query: Should gay marriage be legal?

positive: Gay Marriage ought to be legalized in the United States. Before we begin, I'd like to make a few clarifications regarding the resolution. First, I'd ask that my opponent avoid any semantics arguments (i. e. Gay Marriage is already legal in SOME states, etc. ) as the resolution implies legalization of gay marriage at the federal level. Second, the resolution also implies that gay marriage should be recognized in the U. S. so long as heterosexual marriage is legally recognized. In other words, my opponent should not put forth the argument that marriage in general should not exist in the first place, or that it's merely a state of mind (as opposed to a legally recognized binding). That said, I hope we can agree on the simple definition of Gay Marriage to mean the legal binding between people of the same sex. Let's begin. CONTENTIONS: 1) Sex vs. Gender 2) Minority Discrimination 3) Marriage vs. Religion 4) Civil Unions vs. Marriage 5) Sanctity of Marriage 6) Family Values 1) I'd like to begin by clarifying the differences between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological differences that make people either male or female, while gender describes cultural aspects of masculinity and femininity. In other words, a person of the male sex can identify with the female gender. As such, he can live his life as society would expect a woman to live their life, by dressing, talking, and even acting like a woman or in a feminine matter. By law, this feminine man can legally marry another woman regardless of how feminine he behaves or identifies (i. e. transvestites). Con must explain why it is the biological chromosomes and not personal characteristics or traits that are paramount in determining the law. 2) Not legalizing gay marriage is a form of minority discrimination. As new information about homosexuality emerges (i. e. the discovery of so-called gay genes and other biological evidence that homosexuality is not a choice), and exposure to forthcoming heterosexuality increases, society is becoming more accepting of the gay lifestyle and aware that homosexuals are people with the same rights as everybody else. The government believes that people have the right to marry, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Con must explain why this right applies only to people who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex. Con must also explain why it is acceptable to discriminate against people based on sex when it comes to marriage, but why it remains illegal in other institutions such as employment via the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 3) Opponents of gay marriage offer that marriage is a religious ritual and as such the government has no right to legislate what is and is not considered to be marriage. However, the spiritual contract of marriage carries with it a legal binding, meaning that it is most definitely the government's business. While most denominations do not condone gay marriage, some churches and religious institutions DO recognize same-sex unions, whereas the federal government still does not. In choosing which unions it does and does not uphold, the government is discriminating based on religion which is unconstitutional. Additionally, whatever is considered "God's will" is irrelevant in a democracy such as the United States which supports a separation between Church and State. I'm assuming I don't have to structure an argument about which "God" the government is required to obey supposing my opponent would dare to disagree with this obvious separation. In other words, one can morally be opposed to gay marriage based on their specific beliefs via their religion; however, expecting a government to use those religious beliefs in legislation is entirely immoral, anti-democratic and contrary to the founding principles of the United States. 4) To rectify the issue of religious marriages verses federally recognized unions, the government has proposed a mockery of the marriage institution otherwise known as Civil Unions. Many ignorant Americans assume that Civil Unions and Gay Marriage are synonymous; however, they are grossly misinformed. Marriage carries with it over 1,050 state and federal benefits, whereas Civil Unions only receive 300 benefits at the STATE level (and not every state has legalized civil unions, making this point almost obsolete). Thus civil unions are deprived of 750 benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. So what exactly does this all mean? In our society, when people marry it is typically out of love and commitment. However having a ceremony is not enough; legal rights should be extended to couples who have accepted this commitment. Some examples of civil union verses marriage benefits can be seen when we look at things like TAX RELIEF (marriage couples can file for state *and* federal tax breaks, whereas people with CU's can only apply for state benefits); MEDICAL DECISIONS (couples with CU's can only make emergency medical decisions in the state of which they live and were married); DEATH BENEFITS (a marital spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits, whereas CU partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death); CHILD SUPPORT (CU partners are not required to pay child support payments if they move out of state); etc. Con has the burden of proving why these benefits should only apply to those within heterosexual marriages, despite the equal love and commitment present in partners who happen to be of the same sex. 5) Some people think that gay marriage would eliminate the so-called sanctity of marriage. In a country where a heterosexual can get married at any point in time for whatever reason (including intoxication), I'd like for someone - anyone - to explain how legalizing same-sex marriage would devalue the marriage of any other couple. Marriage is supposed to be about commitment, and yet Britney Spears was able to engage in a 55-hour long union while gay couples who have spent decades together are not able to legally wed. The point is, the divorce rate in this country is at an all-time high and that's while gay marriage is still prohibited. TIME magazine recently published an article on the rate of infidelity among married couples rising drastically, again while gays have nothing to do with this dilemma. By recognizing same-sex unions, no statement is being made about the sanctity (or lack thereof) amongst heterosexual couples. Nobody is being negatively affected. 6) Similarly, some people cite family values as a reason to be against gay marriage; however, I'd suggest the opposite: allowing same-sex marriages shows children that everyone regardless of sex, gender or sexuality is capable of love and commitment. It would also decrease discrimination and hate crimes against homosexuals; children would be taught from an early age that sexual differences are acceptable within society. Moreover, gay individuals are having children whether people like it or not (via in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc. ). If gay marriage were legalized, same-sex adoption would increase thereby providing good homes to orphans who need the love, care and protection of decent parents. Additionally, it would alleviate some of the funding necessary by the State to house all of these orphans, making it economically beneficial as well (as an added bonus). CONCLUSION: A plethora of evidence supports that people don't choose to be gay, meaning to deny them basic marriage rights is blatant and unlawful discrimination. However even if it WAS a personal choice, Con has the burden of proving why this lifestyle choice in particular warrants discrimination, even while gay individuals are required to abide by the same laws and pay the same (more) taxes as every other American. I have proven that there are only benefits to legalizing gay marriage, whereas there are detriments in not doing so. Back to Con.

positive: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States Responses: >> "I was agreeing with the law when I stated "should" referring to marriage should be between a man and a woman." And I'm saying that law is unconstitutional. Defend your position. >> "I also gave references stating that in the bible homosexuality isn't even accepted." Oops - sorry - the Bible isn't admissible as a source of law in the US. Next? >> "Therefore making an actual marriage not acceptable because a marriage is religious." Again - I JUST gave you the legal definitions of marriage TWICE. >> "I also agree with the current law of allowing individual states to vote for allowing gay marriage." That law is ALSO unconstitutional. Defend your position. >> "If you believe in gay marriage please prove to me where marriage is not a religious ceremony and does not contradict the bible." Marriage is a religious ceremony AND a legal institution. And, once again, the Bible is not a source of law in the United States. ********************************************************************** This is very disappointing. My opponent has offered no argument other than "I disagree" and "because the Bible says so." AFFIRMED.

positive: Should Gay Marriage Be Allowed I believe gay marriage should be allowed because people should be able to be themselves.If gay marriage is not allowed...People cannot be themselves around others and they'll never be able to show their true colours...Who wants to be friends with someone who doesn't tell the truth about themselves because they're scared about being judged for their sexuality?

positive: Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the United States. Before we begin, I'd like to make a few clarifications regarding the resolution. First, I'd ask that my opponent avoid any semantics arguments (i. e. Gay Marriage is already legal in SOME states, etc. ) as the resolution implies legalization of gay marriage at the federal level. Second, the resolution also implies that gay marriage should be recognized in the U. S. so long as heterosexual marriage is legally recognized. In other words, my opponent should not put forth the argument that marriage in general should not exist in the first place, or that it's merely a state of mind (as opposed to a legally recognized binding). That said, I hope we can agree on the simple definition of Gay Marriage to mean the legal binding between people of the same sex. Let's begin. CONTENTIONS: 1) Sex vs. Gender 2) Minority Discrimination 3) Marriage vs. Religion 4) Civil Unions vs. Marriage 5) Sanctity of Marriage 6) Family Values 1) I'd like to begin by clarifying the differences between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological differences that make people either male or female, while gender describes cultural aspects of masculinity and femininity. In other words, a person of the male sex can identify with the female gender. As such, he can live his life as society would expect a woman to live their life, by dressing, talking, and even acting like a woman or in a feminine matter. By law, this feminine man can legally marry another woman regardless of how feminine he behaves or identifies (i. e. transvestites). Con must explain why it is the biological chromosomes and not personal characteristics or traits that are paramount in determining the law. 2) Not legalizing gay marriage is a form of minority discrimination. As new information about homosexuality emerges (i. e. the discovery of so-called gay genes and other biological evidence that homosexuality is not a choice), and exposure to forthcoming heterosexuality increases, society is becoming more accepting of the gay lifestyle and aware that homosexuals are people with the same rights as everybody else. The government believes that people have the right to marry, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Con must explain why this right applies only to people who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex. Con must also explain why it is acceptable to discriminate against people based on sex when it comes to marriage, but why it remains illegal in other institutions such as employment via the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 3) Opponents of gay marriage offer that marriage is a religious ritual and as such the government has no right to legislate what is and is not considered to be marriage. However, the spiritual contract of marriage carries with it a legal binding, meaning that it is most definitely the government's business. While most denominations do not condone gay marriage, some churches and religious institutions DO recognize same-sex unions, whereas the federal government still does not. In choosing which unions it does and does not uphold, the government is discriminating based on religion which is unconstitutional. Additionally, whatever is considered "God's will" is irrelevant in a democracy such as the United States which supports a separation between Church and State. I'm assuming I don't have to structure an argument about which "God" the government is required to obey supposing my opponent would dare to disagree with this obvious separation. In other words, one can morally be opposed to gay marriage based on their specific beliefs via their religion; however, expecting a government to use those religious beliefs in legislation is entirely immoral, anti-democratic and contrary to the founding principles of the United States. 4) To rectify the issue of religious marriages verses federally recognized unions, the government has proposed a mockery of the marriage institution otherwise known as Civil Unions. Many ignorant Americans assume that Civil Unions and Gay Marriage are synonymous; however, they are grossly misinformed. Marriage carries with it over 1,050 state and federal benefits, whereas Civil Unions only receive 300 benefits at the STATE level (and not every state has legalized civil unions, making this point almost obsolete). Thus civil unions are deprived of 750 benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. So what exactly does this all mean? In our society, when people marry it is typically out of love and commitment. However having a ceremony is not enough; legal rights should be extended to couples who have accepted this commitment. Some examples of civil union verses marriage benefits can be seen when we look at things like TAX RELIEF (marriage couples can file for state *and* federal tax breaks, whereas people with CU's can only apply for state benefits); MEDICAL DECISIONS (couples with CU's can only make emergency medical decisions in the state of which they live and were married); DEATH BENEFITS (a marital spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits, whereas CU partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death); CHILD SUPPORT (CU partners are not required to pay child support payments if they move out of state); etc. Con has the burden of proving why these benefits should only apply to those within heterosexual marriages, despite the equal love and commitment present in partners who happen to be of the same sex. 5) Some people think that gay marriage would eliminate the so-called sanctity of marriage. In a country where a heterosexual can get married at any point in time for whatever reason (including intoxication), I'd like for someone - anyone - to explain how legalizing same-sex marriage would devalue the marriage of any other couple. Marriage is supposed to be about commitment, and yet Britney Spears was able to engage in a 55-hour long union while gay couples who have spent decades together are not able to legally wed. The point is, the divorce rate in this country is at an all-time high and that's while gay marriage is still prohibited. TIME magazine recently published an article on the rate of infidelity among married couples rising drastically, again while gays have nothing to do with this dilemma. By recognizing same-sex unions, no statement is being made about the sanctity (or lack thereof) amongst heterosexual couples. Nobody is being negatively affected. 6) Similarly, some people cite family values as a reason to be against gay marriage; however, I'd suggest the opposite: allowing same-sex marriages shows children that everyone regardless of sex, gender or sexuality is capable of love and commitment. It would also decrease discrimination and hate crimes against homosexuals; children would be taught from an early age that sexual differences are acceptable within society. Moreover, gay individuals are having children whether people like it or not (via in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc. ). If gay marriage were legalized, same-sex adoption would increase thereby providing good homes to orphans who need the love, care and protection of decent parents. Additionally, it would alleviate some of the funding necessary by the State to house all of these orphans, making it economically beneficial as well (as an added bonus). CONCLUSION: A plethora of evidence supports that people don't choose to be gay, meaning to deny them basic marriage rights is blatant and unlawful discrimination. However even if it WAS a personal choice, Con has the burden of proving why this lifestyle choice in particular warrants discrimination, even while gay individuals are required to abide by the same laws and pay the same (more) taxes as every other American. I have proven that there are only benefits to legalizing gay marriage, whereas there are detriments in not doing so. Back to Con.

positive: Gay Marriage should Not be Permitted Thank you, bsh1. As dictated by round rules, I will rebut Con’s case.HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICEHere, my opponent has severely blundered by making several irrelevant arguments. The rejection of homosexual marriage does not come from the means of homosexuality, rather the end of homosexuality. In other words, homosexuality is not wrong because people choose homosexuality, rather it is wrong because marriage is orientated towards bringing one man and one women closer together whom can properly raise children their union produces, and these facets are ones which homosexuals do not possess, regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice. INJUSTICEP1. DiscriminationI. Recognising actual differencesMy opponent’s incorrect assumption here is that the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals is irrelevant, in regards to marriage. In actuality, the differences are very important and when applied to marriage, avoid the charge of discrimination.To use an analogy, take a brain-dead person. This brain-dead person applied for a job before she became brain-dead. Since becoming brain-dead, an employer rejected the brain-dead person’s application on the basis of the person being brain-dead. Is that discrimination (i.e. denying human rights based on discrimination)? No, the person does not have a “human right” to the job. Is that unjust? Not at all, because the business needs competent people to do the job, and the person is clearly unfit. It is merely differentiating between people based on actual differences. Jobs require people to have functioning brains. Similarly, marriage requires the presence of the intrinsic ability to procreate.As highlighted in my initial A1 argument, marriage is intrinsically related to procreation. Homosexual couples do not have the intrinsic ability to reproduce. Thus, there is no discrimination here because homosexuals simply do not have what is required for marriage. Much like it would not be discrimination to deny a pair of 4 year olds or a giraffe and a man a marriage license, due to them lacking the requirements, it is not discrimination to deny homosexuals on the same grounds. In actuality, it would be unjust to allow these non-marriages marriage status because the standards for what a marriage is are being disregarded. II. Governmental benefitsAs to why the government gives all of these benefits to married couples: same-sex marriages does not have the positive benefits that heterosexual marriages have, thus there is no reason to incentivise gay-marriage. In other words: society does not exist without procreation, yet society can exist without homosexual unions. Things like paid leave obviously exist so women can bear children yet not lose out on vital income. All these benefits exist to make child-bearing and child-rearing easier for married couples. They are NOT human rights. Again, the function of marriage is the intrinsic capacity for reproduction. Not love. Not to give people human rights. My opponent, as the paragraph continues, then begins to beg the question as he says that all these things would benefit homosexual parents, as he has failed to provide evidence to show that they should be parenting in the first place. In fact, I have given arguments why they should not, but remember that my opponent has the burden of proof to show that they should. Please refer to my A2 arguments and my P2 II. counter-argument this round to see why they should not.BUT EVEN IF these counter-arguments are unconvincing to you, even if you still think that gays should be allowed to raise children and should be entitled to all these tax breaks and financial advantages (despite my substantial evidence that shows that, on average, homosexuals make for noticeably inferior parents), homosexual marriage is still unjust due to the nature of marriage. It is the crux of my affirmation in regards to the resolution: marriage is intrinsically related to procreation. This special, social value is indispensable and can never be replicated by homosexual unions, hence the term and meaning involved with marriage always being unjust when used to label homosexual unions.P2. Social Stigma and Otherization“Marriage equality, as I and others can attest, would be a symbolic gesture affirming the equal rights and value of homosexual unions, of homosexual love, and of homosexuality in general”This will highlight the fundamental problem with my opponent’s arguments here. Marriage is not about “homosexual love”. Marriage is not about “homosexual unions”. Marriage is not about “homosexuality in general”. What marriage is about is, as I argued under A1, is the intrinsic ability to procreate – to bring opposite genders together in this valuable union. Not only that, but homosexual parents are statistically far worse at parenting than heterosexuals parents are. The fact that my opponent thinks marriage should is about these selfish ideals shows a complete disregard of the value in intrinsic procreation and the statistics that would clearly leave children under much poorer conditions. Homosexuals can have unions, love and acceptance of homosexuality in general without demanding that homosexuals can become married.I. Marriage would lower “psychological distress” My opponent merely quotes the supposed findings, rather than important things methodology (i.e. was the sample selected? Was the sample controlled for demographics?). Furthermore, I cannot access the full reports for either of my opponent’s sources here (have to log-in as a paying member or “request” the text), so no one but my opponent has any idea of the legitimacy of the studies (which is not fair). Anyway, the most damning evidence against the idea that marriage helps homosexuals is that suicide seems to not decrease amongst homosexuals. A collaborative paper, by Mathy, Cochran, Olsen & Mays (2011), found that the generally accepted three/four-fold (~2 for lesbians, ~6 for gay men [11]) suicide rate between homosexuals and non-homosexuals leaped to eight-fold for gay men in institutional partnerships. Note that this is not suicide attempts, but actual suicides. If homosexual men experience less psychological distress, then why are they killing themselves at 8 times the heterosexual rate, which is an increase from homosexuals outside of marriage [9]?For further counter-evidence, in the Netherlands, the first country to legalise gay marriage [5], a large study found that homosexuals, on average, have higher levels of psychiatric disorders. Controlling for demographics, homosexual men suffered from higher rates of substance-abuse disorders, mood-disorders, and both homosexual men and women were far more likely to have psychological disorders [4]. Despite the legalisation of gay marriage, homosexuals still suffer from higher rates of all kinds of negative affect.II. Children under Homosexual marriageMy opponent’s final point, under this section, refers to children raised by homosexuals being humiliated and whatnot. Let me make this abundantly clear: homosexuals should not be raising children. When it comes to raising children, homosexuals are clearly inferior, as I have argued under A2 and I will elaborate here. Furthermore, I could flip this point on my opponent and say that because of the increased risk to humiliation and whatnot, that this is further reason to disallow homosexuals to raise children.To further bolster the evidence, research into Scandinavian marriages (which includes Sweden, another country which has legalised gay marriage [7]) found that “divorce risks are higher in same sex partnerships than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men” [8]. This further shows that homosexual marriages are unstable and therefore not as desirable for child-rearing.Also, in Canada, where gay marriage is also legalised [6], children of married same-sex couples were less likely to graduate.III. Homosexuals are a fraction of the population; heterosexuals make up the vast majorityIn 2010, a representative survey of 238, 206 British people found that approximately 1.5% identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual [1]. In the U.S in 2010 and 2011, the United States Census Bureau and the Williams Institute found that 1.7% identify as lesbian or gay, 1.8% identified as bisexual [2] [3]. I challenge my opponent to find a statistic wherein the percentage exceeds 10%, let alone becomes a majority. This, of course, pales in comparison to the heterosexual populations in each country. For example, in Australia, it was found that 97.7% of women identified as heterosexual [10]. The 2010 Britain study (already cited [2]) found that 5% did not identify as heterosexual. It is quite obvious that an overwhelming percentage of any country’s population will be heterosexual. So, why should this sense of entitlement by a small minority be able to impose a mass reconfiguration of an institution that they have no right to?References[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://www.census.gov...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[5] http://www.businessinsider.com.au...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.baylorisr.org...[9] http://www.mygenes.co.nz...[10] Smith, A. M.; Rissel, C. E.; Richters, J; Grulich, A. E.; De Visser, R. O. (2003). "Sex in Australia: Sexual identity, sexual attraction and sexual experience among a representative sample of adults". Australian and New Zealand journal of public health 27 (2): 138–45[11] http://www.fiercegoodbye.com...

positive: Should Gay Marriage be legal Marriage is an institution of the Church, and should remain such. The government ought assign the status of civil union to any married couple, or any couple wishing to become married. Further, since any sort of marriage is legal, my opponent is arguing the status quo. As my case has gone unrefuted, please extend.

positive: Gay Marriage In this round I will address the definitions, then offer some rebuttals to Con’s case, and finally I will defend my case against his attacks. Definitions There does seem to be a bit of a disagreement on what “in the United States” should mean. Con argued that it ought to mean the federal level of government, I argued that it should merely mean any specific jurisdiction, but rather any level of government, be it municipal, state, or federal. In the end it is up to the voters, but I will point out that Con has not offered a reason why “in the United States” implies federal government, and not any jurisdiction within the United States. The other possible area of disagreement is whether marriage ought to constitute a legal union, or merely a social one. Con has not offered a reason to think marriage is not a legal union. It does not make sense for this debate to center around a purely social union, because that sort of union is already allowed to occur without government recognition. Even if we determine marriage is a social union, he has not offered a reason that such a union should not be legal. CON CASE He begins by saying that legalizing gay marriage gives the federal government authority to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. To begin with, marriage was already defined by the federal government to exclude gay couples and I have presented reasons why marriage should be made legal for heterosexual couples. Since the government defined what constitutes a legal union in the first place, they have the authority to change that definition. A1: Government should not be allowed to define personal relationships. The beginning of his case illustrates the flaw at the heart of my opponent’s argument. This flaw is the difference between a purely social union without legal implications, and a legal union that has legal effects. Con argues that marriage ought to be a purely social institution, and the government should not be involved at all. I disagree with that notion (more on that in a minute), but it should be noted that even if we allow marriage to be free of government regulation, my argument still stands that gay people should be allowed to get married. My opponent really offers no strong opposition to the ideas of gay couples receiving equal marriage rights, he simply argues that marriage should not be controlled by the government. At this point I do not even need to disagree with my opponent’s first two arguments in order to win, but I will address them anyway. He says that we are allowing the government to define personal relationships, but that is not really what occurs. What occurs is government recognition of an already existing relationship that allows a couple to receive certain benefits through legal recognition of their union. These benefits include such things as inheritance rights, the ability to visit a sick spouse in the hospital beyond visiting etc [1]. If marriage were not a legal institution, spouses would not be legally recognized as a family member of their partner. A comprehensive list of legal benefits resulting from marriage is available at the source I previously cited. Not only have I explained why marriage should be a legal institution, I have shown that if marriage were not a legal institution, gay people would be allowed to get married and the resolution would be affirmed! A2: Marriage would benefit all parties involved more if it were a strictly private institution. My opponent states that we ought to have contracts setting up the terms if a marriage were to terminate, however a contract is a legal document. This is basically what legal unions boil down to: a type of contract that is recognized by the government as signifying the legal joining of two unrelated people as family. Even though his point is irrelevant to gay people being allowed to get married, as his scenario would affirm the resolution, he is arguing for a legal contract recognizing a couples, which is basically what exists right now. A3: Gay marriage is simply a concession of defeat for the gay community. Here it is argued that rather than pushing for equality in marriage, gay couples should push for the abolishment of legal marriages period. I have already shown why legal unions are important, but if the gay community did push for no government recognized marriage at all, they would still be able to have marriages, and the resolution would be affirmed. I have shown that legally recognized marriage is important, but even if all of Con’s points were true, the resolution would be affirmed. PRO CASE C1: Legalizing same-sex marriage has a positive impact on society. Here my opponent attempts to undermine my conclusion by launching two weak and unfounded attacks on my premises. His attack on my first premise does not even address the premise. He writes: “P1 only legitimizes an immoral institution, which causes harm further down the road, not only for individuals that want to get married w/o meeting the criteria set by government, but for individuals that find themselves subject to other arbitrary standards set by a far away government. ” He talks a great deal about marriage, but P1 does not concern marriage in the least. P1 states: Legalizing something causes happiness without causing harm has a positive impact on society. It is easy to see that his attack does not come close to dismantling this premise as he has not offered any reason why something that causes happiness without causing harm would not be a good thing. P1 stands with virtually no challenge to it at all. The argument against P2 also misses the mark, as his “alternative” would still allow for gay people to get married, and this would not harm anyone. P2 stands with no challenge as well. P1 stands, P2 stands, therefore, C1 stands. C2: Denying same-sex couples legally recognized marriage is a violation of civil rights. I agree with my opponent that “If government were not involved in marriage, there would be no violation of civil rights, because everyone would be free to set their own terms for marriage. ” However, I have shown that marriage ought to be a legally recognized union, and even if it were not, the resolution would still be affirmed. C3: Legalizing same-sex marriage is beneficial to the economy. My opponent concedes that marriage is good for the economy, but says that marriage does not have to be recognized by law for celebrations to take place. I agree, but if a marriage had a legal weight, that would encourage more people to get married. There are same-sex couples that could be having celebrations recognizing their relationships, but they don’t because they would not be receiving the legal benefits that are awarded to straight couples. Legalizing gay marriage would encourage more gay celebrations, thus helping the economy. CONCLUSION Con never really attacked my argument that legalizing gay marriage is good for society. His other two rebuttals hinged on the idea that marriage should not be a legal union, but I have shown why it is should be. His case also revolved around the idea that marriage should not be defined by the government, but again, I have shown why it should be a legal union, and not just a social one. I have also shown that even if his arguments are true, the resolution is still affirmed. It is clear that there are benefits for society if same-sex marriage was legalized. Source: [1]- . http://www.nolo.com...

positive: Gay marriage should be legal in the United States "My opponent’s quote shows that marriage is an issue for the states to handle, not the federal government. Because the resolution calls for gay marriage to be legal in the United States, and legal in the United States has been accepted to mean federal law, my opponent has himself acknowledged that it is not within the power of the United States to put the resolution into effect. He also says that “While the federal government should have no say in the gay marriage issue, making the federal government unable to ban gay marriage itself unless through an amendment to the constitution.” The federal government is unable to ban gay marriage, likewise, it is not able to legalize it."My opponent makes the claim here that something can be neither legal and illegal, but he fails to provide evidence or reasoning for this claim. I claim that something is legal until it is made illegal. Since the federal government does not ban gay marriage, gay marriage is thus legal in the United States; the government does not have to write up a law for everything to say that it is legal when it already is; the government does, however, have to do this to make something illegal. My opponent now has the responsibility to not only refute my claim, but he also must provide reasoning or evidence for his claim gay marriage can be neither legal or illegal on the federal level. "I will begin this round by pointing out that my opponent provides no evidence for his assertion that gay marriage is a civil right. Because there is no evidence for the claim, it will not be accepted as true."Allow me to elaborate further then. From the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia:"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." [1]Now, I shall refer to my opponent's definition of marriage that I accepted at the beginning of the debate: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other." Under this definition, gay marriage certainly could be considered a civil right, just as marriage already is, under certain jurisdictions. As long as gay marriage is included in the definition of marriage, it is a civil right. I shall argue that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, but first, I shall address another one of Con's points."Thirdly, Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act states: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship” [1].This law means that it is up to each state to determine how it wishes to define marriage, and states do not have to accept the same sex marriages of other states."The Defense of Marriage Act has not been tested for constitutionality in the United States Supreme Court, and thus, it remains law. This debate, however, is not a question of whether or not gay marriage can be legal in the United States, but rather, whether or not it should be legal. Should was already defined as "used to express obligation or duty." In this use of the word, can is defined as "be able to." [2] The United States does have the obligation or duty to enforce its laws; this does not mean that the states have the obligation to define marriage as only between a man or a woman. According to my understanding of it, the entirety of my opponent's response to my argument, which makes up most of his argument, hinges on the fact that states can define marriage as they wish, under a few restrictions, none of which includes the guarantee that the states have to define marriage to include gay marriage. Thus, the states do not have to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples as they do heterosexual couples, nor do they have to provide the right to marry to homosexual couples in the first place, because even though marriage is a civil right, as long as the definition of marriage does not include gay marriage, then gay marriage is not a civil right. Overall, his argument hinges on the fact that the states do not have to define marriage to include homosexual marriage. Con can correct me if I am mistaken with my understanding of his arguments. This means my only rational response to this argument would be to argue that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage. Now, there is little legal precedent or standing for this on a federal basis, and state basis varies, and thus, I will simply use reasoning and rational thinking as opposed to relying on legal documents, which my opponent and I have used throughout this debate. Nonetheless, if my argument, which is that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, is successful, and my opponent's refutations are unsuccessful, then gay marriage should be legal in the United States, because marriage is a civil right that the states already provide for heterosexual couples.To begin my argument as to why gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, I shall say that marriage is not necessarily naturally between one man and one woman; in other words, my opponent has to provide reasoning for the claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman, just as I have to provide reasoning that marriage can include homosexual couples. Evidence for the notion that marriage may not just be between heterosexuals is shown throughout history. Same sex marriages have been tolerated in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, and even a few examples in Middle Ages European secular law. [3]As for rational reasons to include gay marriage in the definition of marriage, some examples are: it would allow gay couples to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples; it does not hurt society or anyone in particular; marriage is also a matter of love, and this allows homosexual couples another way to express their love; marriage would encourage family values amongst homosexual couples in the same way marriage encourages family values amongst heterosexual couples; it would encourage child adoption amongst homosexual couples, giving more children stable homes where the parents are in a social contract to stay together. This is the end of my argument for round three, and although I do have more to say and argue, I cannot fit in for space reasons, mainly because at this point I have one last thing I need to address, which is addressed below this paragraph. "Question: If gay marriage is a civil right, then is polygamy a civil right?" The question shall be ignored until my opponent provides reasoning as to why it is relevant to the debate. The debate is about whether or not gay marriage is legal. Although arguing gay marriage as a civil right may be necessary for my side of the debate, and arguing that it is not a civil right may be necessary for my opponent's side of the debate, arguing polygamy as a civil right or not a civil right is irrelevant as to whether gay marriage should be legal or illegal. I see the question by Con as an attempt to draw away from the main topic of the debate, and readers should take this in mind when determining the conduct of the two debaters. I am not at fault from drawing attention away from the debate in this instance because I am simply addressing a question asked of me as opposed to asking one myself. Likewise, my opponent shall not be at fault if he tries to explain why this question is relevant to the debate; if he fails to do this, however, this question should be a factor when determining his conduct in the debate. [1] http://tiny.cc... [2] http://tiny.cc...[3] http://tiny.cc...

positive: Is it a good thing for same sex marriage to be legal in the US To nate_sk: I would like to give you some pointers for future debates, that you may have against me or anyone ells for that matter. "Debating pointer 1: Calm down, as Plexon_Warrior (a guy on your side of the debate) said to you on the opinion question were I found out that you aren"t so fond of the LGBT community, "Calm down. I agree with you, but God didn't give us the right to judge them. He actually commanded us to love them... Not in a sexual way, but you know what I mean." So don"t let your anger with as you said about them and their rainbow symbol, "GOD MADE THE RAINBOW AND YOU VILE CREATURES HAVE NO RIGHT TO PERVERT IT." to make you not think clearly in your wish to prove that they are in the wrong, instead of you. "Debating pointer 2: Research your opponent, before you make clams that they can easily disprove and make you look foolish, even though your, as I said before, a smart guy who"s pretty good at debating. An example of you making this mistake is just this last round, when you called me Leftist Liberal, if you would have checked my profile you would see that I am an Independent. (who actually thinks that the whole left, right party system is obsolete, and now is a hindrance to our politics) "Debating Pointer 5: state your sources, If you haven"t noticed, I had been putting down a few sources throughout the debate, I would only use a few of them so that you wouldn"t catch on and start doing it yourself, which allowed me to have more compelling arguments, between rounds 2 and 3, before I had to ask you to show any proof. "Debating Pointer 6: this goes hand in hand with 2, but in this case you couldn"t have read, that I used to go to Spring Creek Baptist Church in Milwaukee Wisconsin during my earlier years every Sunday morning and every Wednesday night. (so yes I was a Baptist) I think that I have covered most of my suggestions for you and hope that you will recognize that they weren"t meant to be insulting, but is just some wisdom that I am trying to pass along to you, Maybe now that we both know a little about each other, and see that there is more than just our own view, on the subject, we can shake hands and be friends, even if we don"t agree on some things, like I"m Andy Griffith and your Barney Fife (from the Andy Griffith Show) So can you as a anti same sex marriage activist accept my hand of friendship, as a pro same sex marriage activist, so that we can be friends after this debate is all said and done? Back to the debate. Now to your argument about how if you changed the definition of marriage, to except same sex marriage, you are making it to where you are making the definition to mean the opposite, I would argue that according to Thesaurus.com antonyms (or for clarity the opposite of what the word means) for the word marriage are antagonism, disunion, divorce, and separation. So nope, nothing to imply that by adding the words same sex before it would mean that you got anything but a different kind of marriage. Now I will give you that the probability of a homosexual contracting aids is more likely, but it is like other STDs where you can be tested and can where protection to protect your partner. As for the homosexual"s shorter life expectancy, I say, yes, but according to madamenoire.com/.../study-black-life-expectancy African Americans have nearly a decade less lifetime expectancy then whites. So by your logic African Americans, because of their shorter lifetime expectancy statistically, they shouldn"t be allowed to adopt either, If this is the case (and I doubt that it is) then the list of people who are eligible to adopt kids is getting smaller and smaller, while the list of kids in the child care system is getting larger and larger, especially if we take your idea that big reason for marriage is to get more people having kids. So I can hardly think of how a home with responsible homosexuals who protect themselves, when lovemaking like any other sexually active couple who don"t want to contract any of the numerous STDs out there, can"t be able to raise a child. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. You can"t judge them by one movement, just as you can"t judge Christians, by the many more movements that have had more catastrophic consequences, such as the ongoing KKK, LRA, anyone who beats up the Jewish for "killing Jesus" As for the religious and civil rights cards, I do criticize anyone who uses religion as an excuse to hate others, or to use violence, I disapprove of extremists, for religion, as well as, people who try to use civil rights as an excuse to get violent. The reason why I said that the legal age for marriage should be 18 is because that is the age when (in the US) you are considered a legal adult who is responsible for yourself, so if you want to change that law, it is up to you, but that is for a different debate at a different time. (And your supposed inconsistency# 5 didn"t make any sense, where did the bestiality part come in. Few thousand vs. 4 Mill As a side note, a site that has stories with the titles Deez Nuts Will Have to Pull Out of Presidential Race, and save the confederate flag, might not be the best one to use) Bestiality, Lack of laws against it is largely presumed to be due to it being uncommon, or a taboo subject most of society prefers to not think about. (rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bestiality) I will bring up some facts of my own. Adoption: For more proof on why gay/lesbian couples should be allowed to marry just in the category of the need for more married couples to be there to raise adopted children in a better home, consider the following approximately 400,540 children in foster care on September 30, 2011. www.acf.hhs.gov/.../foster-care...Youth in Transition: this number has been rising, and as I mentioned before, we need more married couples to adopt, and we are not currently hitting or criteria, and because of this, each year, an estimated 20,000 young people "age out" of the U.S. foster care system. Many are only 18 years old and still need support and services. Several foster care alumni studies show that without a lifelong connection to a caring adult, these older youth are often left vulnerable to a host of adverse situations: www.unmarried.org/parents-children/adoption And there are always more on the way to being put into the system by the day Currently, about half (51%) of the 6.6 million pregnancies in the United States each year (3.4 million) are unintended-www.guttmacher.org/.../FB-Unintended-Pregnancy Countless unmarried partners (same-sex or different-sex) are co-parenting a child or children, but frequently only one partner has a legal relationship to the child(ren). In many cases it would benefit the child(ren) to have a legal relationship to both parents. Many, but not all, states allow "co-parent adoptions" or "second parent adoptions," which create a second legal parent-child relationship for these families. Qualified, screened single and LGBT people can be excellent parents. Having a single or LGBT parent could be in an individual child"s best interest, for a number of reasons. www.unmarried.org/parents-children/adoption Economy: Same sex marriage can actually help improve the economy" this is a report by The Huffington Post Posted: 05/15/2013 (so this was written before the law was passed in all 50 states that"s why it is worded as will be instead of is) It would boost tax revenues: Legalizing same-sex marriage would bring in between $20 million and $40 million more per year in taxes, according to a December paper from University of Michigan economist Adam Stevenson. It helped NYC's economy: In the first year that gay marriage was legal in New York City, the city reaped $259 million, thanks to license fees and wedding-related spending, according to CNNMoney. It would alleviate payroll headaches for many businesses: According to PBS, many companies argue that by not legalizing same-sex marriage, the U.S. is hindering their competitiveness by creating more administrative hurdles. For example, states where same-sex marriage isn't legal have different tax laws for same-sex versus opposite-sex couples. It can boost struggling state economies: If California were to legalize same-sex marriage, it would generate $123 million for the state economy during the first three years same-sex marriage is legal, according to a 2005 Stanford study cited by the Fiscal Times. And the state could certainly use the money; California has been mired in a budget crisis for years. In Massachusetts, legalizing same-sex marriage has generated an estimated $111 million over the first five years same-sex marriage was legal, according to CNNMoney. Lots of major corporations think it's a good idea: More than 60 companies, including Apple, Nike and Morgan Stanley, signed onto a brief submitted to the Supreme Court supporting same-sex marriage in February, according to Fortune. The companies argued that keeping same-sex marriage illegal made it difficult for them to recruit and hire top applicants. One major executive at Goldman Sachs almost considered leaving the country because states' differing same-sex marriage laws put his partner's student visa in jeopardy after they married. Now these sources and videos support my argument that gay marriage should be legalized: 1.www.nytimes.com/.../obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html 2.Go to you tube and look up "get educated about homosexuality", there you"ll find an educational cartoon, that will cover some of the points in more scientific ways then I can. 3.The Huffington post. 4.Gay Marriage Legalized In All 50 States | Historic Expansion Of Freedom: The Young Turks 5.YouTube from here on out, not really important to the debate, but we can all laugh at CNN 6.Jon Stewart Tackles the "Anti-Gay Cray Cray" in the Supreme Court, YouTube 7. June Is A Lovely Time For A Wedding The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 8.Hear is someone who "agrees" with you STEPHEN COLBERT IS APOPLECTIC THAT GAY MARRIAGE HAS COME TO THE PLACE HE CARES ABOUT THE MOST: VIDEO 9.Vote no to the gay, Facts 10.The ultimate anti-gay marriage ad. 1.So for my first round of questions, I asked, What about people who have a sex change operation done on them, do they get to be with people of the gender that they used to be a part of? Or do they have to be with the gender that they are now? Still making them homosexuals. To your credit you did answer it, but you never answered the question clearly, you answered that God makes you in the womb, but you never answered the question of whether or not the person who got their gender changed, should be allowed to be with the person of the gender that they used to be or aloud to be with the people of the gender that they are now? 2.Same sex marriage is legal in a few countries, and nothing bad has happened in any of them, what is the difference between the US and them that will make it to where our nation will be hurt by this decision while they have not? To be fair you did answer this one, but as I said, it was more of a so few people do it, so why even bother to take the time to illegalize it. So I still think that my question stands. 3.Is it constitutional to not allow people of the same gender not to marry, while they have the majority vote, the civil rights card, and the go ahead from a supreme court ruling? 4.In some of the Middle East countries, (with violent extremist controlling the countries) they have been accused by the UN, of forcing homosexuals into pits then toppling walls on them. (mass executions) Do you agree with these actions, and if not what would your solution to the "gay problem" be? I mean it is in Leviticus 20:13 5.I don"t know if you have a kid or not, but if you do, and he/she came to you and told you that they are homosexual what would be your reaction? 6.Do you believe that Jesus hated homosexuals and would call them vile creatures? 7.Be honest, what did you think of those videos that I recommended? Thanks for the debate (sorry if it looks bad and didn"t cover all the part"s ran out of room.

positive: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal First I would like to state: The government should be out of marriage in the first place. The point of marriage is not to keep people as one, but to find out the kids of the couple, that is what all the government cares about. As I see that if the government was out of marriage then we would not need to worry about it being legal or not, but weather if it would be alright for gays to marry ( With what I do not care if they do or not ). Love is love but you do not need marriage for love if the only reason marriage is in the government is for the child. If you did not know, gay's can't have births. YES They can take in a kid, but he was already born. Meaning that the kid is already under the system.

positive: Gay marriage should be legal I think gay marriage should be legal because every body deserves to marry who they love.

positive: Gay marriage should be legal. My opponent's arguments will be addressed below. Paragraph 1: "Making only gay marriage legal would open up a door to multiple other parties. I never said that polygamous and incestuous marriages would be made legal, I am saying that by making gay marriage legal you are violating there rights as well because according to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more. If that is the underlying premise, then any other person should marry whom they love. This is flawed. Thus a definition of marriage must be heterosexual." 1. How do you know that it will open up a door to other parties? Even assuming that it did, how would heterosexual marriage also not open up a door to other parties? And even THEN, like I said originally, each group looking for marriage rights must be considered on their own merits. It isn't as if once gay marriage is legalized, every other kind of marriage that the imagination can think of will also be made legal instantly. 2. My opponent said "According to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more". I never said that or even implied that, so this is an assumption on his part, making the rest of this paragraph based on an assumption. Paragraph 2: "Turn this argument against my opponent. Essentially, then, my opponent is basing marriage off more then love, which inherently collapses his idea that gay marriage should be legal. He is now basing a marriage off of economics, not just love. This attacks the very premise of his argument." 1. My opponent was the one who brought up polygamous marriages (" .. If this was true, why isn't polygamy allowed? .. "), so I listed some reasons against it that cannot be used against gay marriage in response to that sentence. This was to illustrate how gay and polygamous marriage are different. 2. Again, my opponent makes an assumption that I said that marriage should be based on love and nothing more. Even if I had said that, my argument differentiating the merits of gay marriage and polygamous marriage does not collapse or discredit my position that gay marriage should be legal, and certainly not inherently. 3. I also did not base the idea of marriage "off of" economics. I simply listed reasons that people have used to be opposed to polygamous marriage that cannot also be used to be opposed to gay marriage. I also did not claim it was MY position; rather, I said that "One can plausibly argue that..". However, my original claim still stands: Gay marriage must be evaluated and considered on its own merits, not on the merits of a seemingly endless variety of paranoid possibilities. Paragraph 3: "The term gay animal is intrinsically flawed. An animal is not "gay." An animal could possibly be pan-sexual. Pan sexual is the sexual tendency towards sex itself rather then the agent helping. Furthermore, I am arguing against gay marriage, not homosexuality itself. When the natural law and marriage is intertwined, then the result is a family. Gay marriage undermines this natural order of family making. " 1. My opponent claims that animals are not gay and that the term itself is intrinsically flawed. A couple of sources that I will provide to argue his claim are the August 2008 issue of Scientific American Mind ( "..Animal homosexuality has been documented in as many as 1,500 species, including insects.." ), which reports on a study spearheaded by University of Oslo zoologist Petter Bockman. Another source is "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D. ( "..In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality.." ). 2. I understand that my opponent is arguing that animals who engage in homosexual activities are probably pan-sexual - the desire to have sex regardless of the partner's gender. While it is true that not every sexual act has a reproductive function, some scientists have also proposed that being gay may serve its own evolutionary purpose - it could be a way to strengthen bonds. As proposed by biologist Marlene Zuk, gay individuals could contribute to the gene pool of their community by nurturing their relatives' young without diverting resources by having their own offspring. Regardless of the explicit reason, the fact still exists that homosexual animals exist in nature. 3. My opponent says he is only arguing against gay marriage and not homosexuality. However, the two are obviously closely related. I will clarify my position about why gay marriage SHOULD be legal at the end of this response. Paragraph 4: "Yes, but the old people had the ability to make children. Yes, they may not be able to anymore. This, is irrelevant because the possibility and the natural organs are all there. That doesn't violate the natural law. Gay marriage violates the natural law because 2 men/women are purposely getting married when it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children. The opposite sex is necessary for this." 1. My opponent said that older people should still be able to marry because organs necessary for reproduction exist. He solidifies his position by saying "it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children". This implies that reproduction ability should be a prerequisite for marriage, which still means that straight people who are medically unable to have children (perhaps they're missing an organ - maybe it had to be removed or due to a defect?) should not be allowed to marry, under this philosophy. 2. Regarding natural law in relation to homosexuality and ultimately gay marriage, natural law is premised on an observation of nature and homosexuality clearly exists within both human and animal nature. Paragraph 5: "I never said they had too. The possibility is there. In gay marriage, there is no possibility for it is impossible with two people of the same sex. That's where the difference lies." 1. If my opponent claims that two married people do not have to have sex - only the possibility to have sex has to exist, I will assume that my opponent is again trying to say that straight people can reproduce while gay people cannot through sex. This weak argument was disputed above. Affirmative Burden: "My Opponent has yet to make a case fulfilling the affirmative burden. For this reason an affirmation is impossible regardless of my arguments or not. If my opponent doesn't fulfill this, then you must negate. " It is sad that I could still be "forced to negate" if I don't clearly state my position as to why gay marriage should be legal, regardless of the fact that I've argued all of your contentions. Please, let me be more clear. Gay marriage should be legal because gay people should be allowed to marry as long as straight people are allowed to marry. I believe that they should be afforded this same right because the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution states: "No state shall .. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Not offering equal protection to gay people under marriage laws is unconstitutional. Since there are many arguments against gay marriage which, as we have seen from above, are really about homosexuality at their core, it is important to argue the merits of those as well. This is a complicated and controversial issue and all sides need to be carefully considered.

positive: Gay Marriage I believe gay marriage should be legal. The fact of denying happiness to human being IN THIS CASE is unacceptable.

positive: Gay marriage Well I am a Christian and I am for gay marriage. I believe that God exists and he wants us to be happy.. Whether we marry a man or woman. Marriage is a right for all people and gay marriage should be legalized in all states.

positive: Gay Marriage Rebuttalsi) Extreme lack of reason as to why it should be illegalThe first premiseCon concedes this.The second premiseCon says: I assume here your argument is saying there is no reason to make gay marriage illegal. I disagree. Under Bill Clinton, the defense of marriage act was signed into law, clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That can be changed, but it's s a legitimate, real law, that would have to be challenged by the Supreme Court to be overturned or ignored.Con may've misunderstood me here. The definition of marriage being between a man and a woman can be changed, as Con admits. But my point here was that there is no real reason to have Gay marriage be illegal. One president oculd decide to make forks illegal, and my point would be the same, that there would be no real reason to make forks or Gay marriage illegal.The third premiseCon says: In this premise you assert that anything that has no real legal basis to deny it as a right should be legalized. Again, I disagree, as morality plays a big role in our laws, stemming from tradition. Polygamy, marrying multiple spouses, is illegal in the United States, but if you think about it, there is no legal basis to ban polygamy. Like gay marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act is the only real legislation standing in the way. There is absolutely no reason that polygamy should be illegal. So why is it? Because its immoral. That is the only basis for why it is not allowed. Along with bestiality and pedofilia, morality is the only argument against it. Not only does that disprove your point, but it provides in itself an argument against gay marriage. If it is a "right" to marry who you want, why isn't polygamy legal?The resolution is that Gay marriage should be legal. If they're banning gay marriage because it's immoral, there has to be a reason why it's immoral, because otherwise there is no reason to make it illegal, so it would then make as much sense to ban forks, for example. Con has provided no reason to think that Gay marriage is immoral.Con may've misunderstood my argument that says that Gays should be able to marry whoever they want. I said that Gays should have this right because straight people have this right, and there is no reason why straight and gay people are inequal.ii) Gay Marriage being illegal would mean that homosexuals are second-rate citizensCon says: I don't remember the specific premises, so I will just address your entire argument, which is homosexuals are second class citizens since they don't appear to have the same rights. Gays and straight people have the exact same rights. Gay citizens can marry too, just not eachother, and straight people can not marry gay, either. At face value, they have the exact same rights. Why the Jim Crow laws and laws repressing woman were wrong is because they stopped a minority from being able to do what a majority could. That is not the case. Straight people have the same rights and restrictions as homosexuals.So why should gay marriage be illegal?1. Marriage isn't a "right". As I mentioned in my first rebuttal, polygamy, bestiality, and pedofilia are all illegal, as they should be. Excluding bestiality and pedofilia, as they violate other laws, polygamy is a marriage between a man and multiple woman, or a woman and multiple men. It requires legal age and consent, just like straight marriage. So if gay marriage is a right, why shouldn't polygamy be? I would even go as far as to say that if you support gay marriage, reasonably you also have to support legalizing polygamy.2. Its legalization imposes its acceptance on society. By allowing it to be law, the state automatically becomes its primary promoter. Despite the United States being about half and half on the issue, if legalized, gay marriage would be taught in schools, have required acceptance by federal workers, and required acceptance by churches, despite the complaints of the parents, the disapproval of the federal workers, and the churches saying gay marriage goes against god's word.Con's first argument here is that Gay and straight people have the same sort of restrictions and limitations. However, this is false. As a straight person can marry a straight person, and a straight person can marry a gay person of the opposite sex (however, this would contradict the homosexual's sexual orientation), but a Gay person cannot marry without the marriage contradicting the homosexual's sexual orientation. But a straight person can marry without the marriage contradicting his/her sexual orientation. Therefore, homosexuals do not have the same restrictions in marriage as heterosexual people do.Next, Con gives us two reasons as to why Gay marriage should be illegal. I will rebut them now.1. Con makes the same argument here as he did earlier. My answer is that there is an inequality in Gay marriage being illegal because if it is, then heterosexual people can marry without the marriage contradicting his/her sexual orientation, but the homosexual can't. There is therefore an inequality when there is no reason to be an inequality.2. The point made by Con here could've been made when the same issue was happening but with interracial marriage instead of Gay marriage. Everyone seems to be accepting of interracial marriage now, so perhaps if Gay marriage was legal, then we would be accepting of Gay marriage.Another point that could be made in rebuttal to this point is that no matter what someone's opinion is, it shouldn't interfere with justice. I could be part of a majority that things that women are stupid and are only useful as sex tools, but I could not use my opinion to interfere with justice, meaning a law that states that women being useful and being able to do everything that men could do.I'm intrigued to hear Con's response.

positive: Gay Marriage should be legalized in America Gay Marriage should be legalized in America, because gay people are not a threat. It was a genetic mutation in them that makes them attracted to there same gender. It is as genetic as race, eye color, and hair.

positive: gay marrige should be legalizzed I will start by refuting my opponents claims and statements. Your definition of the word marriage is wrong,some countries do have gay marriage. Like : Netherlands: On April 1, 2001 the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage, with the same rights as heterosexuals. Includes the right to adopt. Belgium: Homosexual couples in Belgium have almost the same rights as heterosexuals. They won the right to marry in 2003 and in 2006 parliament voted into law a bill allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. Spain: In 2005 Spain became the third member of the European Union to pass a law allowing same-sex marriages. Gay couples can adopt children, whether they are married or not. Canada: Canada adopted a national law allowing gays to marry and adopt in July 2005, though most provinces had already allowed same-sex unions before that date. South Africa: The country legalised same-sex unions and adoptions by gay couples in November 2006, becoming the first African nation to do so. Norway: A 2009 law allowed homosexuals to marry and adopt children. Civil partnerships have existed in the country for 20 years. Sweden: Sweden's homosexuals have been allowed to wed in religious or civil ceremonies since May 2009. Portugal: Under a 2010 law Portugal legalised gay marriage, while excluding the right to adoption. Iceland: Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir married her long-time partner in June 2010 as a new law legalising homosexual marriages came into force. Same-sex couples who have lived together for at least five years have had the right to adopt children since 2006. Argentina: Gays in Argentina became the first on the South American continent to be able to wed and adopt, after legislation passed on July 14, 2010. Denmark: Denmark, the first country in the world to allow gay couples to enter into civil unions in 1989, voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing homosexuals to marry in the state Evangelical Lutheran Church in June 2012. Uruguay: Uruguay voted in April to allow same-sex marriages nationwide, making it only the second Latin American country to do so. New Zealand: New Zealand on April 17 became the first Asia-Pacific country to legalise same-sex marriage, after a decades-long campaign. Partial Rules Gay couples can marry in nine US states, as well as in the capital Washington, while parts of Mexico also allow same-sex marriage. Brazil this month gave a de facto green light to same-sex marriages after its National Council of Justice ruled that government offices could issue marriage licenses to gay couples without having to wait for Congress to pass a law allowing gay unions. Expected Soon Britain: Same-sex couples in Britain have had the right to live in civil partnerships since 2005 but cannot marry. British lawmakers voted in February in favour of controversial legislation allowing gay marriage, despite fierce opposition from members of Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative party. The bill has since been scrutinised by a committee of lawmakers and will be debated again in the lower House of Commons on Monday, followed by a vote on Tuesday. If the vote passes, the bill will go before the upper chamber, the House of Lords, before becoming law. Civil Unions A number of other countries have adopted laws that recognise civil partnerships and give couples more or less the same rights as heterosexuals. Countries to have recognised civil unions without yet accepting gay marriage include Germany (2001), Finland (2002), the Czech Republic (2006), Switzerland (2007) and Colombia and Ireland (both 2011) If there are countries were gay marriages are allowed the oxford definition Is wrong,because it is ignoring the fact that in some countries gay marriages is a thing. Now going to your statements of the divorce rates.i do not argue with you that most of gay people break- up. Does divorce rates mean that the gay coupels that last live times aren"t true love?Should we bann the lottery there is a huge chance that we will not gain any money why do we bann everything that is probely not going to work?We do not do that because it would take the choise away from the people. There are many reasons why straight coupels divorce less. Children:parents do not want to lose the custody of their children,they do not want the children to live without both parents. So many coupels stay together even if there isn"t any love between each other they do not want to lose their children . Property split there are many states who have very draconic laws for divorce given almost everything to the women. Gay coupels usually have less things bonding them to each other like children. So if gay coupels survive the test of time their love has been proven. My opponent does a remark that people are going to want to marry animals,objects and multiple reasons.and I shall explain why this cannot happen if we legalize gay marriage.I shall explain why this will not be possible with the legalization of gay marriage. Animals:animals cant sign legall documents.so they can not sign a marriage certificate. Objects:objects have no rights to sign any legall document ore have the ability to do it(yet). Polyamory:would be an option and I do not se why it would be wrong.if you don"t agree with me whe can have a debate on that. My opponent states that people will change laws to democracy to make such marriages legal.Democracy requires the majoritie of votes if people in the future see that as right and they are the majority then who is the minority to oppose what the majority wants. In 100 years we will be most likely be dead ,so why should we have a say in the politics of the future if we are dead. My opponent says that no religion accepts gay marriage what is false(atheism is not a religion ). Religions who accept gay marriage: -Christianity : Support and affirmation of marriage rights for same-sex couples increasingly come from certain Christian denominations that are theologically considered liberal. Some examples of religious organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ "Marriage Equality and the UCC"., theChristian Church (Disciples of Christ),[1] the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America and the Unitarian Universalists church which has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry both in the church and through the state.[2][3] Numerous progressive congregations and organizations within mainline Christian denominations, that have not yet officially voiced official support for marriage equality, have spoken out themselves in support of equal marriage rights in the church and through the state.[4] -Liberal Buddhists -Liberal Hindus -Wicca Native American religion Forbidding gay marriage is oppression of these religions,basing marriages laws one Christianity is wrong. The united states have been founded one the pricipels of church and saate separation. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... My new argument: Not all humans are man and woman there are uni-sex peopel .should those peopel be allowed to marry.of course they should.saying that marriage should be betwen a man and a women is ignoring that not all humans are even man or women. Note:Saying that kids need the love of both parents to be normal is saying that kids who live in a divorced coupel are not normal,kids who one of their parent is dead are not normal,saying that children who lived there entire childhood are not normal and does that sound right to any one.Childreen do not get confused by seeing gay coupels my mother had many gay friends I have many gay friends that does not mean that I got confused.I am heterosexual after having had many encounters with gay people as I was before nowing them.What confuses children is live their hole live without knowing of the existenz of gay marriage and then finding out that gay coupels exist.What they think :I did not now that gay people exist maybe I am one of them? That is all for now.

positive: Gay Marriage Hello, I think gay marriage should not be legal but they should be able to form a partnership with each other that allows them to get the same rights as married couples. The term marriage is a Religious term and should be sacred to Religion. For example, lets say i start a organization for helping animals find homes, and instead of calling my self the owner of the organization i call myself the pope, and my organization takes off and becomes world known, there would be a catholic outcry because the term "pope" is sacred to Catholicism. I hope that makes sense. So don't call it marriage, call it partnership (or something else). If the gay community did that then almost EVERYONE would be on board. Marriage is a Religious tradition and it should and needs to stay that way. If you don't mind me asking i would like to know for arguments sake; are you gay?

positive: Intermediate's Debate Competition R1: Legal/Civil Protection for LGBT Unions At the heart of the civil union debate lies the question: shall the state govern love? Until the 20th century, love and marriage were not necessarily bound to one another. Marriage was a financial, political, and social alliance between two families. Typically, a woman was viewed as property exchanged for status and/or money. Legitimacy was conferred on the progeny of marriage in respect to social or financial inheritance. The transaction of marriage promoted social stability. States endorsed, licensed, and even subsidized marriage. Love was a private matter of the heart. While the most admired marriages typically demonstrated a partnership of affection, love was not a requisite. Since sexual attraction was seldom a factor in the consideration of marriage, homosexuals were not exempt from the franchise of marriage.Feminism and the expansion of civil rights changed the nature of marriage over the past century. In most cultures, women are now citizens with property rights, divorce rights, the right of consent, and often even superior child custody rights. Along with this extension of franchise came radical change to the nature of marriage. Marriage was redefined as a partnership of equals drawn together by mutual sexual attraction, committed to a long-term companionship with flexible roles in the division of labor, contribution of wealth, child-raising, etc. The state recognized significant public benefit from this evolution in terms of increases to the labor pool, increases in household wealth, improved health and well-being within marriages. So the state continued the recognition and subsidization of marriage as an institution of love. [1]One problem with this new definition of marriage, however, is that homosexuals are excluded. Gays are now seen as interlopers in the institution of marriage. LGBT people who marry partners of opposite sex are considered dishonest and their marriages shams. [2] Homosexuality is often legitimate grounds for divorce. In spite of the arguments of traditionalists, the definition of marriage has changed over the last 100 years, in the process excluding this segment of society. In effect, the state found itself in the position of defining which sexual attractions to endorse and which to exclude.By way of correction, over the past 25 years some states have expanded the franchise to include homosexuals. Whether this expansion is defined as marriage or civil union (the distinction itself being the subject of much debate), state recognition of LGBT relationships offers significant public benefit.Religious Freedom For many forms of religious expression, the union of love is a religious sacrament. To the extent that a religious celebration does not impinge on the freedoms of other citizens, no state should prohibit the free exercise of religion. Likewise, the choice to endorse no religion is an important religious freedom. In fact, the religiosity of states strongly correlates to prejudice against homosexuals. In a secular state, no particular religious view should be given preference when it comes to defining marriage. Some religions won't support same-sex bonds, others will. The most fair approach is to factor out religion when crafting family law within a secular context. Egalitarian Benefits LGBT people are equal contributors to the culture, politics, and finances of society. One need only consider the contributions of famous LGBTs to virtually any well-remembered place or time to appreciate the inherent worth of LGBTs to society. Societies that jail or oppress their LGBT people are typically less well-remembered by history. State recognition offers civil protection. As science increasingly offers evidence to support the biological causation of homosexuality, the alienation of LGBT people from public franchise is increasingly viewed as discriminatory and unjust. State recognition of domestic partnerships goes a long way towards normalizing LGBTs as legitimate members of society. Health Benefits Disenfranchisement hurts LGBT people in tangible ways. Discrimination has been shown to cause psychological distress, social conflict, and poor health. [3] Couples outside of the formal bonds of wedlock have lower levels of happiness and well-being than married couples. [4] Married people live longer, make and save more money, indulge less in risky behaviors, eat healthier, and have fewer mental health problems than unmarried people. [5] Decades of research have shown that marriage is one of the best preventions against early death. [6] Should any government have the power to fence out one segment of society from the circumstances that allow a longer life? Family Values The institutionalization of same-sex couples helps to foster the well-being of children by providing legitimized couples with various rights, benefits, and protections which can strengthen family and societal bonds. Although LGBT people reproduce at only about one-fifth of the rate of straight people, this still represents millions of children raised by same-sex couples. In the US, LGBT couples raising children are four times more likely than their straight counterparts to be raising an adopted child. Further, LGBT couples are six times more likely than straights to be raising foster children. [7] A society that encourages same-sex partnerships not only improves the fortunes of unwanted children, it also legitimizes the parental status of children raised by LGBT couples. Economic BenefitsThe legitimization of same-sex unions also provides substantial economic benefits. Weddings are big business so civil unions and gay marriages help to expand the market. States that offer civil ceremonies often enjoy increased tourism as couples and families travel from those places with no legitimate partnership. New York City estimated a $260 million windfall for that city in the first year after legalizing gay marriage. [8] Increasingly, employers endorse the advantages of recognizing gay couples, not only for the improved health and stability of employees, but also so that denied rights are not a factor for employees in business travel or relocation. [9] States that offer LGBT couples rights have an increased advantage over states that don't offer rights in the acquisition and maintenance of business ventures. Civil Benefits Most governments offer significant rights and subsidies to married heterosexual couples. In the US, a congressional study identified 1,138 Federal benefits exclusively available to married couples including hospital visitation and medical decision rights, bereavement and pension benefits, inheritance and custody rights, and substantial tax subsidies. [10] International Reputation Those countries that can boast of partnership rights for LGBT peoples are generally perceived as more free and more livable than countries that deny those rights. Look at the way recent disenfranchisements have injured the reputation of Russia in the months just before they host the Olympics, while at the same time Mandela's adoption of gay marriage enhanced his country's legacy. [1] http://www.livescience.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.ucop.edu... [4] http://www.stateofourunions.org... [5] http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca...[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[7] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...[8] http://www.bloomberg.com...[9] http://www.pbs.org...[10] http://www.marriageequality.org...

positive: Gay Marriage Gay marriage should be legal in all countries worldwide. The subject is often debated, but why debate? What about gay marriage is even malicious in any form? There is freedom of religion. There is freedom all around. Marijuana, tobacco, alcohol: all legal, but accompanied by horrible repercussions. Smoking affects people around the one doing so, but gay marriage? What horrible repercussions does gay marriage carry? None. The people affected by a gay marriage only become uncomfortable. If one is concerned with their religion disapproving, they are not sinning simply by witnessing a happily married gay couple. Why should gay marriage be illegal? What negative affects could it possibly have?

positive: Gay Marriage I will be arguing that gay marriage should not be legal, because there should be no kind of legally recognized marriage, because government should not be involved in marriage. Good luck.

positive: Gay Marriage Gay marriage should be legalized because it is uncivilized and unmerited. Our civil rights and the Constitution give us many liberties. One of our civil liberties is the pursuit of happiness, which homosexual people are not allowed to chase. They cannot be married to the person they love and it violates their freedoms. According to professorshouse.com, "In Alaska, Nevada, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Nebraska, Missouri, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama, not only is gay marriage banned, but so are civil partnerships." Others might ask why gay marriage should be legalized, but my question is this: why should other people be able to choose who marries who? If a man and a woman get married, no one seems to care. They are two people who feel affection for one another and those two people want to start a family. If we change the scenario a little bit and a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, try to get married it causes uproar. They are not allowed to be married or raise a family together. Imagine waking up one day to a world that was completely opposite from the world we went to sleep in, meaning gay people are now straight and all straight people are now gay. Do you think the newly straight people would fight for the newly homosexual people"s rights? America is the land of the free, but we are not free to marry whomever we would like. After everything straight people have put homosexual people through, in this scenario, homosexual people would most likely vote for their rights because they would want their rights to be voted for. We are equals in this world whether we are Black, White, Hispanic, Indian, or any other race for that matter. Why should we not be equals based on sexual orientation? The 1st amendment of the Constitution states that a person"s religious beliefs or a lack of thereof must be protected. Legislatures also cannot discriminate against marriages of the minority party which, homosexual people fall into that category. There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state, so you cannot declare that a marriage is a gift from God. In a marriage there is one thing that truly matters: love. Yes, other things are important too, but not one couple would make it to even asking someone to marry them if there was not some love. Las Vegas, Nevada is also known for being the place where many weddings occur which are annulled within one week. These marriages are not based off love, but simply a drunken night in Vegas. High divorce rates weaken what a marriage is defined as. Why are we not able to rewrite what a marriage stands for and make it include a homosexual marriage? The definition of love, according to dictionary.com is as follows: "Very strong affection: an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion." If gay people feel this way then why shouldn"t they be able to be married? If they are happy with each other, said persons should be able to marry. California, Hawaii, New York, and the District of Columbia all have domestic partnership laws and civil partnerships meaning it is almost a marriage without the matrimony. Civil partnerships also give couples the ability to have joint bank accounts, live in the same house, and pay bills together. Homosexual couples are not entitled to this in most states. Marriage benefits should be available to all couples, no matter what. In places where gay marriages are banned, the gay couples are not able to have the same benefits as others. When filing for health care or insurance through a job, gay couples are not able to add each other on. Most loved ones, such as a spouse or a child, in a straight marriage, can make life altering decisions in a hospital if need be. Since gay marriage is not legal, said person"s spouse is not recognized as their next of kin and care is delayed. Who would be affected if homosexual marriage was legalized? No one. Everyone believes there is one person who is out there to love us. Gay people feel the same way. Parenthood is a benefit of marriage and gay couples cannot have children by themselves, without some type of help, so they look to adoption agencies. In some cases gay couples are put on longer waiting lists or denied completely. There are other benefits to being married as well, such as tax breaks. On the website professorshouse.com it reads, "When we hit our mid-thirties, we wanted only true friendships- friendships that were durable." This is a perfect example of matrimony and what it should be based on. . According to dictionary.com a marriage is, "The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities." If this is a marriage why are gay people not included in this? Even though gay marriage should be legalized, some people have different beliefs. In most religions including, Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism same sex preferences are a sin. People believe in procreation to repopulate the world, but are against gay marriage and homosexuals adopting children because they cannot procreate on their own. If this is a stand point on making or breaking gay marriage then only people who are fertile and want to procreate should be able to get married according to this bias. America has never really given gay marriage a chance, but they believe gay marriage will weaken its institution by leading to high divorce rates. On loveandpride.com I read, "One reason legislatures are denying gay marriage is because they are fearful that opening the door to allowing gay marriages will open the door to polygamy as well. This would also mean reopening cases about polygamy in the past which they are not willing to do." Others are fearful for children"s futures and they fear being raised by two fathers or by two mothers may compromise children"s mental capacities. Even though to most people gay marriage should be illegal and should stay in its current state, I believe we need to change the world for future generations. We feared that different religions were going to clash, but now all of the religions coexist. White people had Black and Hispanic slaves, but we overcame the odds and now White men, Black men, and Hispanic men can be equals. If it is possible to overcome such fierce obstacles then we can overcome the boundary obstructing gay marriages and straight marriages alike. Gay marriage should be legalized for these reasons. Evolution will always continue and at any given point in time, something will occur that we will not like in this world, but we can overcome this. Gay marriage is a controversial issue that people have been fighting for years and it has finally come to the surface. We should take charge of it.

positive: gay people ought to have rights Darn, I was hoping you were going to forfeit. :P I could debate that gays should have less rights than they do, but that's not the position I'm taking. Just because I'm on the con side doesn't mean I have to argue the exact opposite of your opinion. According to your original argument, you said that gays should have rights. My stance is that you need to be more specific than that; the only right you specified in your first argument was the right to donate blood. My statement was not a contradiction. I said that gays have the same rights as straights BESIDES your one example. That means gays have the same rights as straights, not counting your one example. If I only said "Gays have the same rights as straights," that would be wrong, which is why I included "aside from your one argument." Unless you'd like to give some more examples (and I'm aware that you now have in Round 3), my argument was technically correct as far as we had discussed. Thank you for including some more arguments. I'll put some comments on each of them, but I'll say now that technically, gays could have these benefits if they pretended to be straight. Not that that's necessarily a good thing, but it's technically true... The right to have the option to give blood I'll talk about this further below. marriage As I stated before, both gays and straights are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Their right is the same - it's just that gays aren't happy about it. adoption This was not included in your source. I'm assuming this refers to single parent adoption or gay couple adoption. Both of these are controversial subjects, and aren't necessarily a good thing. Discussing these would be an entirely different debate. Hospital Visitation Rights This only wouldn't be allowed if they weren't married. Basically, you're restating here that gay marriage should be legal. Also, the chances of a hospital completely denying visitation isn't likely. Health insurance You make it sound like gays can't have health insurance, which isn't true. What your source said is that an unmarried couple can't automatically make decisions for each other. Aside from restating that gay marriage should be legal, this isn't really an issue. Spousal Privilege I believe that this actually is legal even if you are married. Family leave Once again, you're arguing that gay marriage should be legal. Pensions Once again, you're arguing that gay marriage should be legal. Nursing homes You make it sound like gays can't go to nursing homes, which isn't true. Other than that, you are once again basically saying that gay marriage should be legal. Home protection I've never heard of that law, but other than that, you are once again basically saying that gay marriage should be legal. Retirement savings Your source doesn't have much to do with retirement savings. It just says that a deceased spouse can have his/her spouse's stuff without being taxed. Once again, this is an argument that gay marriage should be legal. Anyway, I personally think that estate tax just shouldn't exist. Taxes Same comment as above. Social Security benefits Once again, this is an argument that gay marriage should be legal. So, in conclusion to the above, only one argument you have presented is valid to the resolution: Gay people should be allowed to donate blood. The rest of your arguments have to do with gay marriage being legal. If you wanted to argue about that, you should have started a debate called "Gay marriage should be legal." We're not talking about gay marriage here; we're talking about the difference between the rights of straight people and the rights of gay people. I didn't know we were talking about UN law. I thought we were talking about the US. Dang. And you did say declaration alone. Look at Pro's first argument under Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration..." "This isnt right. Gay people obviously are not attracted to the opposite sex. So putting an impossible condition on marriage for them to marry the sex there not attracted to denies them equal rights. In addition the right to pursue happiness. lastly I want to ask my opponent as to what influenced his opinion?" Yes, one might think it's not right, but we're not arguing about whether or not gay marriage is right. We're arguing about the resolution, which was: "gay people ought to have rights". Also, the fact that gay marriage is illegal in some places doesn't stop gays from being together if they want to. If they wish to live together, marriage doesn't effect that. "First let me make it clear that this is not the constitution. This is United Nations Laws. The words men and women of full age does not imply man to a woman. This statement is saying women have the right to marry, and men also have the right to marry. There is not exclusive texts that say only opposite sexes may marry." Although I can't say for sure since I don't know much about UN law, I believe it was intended to mean men marrying women. It can't be known at this time that homosexuality is present at birth, and it isn't very likely. However, I know for a fact that many people become gay through a gay experience earlier in their life. http://www.biblebelievers.com... In situations like these, the problem should be fixed through counseling as this is probably what they would want anyway according to you. As for the gay animal thing, that's not very relevant. I'm not saying that it's impossible for homosexuality to occur naturally. I'm saying that although they might do it, gays are not designed to be with each other. Also, the gay mouse thing obviously wasn't natural. The scientists made them gay. I never said that licking someone's anus is natural either. It isn't natural, even if some people find it enjoyable. Gay people still can't truly produce children. If they used one of the methods you described, the child would only be half their kid. It would be the child of one gay person, and wouldn't genetically be the child of the other one at all. About gays donating blood: Nevertheless, the rule isn't discriminated against gays. Its intention is still a safety issue, even if they're wrong. The people that made up the rule aren't thinking "I don't like gays, so let's make it so they can't donate blood. Take THAT stupid gays!" I'm okay with gays giving blood, but they already do have rights.

positive: Is marriage a gay rights issue. Should marriage as an institution be a gay rights issue? The argument that often occurs, is should homosexuals have the same access to marriage as heterosexuals. I pose a different question. Should the institution of a religious union be apart of government? This is to exclude the idea of a legal union for gaining access to custody of children, homes, insurance, ect.. and to have a merit in court should a disagreement in ownership or access occur. I argue no. Reason: Anytime a law can give access to one group, it gains the ability to remove the same access. Allowing government to control marriage has lead to a disgusting polarization among people. It is a distracting issue that takes away from issues, voters should be concerned with. Does this mean that discrimination might and probably will occur thanks to religious institution? Yes, it is their right, just as it is the Phelps family has the right to disgrace fallen soldiers every day. To limit an individual's or an institution's right to free expression, even if that expression is hate, defeats everything that makes freedom great. Our ability to disagree is what empowers us and makes us great. So to make a religious institution designed to create a union a government regulated commodity (hetero only or homosexuals allowed) chips away at that freedom. In the debate, the issue of our freedom is ignored and it becomes a bickering match between who's toes are going to be stepped on in this topic's room. In reality, it's a room government shouldn't even be in and by having it here we chip freedom away bit by bit. Resolution: Shift the discussion from gay rights. Get government out of the business of religious regulation. Bring the issue of all unions that want legal recognition to not have a religious union associated with it. Removing certain requirements that need genders and genetic compatibility for procreation. This allowing all people; gay, straight, Christian or otherwise to create a legal union without the need of government to infringe upon religious or social lifestyle freedoms. Rules: 1- Anything that sounds factual requires a reference (the constitution counts), evidence only required upon request and if not brought up in the following argument, it will be considered falsification and cheating. 2- This can be about gay rights but I am aiming for more of a governments purpose sexual and religious freedom 3- No swearing I don't have round criteria set up. I have taken the first argument and would like each argument there after to be a rebuttal with the last person getting a closing argument.

positive: Gay Marriage is an Abomination Gay marriage is an abomination on this planet. God said that marriage and everything that goes with it is between a man and a woman only. Homosexuality perverts this, and it can also lead to HIV/AIDS.

positive: Gay Marriage Marriage is that moment went you want to be with the person you love for the rest of your life. My opinion, marriage should be banned period but obviously that isn't going to happen. Just remember that the leading cause of divorce is marriage. But back to my point. If two people are in love they should have every right to get married. Gays will fight like straight people do, they will make love like straight people do, and they will live their lives together like straight people do. Also, if you think gays can be together, then why can they not get married?

negative: Homosexual Marriage This will be a short debate on whether Homosexual Marriage should or should not be accepted and legalized in the United States. Pro must support the claim that homosexual marriage is positive for society, while Con must explain why it is detrimental to society. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.

negative: Gay Marriage Should be legal For some odd reason my opponent has not responded at all to any of my my arguments.

negative: Gay Marriage should be legalized This debate will be about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. I believe they should not because I do not think marriage, be it gay straight or otherwise is a "right" As the opening argument state your position

negative: Gay Marriage should be legal Round 1 is for acceptanceRound 2 is for argumentsRound 3 is for rebuttalRound 4 is closing statement

negative: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal Should Gay Marriage be allowed

negative: Gay marriage should be legal I, UUDDLRLRBA, accept this debate, but I will state that I feel gay marriage should be legal regardless what I say. But I, UUDDLRLRBA, will debate in the side that says gay marriage should be illegal in the following debate.

negative: Gay marriage should be legal. Hello, I accept. This will be a challenge for me but we will see how I do.

negative: gay marriage should be legal ...and yet another forfeited round. No big deal though, given that I forfeited a round. Oh well.

negative: Gay Marriage should be legal Okay i will agree that this is not a debate about how Iowa was unconstitutional and I will most likely lose this debate but because people just look at the subject and don't give the facts so I will straight up leave it to the voters because Zetsubou is a douche and I knwo I will lose a point for conduct but i don't give a crap.

negative: Should gay marriage be legal I'm not saying it because its my realign I'm say it because I don't like it and I don't like gays people can be gay if they want to its their diction its a free country just not around me

negative: Gay marriage should be legal in the United States Resolution - Gay marriage should be legal in the United StatesThis is a Shared BOPFor the purpose of this debate legal shall be defined asLegal - A federal and state recognition of gay marriage across the board (The federal government shall give all the same rights and benefits to same sex couples as hetero sexual couples) Rounds Me(1) Outline(2) Contentions(3) Rebuttals, Contentions, ClosingAdversary (1) Contentions(2) Rebuttals, Contentions, Closing(3) Shall type "no round as agreed upon"Rules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon shall result in a full 7 point drop from my adversary due to him/her having an extra round. (2) FF shall result in the loss of a conduct point(3) Multiple FFS shall possibly result in a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges.

negative: Gay Marriage should not be legal As is evident from this forfeit and the comment's sections, my opponent as of now has not supplied a counterargument, and will likely not. Until then, extend all my arguments to this round.

negative: Same Gender Marriage is Wrong I believe same gender marriage is wrong in all ways. First of all, it is unnatural. It is completely wrong and disgusts me that two people of the same gender can have those feelings for each other! I am ready to take on anyone who wishes to debate against me on this topic.

negative: Gay Marraige Do you think gay people should be allowed to get married?

negative: Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US As Pro, I will affirm the resolution and argue that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US. As Con, you will negate the resolution and argue that Gay-marriage should be legal in the US. ClarificationsThe debate topic is that gay-marriage should not be legal, so to say that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal (something which I'm fully aware of), is invalid. If the debate topic was however that gay-marriage is not legal in the US, then it would be valid to say that that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal. In fact, if you have said that, you would have negated the resolution (i.e., That gay-marriage is not legal in the US)Since I'm arguing that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US, that means that I'm also arguing that places in the US which already makes gay-marriage legal, should not make it legal anymore. And since Con is arguing that gay-marriage should be legal in the US, that means that he's also arguing that places in the US which doesn't make gay-marriage legal, should start making it legal. Basically, this debate is not about if gay-marriage is legal or not, but only about if it should be legal or not.DefinitionsGay-marriage: 'The practice of marriage between two males.' [1]Legal: 'Permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal.' [Ibid]The US: 'United States or United States of America Abbr. U.S. or US or U.S.A. or USA. A country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.' [2]RulesRound 1 is for acceptance only. No new arguments shall be given in the last round. No semantics.By accepting this debate, you also accept all the rules and definitions of this debate. Violating one of them will lose you all 7 points.Sources[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

negative: America Should Legalize Gay marriage Since this is her first debate on DDO, I'd like to give her a warm welcome, and commend her on doing so well in her first debate. Best of luck to her in the voting. HappinessMy opponent claims that "the entire point of marriage is to allow two people to live together in a non-scandalous manner. " However, I feel that I have dealt with this idea. Clearly, having a list of people who love each other is a private matter, and is none of the government's business. Thus, there must be a public reason why the government recognizes relationships. I've argued that in the case of traditional marriage, this is due to its procreative nature. My opponent also asks: "Anyway, if you don't forbid them from living together as married couples do, what is the point of forbidding them from marriage? " However, I think I've also answered this question. We ought to forbid gays from marrying each other, since this would put gay marriage and traditional marriage on a legal par, and this should not be so. However, let's assume that gay marriage would make gays happy. Even if this is the case, this doesn't mean we should do it. There are lots of things that would make some people happy, which should not be legalized. Take child pornography for example. This would make lots of people happy, but it shouldn't be legalized in the first place. So my opponent's argument can only succeed if we assume that gay marriage should be legalized in the first place. However, this is circular reasoning. (1)Finally, my opponent compares gay marriage to slavery and women's suffrage. But I don't think she has understood what I'm saying. This is made clear by when she claims, "Now, they are discriminating against GLBT by saying straight people may marry, but different orientations may not. " But I certainly am not saying gays cannot marry. Just that they cannot marry each other. In fact, even two straight men cannot marry each other in my opinion. So this is not discrimination against their orientation. Moods, alcohol, etc. For the sake of debate, I'll admit that legalizing gay marriage would make people happier, less alcoholism, etc. However, let me put this into a formal argument to show you why I don't think it works. P1: Whatever makes people happier, decreases alcoholism, etc. should be legalized. P2: Gay marriage does this. C: Gay marriage should be legalized. Now the first premise is unfounded. Just because something may make people happier, decrease alcoholism, etc. does that mean it should automatically be legalized? Not necessarily. At least we haven't been given any reasons to believe this. Even if gay marriage does all these things, my arguments against it still stand, and would refute this argument. Gays having childrenMy opponent objects that gays can have children by egg/sperm donors, etc. However, I don't think this argument works. The reason is that the link to procreation is not inherent to the relationship in the way traditional marriage is. While gay marriage might (in certain circumstances) be procreative, this doesn't mean the relationship is inherently so. So while gay marriage might possibly satisfy the procreation argument, it wouldn't do this in all cases. And my opponent is arguing that gay marriage should be legalized in all cases. So, at best, my opponent has shown that some gay relationships should be recognized as a marriage. Building societyI am sorry for the confusing terminology. I shall clarify. When I say traditional marriage "builds society" I literally mean, it creates society. What is society other than the totality of people? Traditional marriage makes people. So traditional marriage, literally, makes society. ConclusionIn conclusion, it should be clear that gay marriage cannot, and will never, affect society in the way traditional marriage does. Traditional marriage is a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. Relationships of this sort are inherently directed towards creating people. Thus, it affecs society in a particular way. In fact, it doesn't just "affect" society, it makes society. On the other hand, there is nothing inherent to a gay relationship which makes society. While gay marriage may indirectly affect a society, this society already has been built by traditional marriage. So we can conclude in saying that gay marriage's affect on society is parasitic upon traditional marriage. Now it makes absolutely no sense to put the two on equal legal ground, since one is much more beneficial to society. It is similar to saying my "Right to text" is equally as fundamental as my right "To have a cell phone. "Since "legalizing gay marriage" means putting traditional marriage and gay marriage on equal legal standing, gay marriage should not be legalized. P1: Relationship A, which affect society more than relationship B, shouldn't be legally established as the same as relationship B. P2: Traditional marriage affects society more than gay marriage. C: Traditional marriage shouldn't be legally established as the same as gay marriage. Thanks! (1) . http://www.nizkor.org...

negative: Gay marriage has to be legalized This should be interesting. BURDEN OF PROOF As the instigator, and the one making the positive claim, Pro has the full burden of proof in this debate. It is her job to demonstrate that gay marriage has to be legalized. She has to show that it's impossible for marriage between two same sex people not to exist. As Con, I don't have to demonstrate why gay marriage can't be legalized. All I have to do is cast doubt on Pro's arguments. WHAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING As my opponent has so eloquently pointed out, we are NOT debating if gay marriage SHOULD be legalized. As she said, my opponent specifically didn't use the word "should" when constructing the debate resolution. She, in fact chose the phrase, "HAS to be legalized". With this in mind, voters should ignore any argument Pro offers that supports the idea that gay marriage SHOULD be legalized. Contention One: Pro is unable to offer us any good reason to believe that gay marriage HAS to be legalized. Nothing HAS to happen or exist. Nothing HAS to be made legal or illegal. Murder and rape don't have to be illegal. It may be in societies best collective interests for this to be, but it doesn't HAVE to be so. The very fact that murder hasn't always been illegal proves this. In the case of marriage, there are several other possibilities that could happen instead of gay marriage being legalized. It could remain illegal, for example. Another possibility is for all marriages (gay or straight) to be made illegal. The very fact that gay marriage hasn't always been legal proves that it doesn't HAVE to be legalized. I turn it over now to my opponent.

negative: Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US My opponent has, for one or another reason, disappointingly and unfortunately forfeited her second round. If I had known that she would just forfeit, I wouldn't have challenged her to this debate in the first place. Anyway, I extend my arguments and hope that she comes back and engages in what is left of this debate.Now, since Con forfeited her second round, I would like to use this round to refute two common arguments made by gay-marriage proponents. These two arguments comes from the idea of “rights” and are used many times to support the belief that gay-marriage should be legal in the US. However, as we will now see, both of these arguments are failures. 1) Marriage is a fundamental human rightThis argument is merely a question-begging because it does not justify and successfully answer this question: What marriage is and why it is recognized legally. Moreover, proponents of this argument must also answer and justify how gay-marriage is fundamental human right, and why gay-marriage is a fundamental human right.I agree that marriage is a fundamental human right, but I however strongly disagree that gay-marriage is a fundamental human right. Why? Because it goes against what the term ”marriage” really means and really is. You cannot argue that gay-marriage is a fundamental ”human right”, unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And again, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, it can't be said that gay-marriage is a fundamental ”human right”. Maybe heterosexual marriages is but not gay-marriages, because gay-marriages goes against what marriage actually is and why it is at all recognized legally by the state. The goal of marriage is the continuation of the society (procreation). Only heterosexual marriages fulfil this goal. Gay-marriages do not.2) Not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their rightsAccording to many proponents of gay-marriage, not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their ”rights”. First, this argument is also merely a question-begging because it does not justify and successfully answer this question: What marriage is and why it is recognized legally. Again, you cannot argue that gay-marriage should be legal because not legalizing it deprives homosexuals of their ”rights”, unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And again, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, it can't be said that not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their ”rights”. Just like it can't, for example, be said that not allowing me to become the president of the United States deprives my ”rights”. To say that would be illogical since I don't qualify as the president of the United States to begin with. Thus, no “rights“ are being deprived from me by not allowing me to become the president of the United States.Secondly, proponents of this argument must also successfully answer: 1) How gay-marriage is a “right“.2) Why gay-marriage is a “right“.3) And why gays should be given this “right“ to marry each other in the first place.If these three questions isn't successfully answered, then what rights is the homosexuals deprived of? You can't say that someone is deprived of their rights when those rights doesn't even exist. So proponents of this argument must first prove that such a “right“ even exist.This argument is simply just assuming that gay-marriage is a “right“ of the homosexuals without first proving that such a “right“ even exist. Moreover, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Thus, there is no discrimination against gays and no rights are being deprived from them, because “gay-marriage“ doesn't exist and because the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with. In order to claim that gays are deprived of their “rights“ by not allowing them to marry, you have to first change the meaning of “marriage“ to include a relationship between two males too. However, what are the state's interests in recognizing and legalizing a relationship such as a “two males relationship“ as marriage to begin with? What does the society as a whole benefit from doing that? Very little. And again, marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. This is the very reason why the state at all has an interest in marriage, because it recognises that procreative marriages is essential, important and necessary for the production of future citizens and therefore the continuation of the society.It is now Con's job to prove that this view of marriage is wrong in order to successfully change the meaning of “marriage“ to include a relationship between two males too, because according to my view of marriage (which is called the “Conjugal view“ or the “Traditional view“ of marriage) gay relationships cannot qualify as real marriages to begin with. Thus, to say that not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their “rights“, is absurd and invalid. Well, until Con have refuted the “Conjugal view“ or the “Traditional view“ of marriage and given us a rational reason as to why we should believe in another view of marriage, and why the US should at all have an interest in recognizing and legalizing marriages in accordance to that view. We have already seen that the revisionist view of marriage is illogical, invalid, and cannot in any way be better or more rational than the “Conjugal view“ or the “Traditional view“ of marriage. And nor can the revisionist view of marriage be considered a good reason as to why the US at all should have an interest in recognising and legalizing gay-marriage.ConclusionAll my arguments stands completely unrefuted and Con have not given even one reason/argument as to why gay-marriage should be legal in the US.The resolution remains affirmed: Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US

negative: Same sex marriage should be federally legalized. My opponent is obviously a very formal debater. Unfortunately, logic is most important in my personal, humble opinion. So forgive me for not being as formal. My opponent's definition of marriage excludes homosexuals. But this could not be the definition, or same sex marriages everywhere would not be marriages at all. I think we should both be able to agree to "A union between two persons having the customary and/or legal force of marriage" as the definition of marriage. For the sake of this debate. I agree to your definition of legalized if by the state you mean the government powers and not only individual states. The PRO burden is not to prove constitutionality. It is only one point. The topic says that same sex marriage "should" be legalized. These are the dictionary's four definitions of "should" (and none of them include the Constitution): 1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note. 2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon. 3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I. 4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go. ========================================================================= I. CON: Since Marriage is a religious practice, legalizing gay marriage violates the 1st Amendment. A. Each marriage has legal benefits. If the church wishes to exclude itself from marriage, then they are obligated to abandon their 1,138 rights and protections from the government, which we can all agree they will not do. Some religions and religious leaders will marry two gay individuals. Marriage is a civil and religious institution or else there would not be over 1100 rights attached to it by the government. B. Marriage is, also, obviously not a religious institution. Atheists and Satanists get married, therefore, it is proven that marriage is not a solely religious institution. II. CON: Legalizing Gay Marriage [will] result in a slippery Slope. A. You cannot equate two individuals who love each other in a comitted, loving, lifelong relationship with cult rape, etc. This is a bizarre, unproven argument. B. Marriage has been changed before. Divorce has been criminalized, legalized. Interracial marriage has been criminalized, legalized. And 1100+ governmental changes have been made in these rights. Changes have been made to marriage. C. If a change to marriage is unbeneficial or particularly harmful, courts will rule it such and not legalize it. D. In places where same sex marriage has been legalized, this slippery slope effect has not occurred. It is unproven. E. This argument is also flawed in that these individuals in your slippery slope argument are causing harmful marriages and can live in a normal two person, loving marriage. Most gays, if not all, cannot find happiness in a heterosexual relationship. They have no desire to have a heterosexual marriage. To bar two gays from marrying is not showing them an alternative (heterosexual marriage), but is rather barring them from the institution of marriage altogether. This is not only discriminatory. This is unconstitutional and un-American. CON 1: This amendment is superseded by the "general will." A. This is ridiculous! If society as a whole disapproves of something, then it should not be done. However, a significant portion of Americans want same sex marriage to be legalized. B. In 1948, about 90% of American Adults opposed interracial marriage when the Supreme Court of California legalized it, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry. When interracial marriage was legalized nationally, 72% supported it. (www.religioustolerance.org) C. Many polls also show gay marriage to be favored. This should not be basis for a Constitutional decision. CON 2: The 1st Amendment is not violated. Religions can still practice their disagreement with marriage. But states can marry gays. And religions and religious leaders that do want to marry gays can marry gays. If a religion wanted to marry gay couples, their right to express their religion should not be infringed. The Lutheran Church is tolerant of gays. I have proven that gay marriage should be legalized. The Constitution ensures equal protection under the law for all individuals unless convicted of a crime. My opponent tried to present that that would block religious expression but I have proven that marriage is ont solely a religious institution because marriage is given 1100+ governmental rights and allow Athiests to marry. My opponent tried to say that the general will was against gay marriage but 30% advocates gay marriage and the interracial marriage disapproval was 90% when it was legalized. My opponent also presented the infamous 'slippery slope' argument, but this has ZERO basis and would not happen and has been disproven in places where gay marriage has been allowed. There is absolutely no reason to ban same sex marriage. He also dropped my immigration and hospital visitation arguments. Therefore they are conceded unless he negates them. Same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, stop gays from visiting their partners when dying in the hospital, force them to be split up with immigration laws, and cause deep unhappiness in gay couples. Gay marriage bans are discriminatory. They also don't allow couples who want to get married to marry, this reduces families, reduces adopted children, and promote adultery.

negative: The government should be required to recognize domestic gay marriages. My opponent concedes that no entity should be required to do something without reason. My opponent's main error here is that he does not realize that there is a difference between having something legalized and having something recognized by government. Let's say that gambling was illegal, and government decides to legalize gambling. Does that mean that the government should formally recognize the bars that permit gambling as gambling bars? No. High-fiving is perfectly legal in the United States. Does that mean that the United States formally recognizes whether or not you high-five? No. Underhand serving in tennis is perfectly legal in the United States. Does that mean that the United States formally recognizes whether or not you serve underhand? No. Watching NCIS is perfectly legal in the United States. Does that mean that the United States formally recognizes whether or not you watch NCIS? No. Nose-picking is perfectly legal in the United States. Does that mean that the United States formally recognizes whether or not you watch NCIS? No. Let's say that gay marriage is legal in the United States. Does that necessarily mean that the United States formally recognizes whether or not you are in a gay marriage or any marriage in general? No. Naturally, in order to affirm a resolution, one must first address the subject of the resolution. In this case, the subject would be government. My opponent's only argument relating to government is that gay marriage should be legalized. As I have shown, there is a substantial difference between allowing something to be legal and having something formally recognized. "I made it blatantly clear what I was arguing for - that gay marriage should be legalized. This is just another way of requiring the government recognizing domestic gay marriages. " My opponent is sadly mistaken in his connection between legalization and recognition. All in all, my opponent gives reasons why government should not arrest or fine people who participate in gay marriages. However, he does not give reasons why government should recognize the people who participate in gay marriages as people who participate in gay marriages. Therefore, his argument is incomplete, and therefore irrelevant to the resolution. As this is the last round, my opponent cannot make an argument as to why gay marriage can be formally recognized. He can only try to make an argument that legalization and recognition are different. Therefore, I shall take active steps against this. "recognize" - "to acknowledge formally" (From Round 1) legalize - "to make legal" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... legal - "conforming to or permitted by law or established rules" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... So, to legalize something that was previously illegal, a government would have to abolish whatever law made that something not permitted. That does not mean that they then formally recognize the gay marriages. The only argument I can think of that my opponent would have left is pointing out that by legalizing gay marriage, government has already formally recognized them. However, government would only be recognizing that gay marriage is legal. However, any domestic gay marriage between any two people would go unnoticed and unrecognized by government, as there would be no reason to recognize them. In conclusion, my opponent has never affirmed the resolution at all. He's been arguing the same thing over and over. This last round, he made the argument that legalizing something and recognizing it are the same. I have shown this to be false, putting him right back where he was: nowhere. Therefore, there is no reason that my opponent has actually presented by which government should be required to recognize domestic gay marriages, and by the value that has not been contested and has been accepted, that "no entity should be required to do something without reason," the resolution is officially negated.

negative: Homosexuals should have the right to marriage. Me: "if you're taking on this debate as a contender, that you are AGAINST gays receiving the legal effects of marriage." Civil unions give gays the legal effects of marriage. Also, gays should have the right to be MARRIED. If marriage and civil unions are the same under the law, they should have the same name. To your polygamy point: There is no difference between the legal effects of marriage and what gays want in gay marriage. However, if you choose to marry more than one person, there has to be some changes made to these legal effects to apply them to three people. Furthermore, I don't think it's the government's job to stop someone of marrying more than 1 person, as long as both women and men have the right to do so. That is for people to decide and not the government.

negative: Gay Marriage Gay marriage is basically the marriage between two individuals of the same gender, I trust my opponent will have no problem with this definition. I will be arguing for gay marriage, and that it should be legal. I will be arguing that everything that does not physically harm other individuals should be legalized, gay marriage is one of these things. I will also be arguing that by banning the gay marriage we have gone against human rights. C1: Gay marriage does not physically harm other individuals in any way shape or form therefore, it should be legal. A marriage is a union between two individuals that love eachother, and it basically only effects these two individuals. If it is banned then it is hurting people, and if it is legalized then it isn't hurting anyone. C2: Banning gay marriage is against human rights. Every person is born with the equal human rights which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, banning gay marriage goes against to of these fundamental rights. How can someone pursue happiness when they can't marry the one they love? How can someone have liberty when they are not allowed to marry the one they love. I await my opponent's response.

negative: Gay Marriage Right I am all for gay people being together. Honestly, if someone is born that way, don't even try to fight it! That is who they are. The problem I have with gay marriage is because I am Christian. No I don't think it is wrong because God "hates gays" I am confident that God loves them just as much as his own son. My problem is that legal marriage in the United States stems from Christian marriage. So yes, I think gays should be able to be united in a legal way similar to marriage and I think they should have all of the legal benefits that come along with marriage but calling it the same thing that Christians call it is what I disagree with. Marriage as defined by Christians is a procreative union between a man and a woman who intend to spend the rest of their lives with each other (not an official definition, just my interpretation of Christian marriage). The government then added legal benefits to this such as tax cuts. And then legal marriage became a separate thing than Christian marriage (which I am not a fan of either). And now gays are trying to get married. Again, I'm all for gays doing exactly what Christian couples do but I don't like that it is called the same thing as Christian marriage. basically: I'm all for civil unions or anything like it but I don't think that homosexual marriage, an act not justified by most Christian churches, should be called the same thing as a Christian marriage, a sacred bond between a man, a woman, and God.

negative: Gay marriage Let me boil down all of your arguments. Also, let me know if I am mistaken. You suggest that: 1. The government should ban all marriage, therefore gay marriage too. -That wasn"t the point of the debate, and you sound like you support straight marriage much more than gay marriage, so I don"t think you agree with yourself here. Either way, I will note that marriage provides benefits to society, so we should have the option. Also, later you suggest that if most people support something, then it should be law. Most people want government to recognize marriage, so by your own standard, marriage should be recognized by government. 2. The government doesn"t have the power to redefine marriage. -We are talking about legal marriages, so yes they do. Congress created the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. According to the Supreme Court, state bans on gay marriage are in violation of that amendment. 3. Not many people are gay, so why not ban it? -I"m not sure what the argument is here. Things that are uncommon should be banned? 4. Most people oppose it, so it should be banned. -Your own second source shows that 60% of Americans support it, so this is not true. If your point is that the government should obey the majority, then that means they should keep gay marriage legal. You proved yourself wrong. Even if most people did oppose it, so what? The majority shouldn"t discriminate. 5. Legal marriage doesn"t help gay people, because they can still be together either way. -There are legal and social benefits to gay marriage. 6. Why would we need the government to acknowledge this marriage just so we can pay more taxes? -So gay people can get the benefits that come with marriage. 7. It creates moral decay. -How? Discriminating against gay people is what causes harm and unfairness. You said yourself that gays can be together either way, so what harm does it cause? 8. It has nothing to do with equality. -Benefits denied based on gender and orientation means there is inequality. 9. Gay marriage legalization will lead to the fall of America. -You"ll need to provide a lot of support for a huge claim like that. Even if it were to happen, it is inevitable. Gay marriage is here to stay, so it"s pretty pointless to try to ban it.

negative: You slice the cake, I'll pick the first piece Topic: Gay marriage should be expressly legalized by the Federal government. Definitions: Gay Marriage - the legal and religious binding of two persons legally registered as of the same gender as recognized by the US government and the Christian Church. Federal / US Government - The national governing body of the United States of America as defined and regulated in the US Constitution and any relevant legislation / Supreme Court decisions. Civil Union - the legal but not religious binding of any two persons of any gender as recognized by the US government, which provides the same legal rights as marriage. Stipulations - Outside of this argument, no stipulations will be made. (You can't slice any cake, and neither can I after you pick your slice.) The passage of a law expressly legalizing gay marriage will cause no jurisdiction battles, therefore the decision to permit gay marriage will be absolute unless specifically revoked; Federal legislation is the supreme law of the land. No emotional appeals will be made; arguments will appeal to voters' logic. The Slices: Pro - Gay marriage should be expressly legalized by the Federal government. Con - The Catholic Church should have the right to deny a marriage license because marriage is a religious contract just as it is legal. Instead, the federal government should establish a system of civil unions and civil union licenses parallel to the marriage system.

negative: Gay Marriage should be legalized in the US According to a poll surveyed by Gallup (1), 55% of American citizens believe gay marriage should be legalized. It's because I agree with the majority of Americans, that I stand in affirmation of the resolution, Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the US (1) http://www.gallup.com...

negative: Gay Marriage is Constitutional, and should be legalized. ==Acceptance==Thanks for making this debate.Obviously I have accepted.==Definitions== Gay: (In the context of the debate) of, relating to, or used by homosexuals gay rights movement> gay bar>.Marriage: (same-sex marriage) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage marriage>.Constitutional: being in accordance with or authorized by the constitution of a state or society <a constitutional government>.Legalized: to make legal; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to

negative: Gay marriage should be legal. 1. There is no "slope" or "floodgate". Each step in the proverbial slope must be analyzed, critiqued, and evaluated on its own merits. To make gay marriage legal would be just that: making only gay marriage legal. This does not mean that polygamous marriages and incestuous marriages would instantly be made legal once gay marriages were. We can only determine whether it is fundamentally unfair to bar an entire class of citizens from a privilege afforded to the rest of us. My Response: Making only gay marriage legal would open up a door to multiple other parties. I never said that polygamous and incestuous marriages would be made legal, I am saying that by making gay marriage legal you are violating there rights as well because according to you marriage is based on love, and nothing more. If that is the underlying premise, then any other person should marry whom they love. This is flawed. Thus a definition of marriage must be heterosexual. "2. One can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state. None of these arguments can be made against gay marriage." My Response: Turn this argument against my opponent. Essentially, then, my opponent is basing marriage off more then love, which inherently collapses his idea that gay marriage should be legal. He is now basing a marriage off of economics, not just love. This attacks the very premise of his argument. "1. Gay animals are found in nature." My Response: The term gay animal is intrinsically flawed. An animal is not "gay." An animal could possibly be pan-sexual. Pan sexual is the sexual tendency towards sex itself rather then the agent helping. Furthermore, I am arguing against gay marriage, not homosexuality itself. When the natural law and marriage is intertwined, then the result is a family. Gay marriage undermines this natural order of family making. "2. If the reason for marriage is to produce a child, we should not let elderly people or people who are unable to have children marry. The fact that both can marry proves that marriage is not for the sole purpose of producing children." My Response: Yes, but the old people had the ability to make children. Yes, they may not be able to anymore. This, is irrelevant because the possibility and the natural organs are all there. That doesn't violate the natural law. Gay marriage violates the natural law because 2 men/women are purposely getting married when it is impossible for 2 men/women to have children. The opposite sex is necessary for this. "3. There is no requirement that two people who marry have sex." My Response: I never said they had too. The possibility is there. In gay marriage, there is no possibility for it is impossible with two people of the same sex. That's where the difference lies. [Affirmative Burden] My Opponent has yet to make a case fulfilling the affirmative burden. For this reason an affirmation is impossible regardless of my arguments or not. If my opponent doesn't fulfill this, then you must negate. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

negative: Gay marriage should be legal You never said that the point of the debate was changing how society defines marriage. This debate is supposed to be on whether gay people should be allowed to get married. Therefore, my point is relevant. “I have proved why these religious beliefs are no reason why the government should not recognise gay marriage to support basing my arguments around the separation of the church and the state.” You stated in your previous argument “This man is just one of the growing support for gay marriage within religious communities. This shows that even if religions were to hold power over the governments decision this would not restrict the passing of this motion for long because people are willing to accept others because most people are generally quite pleasant”. When you brought up the religious supporters of gay marriage, you implied that religion should be part of the decision. The majority of the religious community is still against gay marriage. So if religion held power over government decisions, gay marriage would not be legalized. You did not prove anything about the separation of church and state. “Only a minority in society now still believe that gay marriage is wrong” Can you prove that statement? From what I know, a large percentage of society does not support gay marriage. “the common belief that we had about gay marriage being wrong stemmed from the fact that the government would not allow it to happen” I would also like to see the proof for that. “When we get rid of this last piece of "legal stigma" society can then fully integrate” You have not yet proved that legalizing gay marriage would make more people support. If people hated gays before gay marriage was legal, they will hate them after it is legal. Society will still not fully integrate. But you still do not bring up the benefits for society as a whole. The stigma and hate crimes relating to gay couples are directed at the LGBT community. The rest of society is not harmed by it. Legalizing gay marriage would benefit the LGBT community but it would not end the stigmas or hate crimes. It would also not benefit society as a whole. “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage”. This definition still supports my point. Gay couples can be united in a relationship LIKE that of a traditional marriage. It is called a civil union, so you are practically “married”. It is not and should not be recognized by the law because it is not the same as a traditional marriage. “The only difference here is that heterosexual marriage is " recognized by law " and homosexual marriage is not. That is what this debate is about.” You should really decide what this debate is about. Since at the beginning of you argument you stated “the whole point of this debate is that we should be changing how society defines marriage. That is the definition as it stands the now but this debate is about changing the definition”. “Because gay marriage does benefit our society and it can lead to improvements in other societies” You have not proved why gay marriage is beneficial to a society so you cannot say it would lead to improvements in other societies. You also say in your first argument that this debate is about American government and society. If this debate is about America, it does not matter whether or not it benefits other societies. Gay marriage should not be legalized for multiple reasons. First, it would require the definition of marriage to be changed. If the government changes its definition of marriage to allow gay couples to get married, people could then say it should be changed so that they can marry their family members or pets. Marriage is a very sacred thing to many people. Allowing gay marriage would take away the value of marriage because it would show that the meaning of marriage can be changed to suit the needs of a group of people. Gay couples are already allowed to have civil unions. They can be joined together but it is not called the same thing as when heterosexual couples are joined. They are not the same thing so they should not be called the same thing. Same-sex couples are unable to procreate, meaning that there is no compelling interest to subsidize their marriages. The majority of heterosexual couples can procreate or were able to procreate at some point. There are exceptions but those are exactly that, exceptions. Homosexual couples cannot naturally procreate. There are no exceptions.

negative: Gay's should be able to marry I would like to firstly say that I am happy to see PRO posting again. "Firstly the idea of gay marriage being condemned practically all stems from religion. If it wasn't for religions that condemn homosexuality, it would be almost fully accepted in society. How do I know this? Australia is a very Christian nation. Christianity condemns homosexuality. Most Australian "law-makers", if you will, are religious (Christian in some form). Religion and government should never mix. It cannot possibly be fair. Forcing your view upon someone else, but not only this; condemning and discriminating against someone else because of your view is disgracefully immoral thing to do." PRO (again) fails to support the resolution 'Gays should be able to marry'. PRO argues that gay marriage should be allowed, but does not argue that 'Gays should be able to marry'. "Coincidence? As you said it is now legal in 1 states. Eventually if this decline continues we can assume that all states will eventually legalize gay marriage which just proves my point that it is all religious based" I never said that gay marriage is now legal in one state of Australia and we aren't arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legalized in Australia, we are arguing whether 'Gays should be able to marry' or not. "Now I propose the question to you, how can being against gay marriage be justified by saying "well it condemns it in the bible so therefore it must be a bad thing, and therefore we should make a law that bans two men or two women from being able to marry because they are inferior to the rest of us, because the bible says so". Its a ridiculous notion" I will state again that we are not arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legalized in Australia, but whether 'Gays should be able to marry' or not, therefore your question is irrelevant. As we are arguing by the definitions I posted in the first and second round, since PRO hasn't stated otherwise (even if PRO had, they would still have to argue by my definitions since I posted the first definitions), your arguments do not support the resolution. To conclude PRO thinks (upon inference from what he has posted) : -- We are debating whether or not gay marriage should be legalized -- I said that gay marriage is now legal in one state of Australia I have enjoyed this debate and hope that I may debate with PRO another time, soon. Thank you for reading this debate. Vote CON!!!!!

negative: Gay marriage should be legal Gay marriage should be legal. By making it legal this leads to a change in the definition of what marriage is. It has to be changed because it is a social problem. Making gay marriage legal is being proposed as a solution to the problem. Since this is the case then the social view on marriage will change. I am not changing the debate. I really hope this makes it clear for you. Rebuttal 1. Religious people are still part of society and it is society that is forcing this change. Because of beliefs it is generally religious people that are against gay marriage however this is also changing shown by my first point. There is a growing support for gay marriage and there are less and less reasons to be against gay marriage. 2. Yes I will prove that most people support gay marriage. "Right now, the most recent gay marriage poll comes from CBS News in July 2011. It showed that most people support gay marriage rights. According to the poll, 53% say the government should legally recognize same-sex marriages."[1] "An ABC News poll conducted in July 2011 showed similar results. According to that poll, 51% support gay marriage 45% are against it. 4% are unsure."[1] "35. Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages? Apr. 9-10 Apr. 23-26 Dec. 19-21 June 26-29 2011 2009 2008 2008 Should be recognized as valid 51% 44% 44% 44% Should not be recognized as valid 47% 54% 55% 53% No opinion 2% 2% 1% 3%"[2] So as you can see not only does the majority support gay marriage that support is growing rapidly. 3. This is the point of having laws. You're not allowed to do something because the government says it is wrong. Take ethnic discrimination in America. A very relevant example would be the anti-miscegenation laws which "remained in force in many US states until 1967" [3]. These laws prohibited any interracial marriages from taking place. Nowadays interracial marriages are common and there are no social stigmas attached. The law said it was wrong and people took the view that inter-racial love was wrong. Now that the laws are changed this view is dying out. 4."You have not yet proved that legalizing gay marriage would make more people support." See rebuttal point three. "But you still do not bring up the benefits for society as a whole." So when people are not forced to drugs unnecessarily (see my last argument) because they think that the way they love is wrong this is not a benefit for society as a whole? When young people stop feeling the need to commit suicide because they think their love is wrong his is not a benefit for society? 5. Pro- gay marriage should be legal which would make it equal to that of "traditional marriage". Civil unions are not the same as marriage because they do not carry the same social status and it is the social status that is damaging which is why gay marriage should be recognised by the law. 6. See first paragraph of argument. 7. I have actually proved that it has benefits for society. You have not proved that it is harmful for society. Your attempts at that are rebutted below. How it benefits other societies is still a valid point as I have shown it has an affect on how other nations view America therefore still has an affect on American society. 8. "people could then say it should be changed so that they can marry their family members or pets." Family members will never be allowed to marry because inbreeding is biologically dangerous. Pets are not consenting adults so can't get married. 9. Your own definitions state that the only difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage is legal recognition. They are the same thing so they should be called the same thing. 10. In what way are we subsidizing their marriage? We are giving them the same legal recognition as heterosexual marriage which they have a right to. http://www.gaymarriageresearch.com... [1] http://i2.cdn.turner.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]

negative: Gay marriage should be legal. I am not advocating for the government to tell the church what to do. Legalizing gay marriage does not command the church to act in one way or another, it only requires the government to permit gay marriages to be granted -by the government. Marriage, as an institution, is subject to tremendous governmental regulation -at present by individual states. It is taxed, subsidized, incentivized, and even defined -by every state other than MA and a few others, as between man and one woman. It is that definition, and only that definition, that legalizing gay marriage will change. Legalizing gay marriage will permit one man to marry another man, or one woman to marry another woman -as the government recognizes marriage. Wether the church should desire to perform gay marriage, endorse gay marriage, or support the practice of gay marriage is a matter entirely for the church to sort out. While it was originally the case that marriage was a religious thing, it is more than that now. That it was once only a religious thing does not mean that it has not transcended its origins. Christmas is celebrated by atheists, just as much as non-religious people get married (even if they are straight). As to the health insurance effects of gay marriage, I'm not sure it is appropriate to be discussing the finite details of intercourse on this medium and so I will abstain from doing so. I will only say that there are exceptionally effective means to prevent the spread of disease that are readily available at any pharmacy, grocery store, or gas station.