power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. " Many issues aren't clearly defined, and because of the vagueness of the Constitution, this clause was included. I look forward to your reply.

========== The Definition of Marriage ========== [quote]My opponent calls this argument valid, though a red herring. [quote] Actually, I said it was seemingly valid (in the end it isn't). Arguing that the definition of marriage bars gays from becoming married is, again, a red herring. The entire point of the gay marriage debate is to CHANGE the definition of marriage to accepting gays. Only several decades ago, to many people the definition of marriage meant that only a man and a woman OF THE SAME RACE could marry. Obviously however, interracial marriage was soon legalized and now it's becoming much more commonplace. How does my opponent reconcile this change? I can, and it's simple. The definition of marriage was changed for the better. That said, my opponent brings up another point. He asks me why "not...argue for civil unions?". Obviously, because gays get less rights. As my opponent has mentioned, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act[1], known as DOMA, was passed by Bill Clinton. In doing so, the federal government has defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. So even IF states were to legalize gay marriage, gays would STILL get around 1000-plus less rights than heterosexual couples. These rights stem from the federal rights one gets when they get married - but DOMA restricts this! Because of the distinction between state and federal rights, there is an imbalance of rights at play here. ========== Nature of Laws and Morality ========== [quote]You must not only show that rights necessarily exist but that same-sex marriage is a necessary right.[quote] Showing that rights exist is the point of the meta-ethical argument I made in favor for realism. Showing that same-sex marriage is a right was the point of every argument you have made, and I have refuted. Therefore, the evaluation of whether I have successfully shown gay marriage to be a right should hinge on the arguments OTHER than this one. [quote]One may rightly wonder, if these actions are prima facie wrong, why in the world did they happen and are still happening in great magnitude?[quote] My opponent seems to have missed the point of my argument. It doesn't hinge on the fact of everyone agreeing on certain moral judgements (which as my opponent has shown, isn't true), but on the fact that every MORAL THEORY agrees certain moral judgements. Not only that, but my opponent makes additional errors. He seems to describe situations of people who are acting immorally. However, the people who are acting such have their own reasons, whether it be valid or not, for doing so! So while they are committing immoral acts, they themselves are not evil. However, if they were to realize that the actions they are doing are evil, and yet still go on to commit it, then that's another story. But again, that's not the point. The point is that every moral theory obviously agrees on a collective of moral statements. To evaluate such theories, we must examine the theoretical claim (TC) each one makes. For example, the difference between Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism when it comes to killing innocents to save the many follows from the TC that moral rules are universal and don't allow exceptions. Therefore, for any theory, we must set all TC's on the table and evaluate. [quote]Complete moral relativism holds that no thing is completely and obviously true, inasmuch as it can very from subject to subject. Furthermore, moral nihilism, a position you are fond of, holds that there are neither good nor wrong actions.[quote] This is completely false. Moral nihilism and moral relativism are meta-ethical theories, quite different from moral/ethical theories. In reality, there aren't that many moral theories. Virtue ethics formulated by Aristotle. Utilitarian theories with variations by the likes of Bentham and Mill. Deontological theories, of which there are two - Kantian ethics and Contractualism. Objectivism is another, and it's debatable whether or not Divine Command Theory is also one. In the end, however, we end up with only 7-8 theories. [quote]He must not show that it is POSSIBLE that same-sex unions are a right, it is my opponent's burden to PROVE it as such.[quote] Which is the point of the other arguments! My opponent has made a categorical mistake of confusing meta-ethics and ethics. This part of the debate, the nature of laws and morality, is the meta-ethical aspect of the gay marriage debate, and really of all ethical debates. Every other argument my opponent has used such as the definition of marriage can at best be seen as an argument against the ethical aspect of gay marriage. Thus far, he has been unsuccessful on either account. [quote]Furthermore, by admitting that we have no idea whether or not it is a right at this point, should laws be passed in favor of things that are, by my opponent's own admission, possibly wrong?[quote] I never stated that I don't know whether or not gay marriage is wrong. The part of my argument, that my opponent most likely dissected to formulate this quote, was in reference to the fact that the claim "gay marriage is wrong" is not absolutely agreed on by everyone, or (arguably) every moral theory. ========== Legal Reasons ========== My opponent merely states that it hasn't been made clear whether or not a right is being violated, but that is the entire point of this debate! Again, I am repeating myself. My opponent's objective is to show that gays don't have a right to marry, and it's my objective to argue that they do. Such arguments like the definition of marriage evaluate whether or not they have rights! Until it's resolved, my opponent can't go around claiming I have not shown a right is being violated. To do so is to use circular reasoning. In the end of it all, to say whether it is a legal reason or a reason is trivial. Laws such abide by rights, and if it violates rights then it should be done away with. However, if my opponent were to adamantly press for some "legal aspect" that is being violated, then he can simply direct his attention towards the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. ========== Should the government be involved at all? ========== My opponent claims that the government has no RIGHT to be involved in relationships, but he gives no reason for it! I, on the other hand, have. The reasoning process is quite simple. The government CAN allow you to get married, but you don't HAVE to. If you want tax benefits, then you can have the option of getting a legal marriage. If you don't want the government to be involved, then you DON'T have to get a legal marriage but a private Vermont, or what have you. Getting a legal marriage can simply be made to be a choice, therefore the government isn't intruding on anyone's relationship. ========== Conclusion ========== My opponent has only given, at best, a refutation of the meta-ethical aspect of this debate. His other arguments are almost completely devoid of any ethical arguments. It's quite ironic when he states that I have yet to shown that gay marriage is a right, when in fact most of his arguments don't even touch the aspect. His argument pertaining to the definition of marriage is a complete red herring, and has nothing to do with ethics. His argument pertaining to the legality of it misses the point as well, since he fails to develop pass the point of "it's been legalized, therefore it's valid". Finally, his last argument that has somewhat to do with rights, is an empty argument that he has yet to supply a reason with. To end this debate, I shall reinforce my argument pertaining to moral realism, as I suspect it will be the focus of attention. An analogy of it can be in math. If 2+2=4 and 7+2=11 is obviously true, then we can extrapolate that Goldbach's conjecture must have a truth-value. As such, I urge a vote for PRO! ---References--- 1. http://www.domawatch.org...

My opponent states that gay marriage is not discriminatory towards a church because a church has a choice whether or not to marry anyone, let alone gays. This is most definitely true but what are the chances of a church accepting a gay couple to be married? These churches will most definitely deny each and every one of the couples. And then what? All the efforts will be lost? All the protests and rallies and petition will amount to nothing? No. That is not human nature. We instinctively do not want to sacrifice anything and we most certainly do Not enjoy having our rights being subject to the whims of someone who doesn't understand our situation. And where do you think that will lead us? Will we be so peaceful in 10 years time? What about 30 years time? What if it is made clear that we will Never be allowed to get legally married so long as the church has a right to choose? Will there be a new marriage for gay couples that includes all the rights of a normal marriage? Doubt it. Will the gay community make a new religion in the hope it gets recognized and marriage under that religion will be righteous? Again I am pessimistic. So what will we do? Would we go so far as to force a church into letting us get married under the steam that they are not being fair? With that I cannot give a prediction which would not make me sound like a homophobic (of course in saying that I would be a homophobic?) The churches are being put under pressure to allow these marriages. Of course they have a choice but when a whole community of people are looking at you under their noses, ones judgement can become not of your own. My opponent, I think, has misunderstood what I have wrote above about civil union-ship. Of course at the start I was naive in thinking that a civil union has the same rights, I will concede to this point apologetically. But in an attempt at perverting my words, my opponent has failed. I stated that 'A marriage should be about love, not about legal stance. If one is more concerned about their legal stance more than they are concerned about the life they want to spend with their partner then maybe they should not be getting married at all, this of course goes for all people' meaning in shorter words that the gay community has been fighting for marriage as a sign that love has evolved. Unfortunately I do not believe that gay marriage will ever become legal. So why do gay couples not get a civil union? It is by no means a shameful thing, nor is it a thing for gay people just to settle with what they are given. I will admit that they are also by no means perfect but in a world where homophobia is still high and the acceptance of homosexuality is low, a civil union should seem like a God send (that was a clumsy term of phrase but I said it and that's that.). Now, comparing this to racism and using the analogy '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.' is also clumsy and dramatic. The fact that you compare me stating that 'gay people shouldn't be so concerned about legal stance if they love each other enough' to a black person being of a 'lower class and if they don't like this then they don't deserve to be treated equally' is racist of you. (I do not want to start the racist blame game but making out that I am racist out of something not racist would require you to have a bit of racism in you to see the racism would it not?). The exact same goes to Women' rights and I stand by my statement now hoping you comprehend fully. Again when I talk about a Gay marriage being offensive to ones God, my opponent seems to misunderstand or is choosing to. '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'. This is not a correct analogy. I said that if a gay person where to ever get married Under The Eyes Of Someone Else's God (In a church they do not follow) then This would be offensive to that church. I did Not say that a gay person getting married would offend a religion unrelated because it goes against their teachings, I said that if a gay person where to get married In the church of someone else god, then That would be offensive. It would be them using that religion just so they could get married disregarding the feelings and respect of that religion. I think me explaining this to you would also cancel out your last paragraph and before I finish I would like to present to you a question. Do you think society is ready for gay couples to start getting married, taking into account both points of view? That is all I have to say.

I want to first thank Mr. Hawkins for excepting this debate. Im almost completely positive that this may get very interesting . For this round I will respond to the previous comments posted and will then present my logic.( I will bold and underline cons quotes.) As this debates structure goes this round is exclusively purposed to propose our sides platform. So rebuttals will be posted next round. Gay people should have the option of a new civil union to be introduced to more states and to be legal in more places than just the very tiny few it is in America. Society is well aware of the traditional and religious reasons that gay marriages are by majority of the country rejected. Since marriage seems to be the only option for a potentially permanent bonding union available, gays want to get married. Because it seems to be the most legitimate way to make a statement of commitment and etc…I also want to state This debate is not necessarily about proving witch type of union is worse but instead is about if gay people should be allowed the option of civil unions. I affirm that gays should have this option for the following reasons; 1. Gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Gay people are people. They are entitled to the human rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness extends unless it hinders anothers ability to pursue the same ideals. Gay people deserve to be happy. It is observed in our society that marrying is the ultimate and final step to attempt to gain a secure bond and create happiness between one and their mate. Pursuing Marriage and/or civil unions is an attempt to pursue happiness. Why? By marriage or civil unions it creates a source of commitment that the couples love and or bond will last, The title of marriage also may act as a repellent to others witch can further ones belief that a couples union is strong enough to last as is their love. As we know when we are in love it tends to make people happy. The pathway to happiness states, “There is one step to creating happiness. It is to express love. When you express the emotion of love you create happiness and joy within yourself.” http://www.pathwaytohappiness.com... So to express a couples love for one another using the catalyst of marriage witch is considered the best way to express love, couples pursue happiness. By society first denying gays the option of marriage and then negating this resolution and not allowing the option of civil unions to not be a major option for a person to pursue happiness, then realistically speaking society is depriving a person of the human right of the pursuit of happiness. Maybe denying marriage while allowing civil unions may be justified because atleast your allowing one method for gays to pursue happiness. Rather than the conditions of this resolution where the over all pursuit of happiness is being compromised by disallowing both marriages and civil unions. As we can clearly see gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and pursuit of happiness. By banning both marriages and the option of civil unions this right is being denied. 2.Civil unions should be an option if marriage is denied. Gays need to have equal rights especially that of the pursuit of happiness. If one major route is closed another route needs to be used to find your way to ones destination. If we block both routes and discriminate certain rights based on sexual orientation and or gender then were infringing upon the equality principle and the pursuit of happiness. In order for America to avoid doing this civil unions need to be an option if marriage is denied. Marriage is not the same as civil unions. Marriages are given over 1,049 rights, marriages are recognized federally and state wise. There are marriage protection laws. They have tax benefits and many other rights while civil unions do not. Civil unions are given about 300 rights and is only recognized on a state level. Many people oppose marriages for religious reasons. In a civil union it avoids religion and usually the ceremonies as well. Civil unions are like a recognized partnership while a marriage is a recognized commitment to love one another. Civil unions are not the same as marriages. For America to not contradict its principles of equality and that all humans are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it would be fair if America would allow gays an avenue to pursue these principles and rights. How can we do this? Simple by allowing civil unions to be an option for gays.

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.

Gay marriage should be legal without a doubt. Marriage isn't about gender, it is about love. The reason why marry someone is because you love them and you want to spend the rest of your life with them. Just because your significant other is the opposite gender as you doesn't mean anything, same if they are the same gender. Also, another thing to point out is religion versus gay marriage. Religion means beliefs. If you believe in something, it's what you think not what should happen. Specially, some people who believe in God and of the Bible believe that gay marriage is immoral and disgusting. But just because that small group of people think that way, gay marriage shouldn't be outlawed.


Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Recognized as Legal Marriages?

Should the legalization of gay marriage be considered a gay rights issue? The common debate revolves around whether homosexuals should have equal access to marriage as heterosexuals. However, a more fundamental question arises: Should the institution of marriage, often rooted in religious beliefs, be intertwined with government policies? This discussion excludes the legal aspects of marriage, such as custody, property, and insurance rights, focusing solely on the concept of marriage as a religious union.

My stance is that the government should not have a role in marriage. When the law grants privileges to one group, it inherently possesses the power to revoke those privileges. The government's involvement in marriage has led to unnecessary division among people, distracting from more pressing issues that voters should prioritize. While this might imply that discrimination could occur due to religious institutions, it is their right to express their beliefs, just as the Phelps family has the right to their controversial protests.

Limiting individual or institutional rights to free expression, even if it involves hate speech, undermines the essence of freedom. Our ability to disagree and coexist is what makes us strong. By turning marriage into a government-regulated entity, whether it's exclusive to heterosexuals or inclusive of homosexuals, we erode our freedoms. The debate often overlooks the importance of freedom and becomes a contentious dispute over whose rights will be compromised.

The solution lies in shifting the conversation away from gay rights and removing the government from the regulation of religious practices. We should focus on creating legal recognition for all types of unions without associating them with religious marriage. This would eliminate the need for gender and genetic compatibility requirements for procreation, enabling all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or religion, to form legal unions without government interference in religious or lifestyle freedoms.

Rules for this discussion:
1. Any factual claims must be supported by references (the Constitution is a valid source), and evidence should be provided upon request. Failure to do so will be considered as falsification and cheating.
2. While the discussion can touch upon gay rights, the primary focus should be on the role of government in sexual and religious freedom.
3. No use of profanity is allowed. I have not established specific criteria for the debate rounds yet. I will present the first argument, and subsequent arguments should serve as rebuttals, with the final participant delivering a closing argument.

Civil Unions should be put as marriage and LGBT people should have the right to civil partnership and should have the same rights as heterosexuals

OutlineI. Benefits of marriageII. Being Gay is not a choiceIII. Financial gain to governmentIV. Separation of church and stateV. SourcesI. Benefits of marriageThe first question, is why would someone want to get married? The answer is there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections available for married couples by federal law. Therefore, there are many logical reasons why people would seek to reap these benefits. "There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [4]II. Being gay is not a choiceThis might sound silly, but you can't just will yourself to be straight or gay. "Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis. " [5]"Gay conversion therapy, as it is known, supposedly helps gay people overcome same-sex attractions. But mainstream psychologists say the therapy is ineffective, unethical and often harmful, exacerbating anxiety and self-hatred among those treated for what is not a mental disorder." [6]That means by denying gays marriage we are practicing discrimination. Discrimination is unjust. III. Financial gain to governmentMarriages licenses are a source of revenue. This relieves tax burdens off of straights. Therefore, straight people gain a financial advantage from gay marriages.IV. Separation of church and stateAlmost all arguments against gays seem to originate from religion. Yet, the separation of church and state disallows religion to interfere with government affairs. Banning gay marriages on religious grounds would be a violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [7]By banning gay marriages based upon a religion, congress would be respecting an establishment of religion. V. Sources4. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...5. http://www.livescience.com...6. http://www.livescience.com...7. https://www.law.cornell.edu...

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"

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.

So before I start this round, I've promised myself I'll refrain from using the "But then people will start marrying children and goats and 5 people at once" argument, because it's absolutely idiotic, and I refuse to invoke it, so I'll stick to other things. Moving on... You said: "what happens in the scenario that if a gay couple were to be recognized as married in mas, but then move to Idaho. Would Idaho recognize them as married if gay marriage is illegal in Idaho?" Theoretically, Idaho would have to give full faith and credit to the laws of MA, and recognize that couple of marriage. In practice, because of how federal courts usually interpret that clause of the Constitution, and because of DOMA, marriage is essentially the sole province of each individual state - being married in one state isn't necessarily the same thing as being married in another. But that's not exclusive to gay marriage. The point I was trying to make was that gay marriage isn't universally illegal - it's up to each state, and not each state has banned it. You said: "That is what it all boils down to is that we cannot marry who we choose." Yes, not everyone can marry whom they choose in most states. But choice isn't a human right - you haven't proven that everyone should be entitled to marry whom they choose. You said: "Which goes to say that Homosexuals are treated as second class citizens solely on the rights that they are denied, such as work benefits, hospital visits, the right to adopt. ect." This may be true in some states - I know it's certainly true in Texas where I used to live. But let's examine how to rectify this problem. Is legalizing gay marriage the only solution? Surely there is a way to grant homosexual couples similar rights to heterosexual couples without legalizing gay marriage. This is a separate issue from gay marriage, and can have a separate solution. You said: "And this Union argument. what is a "union" do hospitals recognize that, do work offices recognize that? NO and many of these union things require the participants to have lived with each other for at least 7 years." Again, legislatively there is a solution that doesn't touch marriage at all. You said: "A non Christian can get married, but a gay cannot. Logically that doesn't work" First, it doesn't have to logically work. Logically someone making $40,000 a year shouldn't vote for a Republican, but it happens, a lot! If certain types of laws are really coming straight from the people, we can't apply logic to that. Second, the criminalization of gay marriage isn't about Christianity the religion, it's about the morals that are distilled from Christianity. A non-Christian marrying someone of the opposite sex still conforms to those morals despite not being Christian, whereas a homosexual does not. You said: "the fact that they are not treated as "Normal" couples and they physically have rights taken away from them is what is flawed in the system" I'm not sure how you physically take rights away from someone, but you are correct that this is a flaw in the system. But like I've said before, it can be rectified without legalizing gay marriage. If your only argument is that gay couples don't have the same rights as heterosexual couples, as far as hospital visits, etc., that can definitely be addressed without even going near gay marriage.

My opponent states that gay marriage is not discriminatory towards a church because a church has a choice whether or not to marry anyone, let alone gays. This is most definitely true but what are the chances of a church accepting a gay couple to be married? These churches will most definitely deny each and every one of the couples. And then what? All the efforts will be lost? All the protests and rallies and petition will amount to nothing? No. That is not human nature. We instinctively do not want to sacrifice anything and we most certainly do Not enjoy having our rights being subject to the whims of someone who doesn't understand our situation. And where do you think that will lead us? Will we be so peaceful in 10 years time? What about 30 years time? What if it is made clear that we will Never be allowed to get legally married so long as the church has a right to choose? Will there be a new marriage for gay couples that includes all the rights of a normal marriage? Doubt it. Will the gay community make a new religion in the hope it gets recognized and marriage under that religion will be righteous? Again I am pessimistic. So what will we do? Would we go so far as to force a church into letting us get married under the steam that they are not being fair? With that I cannot give a prediction which would not make me sound like a homophobic (of course in saying that I would be a homophobic?) The churches are being put under pressure to allow these marriages. Of course they have a choice but when a whole community of people are looking at you under their noses, ones judgement can become not of your own. My opponent, I think, has misunderstood what I have wrote above about civil union-ship. Of course at the start I was naive in thinking that a civil union has the same rights, I will concede to this point apologetically. But in an attempt at perverting my words, my opponent has failed. I stated that 'A marriage should be about love, not about legal stance. If one is more concerned about their legal stance more than they are concerned about the life they want to spend with their partner then maybe they should not be getting married at all, this of course goes for all people' meaning in shorter words that the gay community has been fighting for marriage as a sign that love has evolved. Unfortunately I do not believe that gay marriage will ever become legal. So why do gay couples not get a civil union? It is by no means a shameful thing, nor is it a thing for gay people just to settle with what they are given. I will admit that they are also by no means perfect but in a world where homophobia is still high and the acceptance of homosexuality is low, a civil union should seem like a God send (that was a clumsy term of phrase but I said it and that's that.). Now, comparing this to racism and using the analogy '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.' is also clumsy and dramatic. The fact that you compare me stating that 'gay people shouldn't be so concerned about legal stance if they love each other enough' to a black person being of a 'lower class and if they don't like this then they don't deserve to be treated equally' is racist of you. (I do not want to start the racist blame game but making out that I am racist out of something not racist would require you to have a bit of racism in you to see the racism would it not?). The exact same goes to Women' rights and I stand by my statement now hoping you comprehend fully. Again when I talk about a Gay marriage being offensive to ones God, my opponent seems to misunderstand or is choosing to. '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'. This is not a correct analogy. I said that if a gay person where to ever get married Under The Eyes Of Someone Else's God (In a church they do not follow) then This would be offensive to that church. I did Not say that a gay person getting married would offend a religion unrelated because it goes against their teachings, I said that if a gay person where to get married In the church of someone else god, then That would be offensive. It would be them using that religion just so they could get married disregarding the feelings and respect of that religion. I think me explaining this to you would also cancel out your last paragraph and before I finish I would like to present to you a question. Do you think society is ready for gay couples to start getting married, taking into account both points of view? That is all I have to say.

I believe gay marrige should be legal. I believe this because there are no reasons why it shouldn't be legal. With the exception of religion. But you can't make a law based on religion. Therefore it should be legal.

First my opponent doesn't respond to my definition of a marriage and therefore it can be assumed he accepts it. As of right now the definition of a marriage for this round is: Marriage: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" Again remember that it is never specified that the marriage must be between a man and a female and thus his argument definition wise can be ignored. He continues on to say that marriage is between a man and a woman for as long as he remembers, well sir I don't know how old you are but I doubt you are old enough for you to have an accurate account on the creation of marriages and their intended purposes. Hence forth because we are both biased toward our sides we need a definition of a marriage that can be applicable in this scenario. Again remember my opponent has not responded or refuted my definition and thus BY DEFINITION a marriage is a partnership between a couple and does not specify the requirement of a male or female. Further more my opponent agrees that gays have the right to love. However, when it comes to the ultimate expression of love, a marriage, my opponent refuses to give this to gays. Thus my opponent contradicts himself because even though he says "I'm not deciding what it is for you to love" he doesn't allow a marriage which by definition is a "close and intimate union". I do not deny males and females are different, however my opponent is not thousands of years old and thus he/she can not make the broad statement that marriage was designed for only males and females. Again remember my definition you see that any combination can apply. Finally, my opponent agrees that gays deserve the rights that are entitled by marriage. However, the whole point is that they are denied these rights because they can not marry. Thus my opponent must either deny rights to gays which is un-ethical as stated in the first round, or he must allow the marriage of gays to ensure they get their rights which is the moral and just thing to do. To sum up my case, by definition a marriage is between any combination of males and female. My opponent doesn't refute this. Further more gays have the right to express their love and joy, which my opponent agrees too,. So their is no reason why they should not be allowed a marriage which is an ultimate expression of love. To finalize, gays also deserve their rights in a marriage and the benefits that come hence forth. Although, some people may still disagree with the idea that gays should be married; their is no moral or realistic warrant for such a reason other than personal bias. My opponent only presents personal bias based on his own history, and he is entitled to his opinion. However, he has no right to trample on the rights of other people who wish to express their love and new found happiness by utilizing a marriage. Thus a vote for the Affirmation of this resolution is strongly urged and justified.

Outline:I. IntroductionII. HomosexualityIII. MarriageIV. Are Homosexuals Capable of Raising ChildrenV. SourcesI. Introduction Homosexuality: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex (S1).Marriage: any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage (S2).I, pro, will be advocating for homosexual marriage. To do this, I will explain the nature of homosexuality; proving, with scientific evidence, that homosexuality is natural. Additionally, I will properly define marriage to explain why homosexuals should have the right to marry a person of the same sex. Also, I will assess how capable homosexuals are of raising children.II. HomosexualityOne of the greatest misconceptions about homosexuality is that "it's a choice." However, both studies and mere observations in our environment strongly supports to the belief that homosexuality is a genetic trait. For example, a study conducted by Dr. Tuck C. Ngun and his team at the University of California have come to a conclusion that homosexuality is a genetic trait. To find this, Ngun and his team gathered 37 pairs of twins in which one was homosexual and the other was heterosexual. Then, blood was taken from each subject. By analyzing the DNA, Ngun and his team have isolated a gene known as the "Xq28 marker." This piece of DNA is believed to be the "gay gene," (S3). Another strong piece of evidence pointing to the belief that homosexuality is natural is its common appearance in nature. Virtually all species that are, of course, not asexual, possess some members that are homosexual. No, this is not some "conscious act against God," which many religious zealots claim homosexuality to be, for animals lack the concept of "God" and "sin." Some animals exhibit homosexual behavior because their impulses naturally drive them to (S4).I would also like to address the bogus idea that "homosexuals are immoral." This belief is mostly derived from religious beliefs, such as Christianity, where homosexuality is a direct act against God and that there's a place in the firey sulfur lakes of Hell for the "sexually immoral." However, famous religious figures such as Pope Frances have become accepting of the homosexual community. He has publicly apologized to homosexuals that have been marginalized by the Church, going as far to say "[homosexuals] must not be discriminated against but must be respected and accompanied pastorally," (S5). Additionally, one of the biggest fallacies being that "homosexual men are more likely to molest children," has been debunked multiple times. As shown by research conducted by Dr. Gregory Herek, adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, are equally likely to commit molestation (S6), showing that there is no correlation between sexual orientation and the tendency to molest children.III. MarriageMarriage, as I have previously defined before, is the legal union between two people of the opposite or same sex. According to statistics collected by Pew Research Center in 2016, approximately 55% of Americans support homosexual marriage (S7), and this number has slowly been rising. Many people are horrified of the lurid consequences of the legalization of homosexual marriage. However, as infogr.am argues, "Gay Marriage will have no impact whatsoever on heterosexual communities, just as racial integration in the 60's had no negative impact on white communities. This is the same concept with legalization of gay marriage, it will grant the LGBT community a right that has been immorally denied to them," (S8).One of the greatest arguments against homosexual marriage is that homosexual marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage. However, what makes this argument so ridiculous is that the divorce rate in America is practically over 50%. If anti-gay activists truly wished to "protect the institution of marriage," certainly they'd much rather advocate for the outlawing of divorce. Additionally, demographic data suggests that homosexual marriage will protect the institution of marriage (S9). According to NBC, states that allow same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates. These statists show that states that legalized homosexual marriage in 2013 had a divorce rate approximately 20% lower than states that prohibited it (S10).IV. Are Homosexuals Capable of Raising ChildrenMany question the ability of homosexual couples to raise children. However, recent studies have shown that homosexuals are capable of being good parents. Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University who researches gay and lesbian parenting, says that gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents." Research also suggests that gay and lesbian parents are a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption. According to a 2007 report by the Williams Institute and the Urban Institute, 65,000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with another 14,000 children living in foster homes of gays and lesbians. Research has also shown that the kids of same-sex couples were raised no worse than kids of straight couples in terms of mental health, social functioning and school performance. In a 2010 study conducted by sociologist Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz, there were no differences found between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents (S11). Other research that suggest that homosexuals are compatible parents was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The association holds that "the research has been remarkably consistent in showing that [homosexual] parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents," (S12).V. SourcesS1) http://www.dictionary.com......S2) http://www.dictionary.com......S3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk......S4) https://en.wikipedia.org......S5) https://cruxnow.com......S6) http://psychology.ucdavis.edu......S7) http://www.pewforum.org......S8) https://infogr.am......S9) http://ic.galegroup.com......S10) http://www.nbcchicago.com......S11) http://www.livescience.com......S12) http://www.latimes.com......

I would first like to establish common ground by saying that I do not disagree that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. I do not agree that it is a healthy household due to fact that the natural order has a mother and a father in a household. Obviously there are many households that are minus one of these figures even in straight couples. If you are going to quote statistics please provide a link. Same-sex parents are not really focused on the needs of children, but upon the needs of a small number of adults. No society would purposely deny a child a mother or father, yet that is what same-sex households do. The nature of the beast dictates that all same-sex households ALWAYS be without one of these important parental figures. My argument against gay marriage focuses mostly around the benefits that marriage provides, and why only traditional families should be entitled to said benefits. The first question I ask is why does the goverment bestow so many rights upon two people in the first place? What could the goverment possibly receive in return for promoting marriage. I argue that the goverment gives these benefits to traditional families based upon the fact that these families help to ensure the continued natural existence of the nation. This is somthing same-sex couples obvioosly cannot provide due to obvious reasons. The goverment is not in place to provide happiness. It does ensure that you have the "pursuit of happiness", but does NOT provide. Are you saying that same-sex couple cannot be happy without the benefits of the goverment? And please esatblish why the goverment should provide those benefits to a relationship that provides no real benefit for the goverment. Another problem that same-sex marriage has is support of the country. The majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage and think it should be left up to the states to decide. In the 2004 vote some states voted on whether SSM should be allowed or not. Even in Oregon, where the Gay and Lesbian lobby focused its efforts, it failed miseribly. Shouldn't what the majority wants matter in something so controversial? http://www.abcnews.go.com... I thank you for providing this debate and I'm sure we can complete it in a civil manner. This debate can bring the worst out of people from both sides of the spectrum and I wish to avoid that.


Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Made Legal?

Gay Marriage is a Desecration
Gay marriage is a desecration of the sanctity of marriage as it was intended by God. Marriage, along with its associated rights and privileges, was designed by God to be an exclusive union between a man and a woman. The practice of homosexuality corrupts this divine plan, and it can also result in the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS.

--------------- 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.

Okay, the basic argument line has been this: GBretz: Marriage is a religious institution. Cindela: No, it is a legal institution. GBretz: If you want only a legal recognition of your marriage, why not civil unions? Cindela: Civil Unions create a "separate but equal" situation, and history shows this to be impossible. Now, I rebut that last response earlier saying you cannot compare the homosexual marriage debate question to the civil rights movement of the Ffrican-Americans, and I said my reasons why. Cindela said, "Are you suggesting that it is the African Americans' fault that they were discriminated and considered inferior?" This is NOT what I was saying, if it was, I would've said so. What I did say was, "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. However, homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers are not in a very small minority and they certainly know how to stand for their rights. 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?" This means that African-Americans were less in number and uneducated for a long time after they were granted freedom, so they were unable to stand for their rights. I don't know where you got the idea I was blaming the African-Americans for their plight. You stressed the importance of the fact "separate but equal" never works. Your proof is the historical record. But you cannot compare the plight of the African-American people to the "plight" of the gay people. In the words of Rev. Jesse Jackson, "The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote." The point is, marriage is not a "right" described in the Constitution. It is not something that needs to be defined in the Constitution either. Gays are not in an unfair plight that goes against their rights as described by the Constitution. All men were created equal, all men have the undeniable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But that has little or nothing to do with the homosexual marriage debate, since marriage is NOT an undeniable right upheld in the Constitution. You said couples can be married through city hall. I grant you that, however, marriage done only through city hall is the equivalent to a civil union, except of course, civil union don't grant the same rights as marriage. You said this many times, and I offered you a solution to it many times, and you say "separate but equal" doesn't work. I say it can and will, and that your references to the racial civil rights movement is flawed and does not relate. We seem to be arguing in a circle. So I'll take us out of this loop. The differing point between the rights granted through marriage and the rights granted through civil unions is that civil unions give all the rights at the state level, but do not have the authority to grant the rights at a federal level. However, many of these rights concern children and tax benefits for them and such. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce without their child being considered adopted (even test tube babies)these rights wouldn't even apply to them anyway. As for the rights that do concern homosexuals, like social security and other social services, there is nothing preventing the gay rights activists from pursuing these liberties to be allowed in civil unions. You concluded: "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?" I'll tell you what did, its called democracy. The will of the majority over the will of the minority, that's what democracy is all about. Its to prevent a small group of people from controlling the government for their own special interests. Obviously the minority should not be discriminated against, but gays are not being discriminated against. They already have civil unions, and can work to make them better, and they will NOT have an inferior system, despite the cries of, "Separate but equal never works!" And you know what? It does go against my religion, but not once did I use that as an argument against the granting of legal rights to homosexuals in this debate. (Which is what you said this was all about, "I am arguing that gay people should LEGALLY be allowed to marry. Keyword: legally.") My religion should not interfere in someone else's personal life. I also believe their personal views on life shouldn't be forced upon me and my religion. Homosexuals have the right to civil unions and they have the right to improve those civil unions to the point equality with marriage. Why redefine marriage for the rest of us? I leave you with that, and thank you for the debate. I would also like to ask the voters to vote on the debate itself and not on their personal views on the matter. Read thoroughly and carefully before casting your vote.

My opponent states that gay marriage is not discriminatory towards a church because a church has a choice whether or not to marry anyone, let alone gays. This is most definitely true but what are the chances of a church accepting a gay couple to be married? These churches will most definitely deny each and every one of the couples. And then what? All the efforts will be lost? All the protests and rallies and petition will amount to nothing? No. That is not human nature. We instinctively do not want to sacrifice anything and we most certainly do Not enjoy having our rights being subject to the whims of someone who doesn't understand our situation. And where do you think that will lead us? Will we be so peaceful in 10 years time? What about 30 years time? What if it is made clear that we will Never be allowed to get legally married so long as the church has a right to choose? Will there be a new marriage for gay couples that includes all the rights of a normal marriage? Doubt it. Will the gay community make a new religion in the hope it gets recognized and marriage under that religion will be righteous? Again I am pessimistic. So what will we do? Would we go so far as to force a church into letting us get married under the steam that they are not being fair? With that I cannot give a prediction which would not make me sound like a homophobic (of course in saying that I would be a homophobic?) The churches are being put under pressure to allow these marriages. Of course they have a choice but when a whole community of people are looking at you under their noses, ones judgement can become not of your own. My opponent, I think, has misunderstood what I have wrote above about civil union-ship. Of course at the start I was naive in thinking that a civil union has the same rights, I will concede to this point apologetically. But in an attempt at perverting my words, my opponent has failed. I stated that 'A marriage should be about love, not about legal stance. If one is more concerned about their legal stance more than they are concerned about the life they want to spend with their partner then maybe they should not be getting married at all, this of course goes for all people' meaning in shorter words that the gay community has been fighting for marriage as a sign that love has evolved. Unfortunately I do not believe that gay marriage will ever become legal. So why do gay couples not get a civil union? It is by no means a shameful thing, nor is it a thing for gay people just to settle with what they are given. I will admit that they are also by no means perfect but in a world where homophobia is still high and the acceptance of homosexuality is low, a civil union should seem like a God send (that was a clumsy term of phrase but I said it and that's that.). Now, comparing this to racism and using the analogy '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.' is also clumsy and dramatic. The fact that you compare me stating that 'gay people shouldn't be so concerned about legal stance if they love each other enough' to a black person being of a 'lower class and if they don't like this then they don't deserve to be treated equally' is racist of you. (I do not want to start the racist blame game but making out that I am racist out of something not racist would require you to have a bit of racism in you to see the racism would it not?). The exact same goes to Women' rights and I stand by my statement now hoping you comprehend fully. Again when I talk about a Gay marriage being offensive to ones God, my opponent seems to misunderstand or is choosing to. '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'. This is not a correct analogy. I said that if a gay person where to ever get married Under The Eyes Of Someone Else's God (In a church they do not follow) then This would be offensive to that church. I did Not say that a gay person getting married would offend a religion unrelated because it goes against their teachings, I said that if a gay person where to get married In the church of someone else god, then That would be offensive. It would be them using that religion just so they could get married disregarding the feelings and respect of that religion. I think me explaining this to you would also cancel out your last paragraph and before I finish I would like to present to you a question. Do you think society is ready for gay couples to start getting married, taking into account both points of view? That is all I have to say.

I want to first thank Mr. Hawkins for excepting this debate. Im almost completely positive that this may get very interesting . For this round I will respond to the previous comments posted and will then present my logic.( I will bold and underline cons quotes.) As this debates structure goes this round is exclusively purposed to propose our sides platform. So rebuttals will be posted next round. Gay people should have the option of a new civil union to be introduced to more states and to be legal in more places than just the very tiny few it is in America. Society is well aware of the traditional and religious reasons that gay marriages are by majority of the country rejected. Since marriage seems to be the only option for a potentially permanent bonding union available, gays want to get married. Because it seems to be the most legitimate way to make a statement of commitment and etc…I also want to state This debate is not necessarily about proving witch type of union is worse but instead is about if gay people should be allowed the option of civil unions. I affirm that gays should have this option for the following reasons; 1. Gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Gay people are people. They are entitled to the human rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness extends unless it hinders anothers ability to pursue the same ideals. Gay people deserve to be happy. It is observed in our society that marrying is the ultimate and final step to attempt to gain a secure bond and create happiness between one and their mate. Pursuing Marriage and/or civil unions is an attempt to pursue happiness. Why? By marriage or civil unions it creates a source of commitment that the couples love and or bond will last, The title of marriage also may act as a repellent to others witch can further ones belief that a couples union is strong enough to last as is their love. As we know when we are in love it tends to make people happy. The pathway to happiness states, “There is one step to creating happiness. It is to express love. When you express the emotion of love you create happiness and joy within yourself.” http://www.pathwaytohappiness.com... So to express a couples love for one another using the catalyst of marriage witch is considered the best way to express love, couples pursue happiness. By society first denying gays the option of marriage and then negating this resolution and not allowing the option of civil unions to not be a major option for a person to pursue happiness, then realistically speaking society is depriving a person of the human right of the pursuit of happiness. Maybe denying marriage while allowing civil unions may be justified because atleast your allowing one method for gays to pursue happiness. Rather than the conditions of this resolution where the over all pursuit of happiness is being compromised by disallowing both marriages and civil unions. As we can clearly see gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and pursuit of happiness. By banning both marriages and the option of civil unions this right is being denied. 2.Civil unions should be an option if marriage is denied. Gays need to have equal rights especially that of the pursuit of happiness. If one major route is closed another route needs to be used to find your way to ones destination. If we block both routes and discriminate certain rights based on sexual orientation and or gender then were infringing upon the equality principle and the pursuit of happiness. In order for America to avoid doing this civil unions need to be an option if marriage is denied. Marriage is not the same as civil unions. Marriages are given over 1,049 rights, marriages are recognized federally and state wise. There are marriage protection laws. They have tax benefits and many other rights while civil unions do not. Civil unions are given about 300 rights and is only recognized on a state level. Many people oppose marriages for religious reasons. In a civil union it avoids religion and usually the ceremonies as well. Civil unions are like a recognized partnership while a marriage is a recognized commitment to love one another. Civil unions are not the same as marriages. For America to not contradict its principles of equality and that all humans are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it would be fair if America would allow gays an avenue to pursue these principles and rights. How can we do this? Simple by allowing civil unions to be an option for gays.

I have a problem with my opponents counter plan approach. Lets say he finds a solution to the problem. Witch in this debate is the religious and traditional aspects witch people use to oppose same sex marriage. Secondly the issue of gay rights. Now pro says lets just allow them to marry. Even though my view on this should be irrelevant because this debate is about civil unions I support same sex marriage. If same sex marriage was allowed in all states then it would fix the problem. The only issue is the that though public opinion is starting to accept gay marriage now it's still illegal in most states."Besides California, 28 states have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage, and 12 others have laws that restrict unions to one man and one woman." [1] . In 2008 California passed a ban on same sex marriage.[1]In north Carolina we just passed amendment one.[2] This is pure evidence that even though the surveys say people are starting to accept gay marriage the voters are still having a negative vote on this issue and is making the opposite statement from what the polls say. Maybe people are not voting enough but that's a different issue. So what I am saying here is my opponents proposal would work only if gay marriage was legal on a federal level. Since is not and most likely will not cons counter plan argument isnt a valid standpoint because the conditions for his plan cannot be met.Gay people should have the right to pursue happiness via marriage or civil unions. Lets remember this debate is about if civil unions should be a major option to pursue happiness for everyone. We wont meet the conditions of cons counter plan. So if gay marriage is being denied to gays witch it is another option needs to be available. That option is civil unions.Religion and traditionYes I am aware that marriage is not exclusively religious. That's not my argument. my point for a gay person to not be married is if that person getting married is religious. In that case they should not get married because it contradicts their own beliefs. My argument is this, majority of people oppose same sex marriages because of traditional values based on religion and traditional beliefs where people use the gay marriage isnt natural argument. Or they use the bible or other religion as their defense. These two are the major arguments against same sex marriage. One is because of religion and the other is because of traditional values. I don't agree with those but it cannot be ignored that the majority that denies same sex marriages deny it for these major reasons. It seems majority of American voters support those beliefs. Witch is why marriage wont be approved on a federal level unless we eliminate that kind of thinking. Witch seems impossible because the battle of this right has gone on for so long and it seems the opposers seem to win the argument. Witch hinders gay rights.My opponent seems to agree with bot of my gay rights contention so I see no need to further discuss it.It seems we have turned this debate into a gay marriage debate. It was kind of necessary because cons counterargument depends on it. As we can see the conditions for cons counterargument will not happen. so gay people need to have a second option to pursue happiness. Lets go a step further and say one day possibly gay marriage might be approved on a federal level. Those conditions will take decades or even thousands of years. Gays should not sit idle and expect that tomorrow the ban on whatever state their in will be lifted. That is highly unlikely. As for the present gays need to have a second option until or if the day comes when the conditions for cons counter plan are met. So civil unions need to be a major option in order for America to not contradict its principles of equality.Sources[1]....http://www.washingtonpost.com...[2]....http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Thanks to pro for the reply.Pro's ArgumentUnfortunately, the argument that pro is putting forward is still unclear to me. It's not shown how the notions of "nature" and "culture" as defined help his case. Even if I grant that we should not place restrictions on practices without good reason, and that marriage of any kind is unnatural, how does it follow that the state should hand out gay marriages? First off, the argument isn't even valid, and pro still has not fixed this fact. Secondly, if anything, pro's case supports the view that the state shouldn't be giving out marriages at all. If pro is trying to argue that the state is limiting freedom by not giving gay marriage, it's not. By not giving gay marriages the state isn't preventing anyone from doing anything. So I still cannot see pro's line of argument. I'm still waiting for a valid argument where the conclusion follows from the premises.Con's ArgumentI don't think pro quite understood my argument, so I'll try to explain. What I am arguing is that the state ought to make relevant distinctions between relationships which are inherently different. We can understand whether a relationship X is different from a relationship Y if X and Y, by their very nature, have different goods which are intrinsic to them. So just as the relatonship of close friendship can be distinguished from the relationship of a business partnership by the different goods which are intrinsic to each type of relationship, so can we distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual union by the different goods which are intrinsic to each. This isn't to deny that one or more of these relationships might obtain between two people (though in some cases they may incompossible); a wife can also be a business partner. It's just to say that they can be distinguished.As for the second point pro brings up, I should note first of all that my contention, that the state should support hetersexual marriage, is prima facie quite plausible. In order to accept this you need not explicitly deny that, therefore, the state should deny same-sex marriage. It only follows given my other premises. I'd still support my claim that the state's most vital interest is in supporting heterosexual union, given that the vast majority of sexual unions take place between heterosexuals, that heterosexual couples are the most common way that children are produced, as well as the fact that heterosexual couples can engage in the type of union which is intrinsically ordered toward reproduction (though female homosexual can reproduce artificially, by a sperm donation of a third party, it's still not intrinsically ordered toward reproduction). Either way, pro has to either say that heterosexual union should be enshrined as marriage, or heterosexual union should not be enshrined as marriage. So which is it, pro? Do you or do you not think that the state should support heterosexual union as marriage.Pro also makes the point that my argument could be used just as well against inter-racial unions. That's not true. There is nothing intrinsic an qua heterosexual union that could be used to separate inter-racial couples from non-inter-racial couples. All the goods available by marriage are available in the same way to a white-black couple and white-white couple. Finally, pro calls my arguments discriminatory. So be it. To discriminate is simply to note or observe a difference between two things, and the state should do this; indeed, the state has to do this if it's to carry out any functions at all, which is what my sixth premise states. The state discriminates between convicts and the innocent, between combatants and non-combatants, between adults and children. There is nothing wrong with discrimination in this sense. 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.

I argue your opposition to civil unions. I am calling for a debate on civil unions for same-sex couples and their rights to civil partnership.

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

First my opponent doesn't respond to my definition of a marriage and therefore it can be assumed he accepts it. As of right now the definition of a marriage for this round is: Marriage: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" Again remember that it is never specified that the marriage must be between a man and a female and thus his argument definition wise can be ignored. He continues on to say that marriage is between a man and a woman for as long as he remembers, well sir I don't know how old you are but I doubt you are old enough for you to have an accurate account on the creation of marriages and their intended purposes. Hence forth because we are both biased toward our sides we need a definition of a marriage that can be applicable in this scenario. Again remember my opponent has not responded or refuted my definition and thus BY DEFINITION a marriage is a partnership between a couple and does not specify the requirement of a male or female. Further more my opponent agrees that gays have the right to love. However, when it comes to the ultimate expression of love, a marriage, my opponent refuses to give this to gays. Thus my opponent contradicts himself because even though he says "I'm not deciding what it is for you to love" he doesn't allow a marriage which by definition is a "close and intimate union". I do not deny males and females are different, however my opponent is not thousands of years old and thus he/she can not make the broad statement that marriage was designed for only males and females. Again remember my definition you see that any combination can apply. Finally, my opponent agrees that gays deserve the rights that are entitled by marriage. However, the whole point is that they are denied these rights because they can not marry. Thus my opponent must either deny rights to gays which is un-ethical as stated in the first round, or he must allow the marriage of gays to ensure they get their rights which is the moral and just thing to do. To sum up my case, by definition a marriage is between any combination of males and female. My opponent doesn't refute this. Further more gays have the right to express their love and joy, which my opponent agrees too,. So their is no reason why they should not be allowed a marriage which is an ultimate expression of love. To finalize, gays also deserve their rights in a marriage and the benefits that come hence forth. Although, some people may still disagree with the idea that gays should be married; their is no moral or realistic warrant for such a reason other than personal bias. My opponent only presents personal bias based on his own history, and he is entitled to his opinion. However, he has no right to trample on the rights of other people who wish to express their love and new found happiness by utilizing a marriage. Thus a vote for the Affirmation of this resolution is strongly urged and justified.

I get where your coming from. Gay marrige is against any Christian beliefs, but so is divorce, abortion, other religions, etc. For example since divorce is against Christian beliefs do you think it should be illegal. Many Christians have even had divorces themselves. But God forgave them. Also believing in another religion is against Christian beliefs is very un Christian like. But America isn't a theocracy, its a free country where any one should have the right to marry whoever they want. Also someone commented gay marrige shouldn't be legal because gay people can't reproduce. This may be true, but many gay couples choose to adopt or don't want kids. Many straight couples also do this. Are you saying that any couple that doesn't want kids or can't have kids shouldn't be able to get married? In my opinion I think its wrong to deny someone the right to get married because you don't like it. If two people are in love what gives you or anyone the right to say sorry that is against my beliefs so I'm not going to let you get married. My opponent still believes its okay to make a law based off only Christian views. If that happens the United States of America would no longer be a free country, it would become a theocracy. Subjected to only Christian beliefs. If you made a law that stated gay marrige is illegal because its against Christian beliefs, most people would be mad and offended by that. What if a Muslim made a law that said everyone had to belief in their god Allah. Would you mad, furious. I know I would be. That's because I'm not a Muslim. Many people are Christians, but also many people aren't. No where in the bible does it say that being gay is a sin. Although most Christians do imply that from Adam and Eve. Therefore I encourage you to reevaluate how you look towards whether it should be legal or not. I'm not saying to change your religion and what you believe. But remember its best not to mix religion and politics.