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.