Gay Marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: My opponent feels as though I have restricted what arguments he can and can not use. As always, a debater can use any argument they wish, so long as they can support it. It is the job of the other debater to refute those arguments, or explain their faulty logic, which is what I tried to do in R1 in discussing some of the various reasons people are generally opposed to gay marriage. Let's get back to the arguments. 1) Sex and gender are not the same thing. My opponent has mis-used the definition. In defining the word 'gender,' one of the definitions includes the use of the word gender as it pertains to sex (sex: the feminine gender). However, this definition should not be accepted for two reasons. First, if you look up the word 'orange' in the dictionary, it will define orange as the color and orange as the fruit. Orange is both a color and a fruit. Similarly, gender and sex may be confused as both definitions are described in the dictionary under the definition; however, they are two different things and shouldn't be confused as synonomous. Second, there are PLENTY of sources that very clearly indicate the differences between sex and gender. This is common knowledge for people who are college-educated, as this discrpency of the two is usually addressed in a Women's and Gender Studies 101 course. However, for those who are still unaware: http://www.google.com...= 2) Con's argument to minority discrimination was, "The right to marry a person of the opposite sex is everybody's right (besides the regulations about age and whatnot). The difference is that gays want more rights that nobody has." This is a horrible argument. My opponent is essentially saying that people shouldn't fight for their rights. Additionally, gay people don't want rights that other people don't have; they want rights that other people DO have: the right to marry whomever they want! If my opponent's only argument is that allowing gay people to marry people of the same sex would be unfair, this is clearly refuted by the fact that once some people are allowed to marry the same gender, then EVERYONE is able to marry someone of the same gender. Similarly, everyone is able to marry some of the opposite gender. Therefore extending the right to marry to gay people isn't discriminating against anybody: it's extending the rights of everybody. Moreover, my opponent did not argue why discriminating against gay people should be legal. 3) In regard to marriage and religion, my opponen has said, "This is a point that I can't really argue against, since my opponent declared that the resolution implies that I am not allowed to argue that government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place. There is nothing I can do against this contention." To be honest, I'm not quite sure what my opponent is referencing. Clearly I am arguing in favor of the government having something to do with marriage... hence why the resolution says it should be LEGAL. Plus, to use my exact words from the last round, "The spiritual contract of marriage carries with it a legal binding, meaning that it is most definitely the government's business." Thus my opponent has completely fabricated a non-existent argument on my behalf. Besides, the title of this contention was marriage and religion - not marriage and the government. My opponent hasn't argued on behalf of religion OR government; he simply conceded to my contention. 4) In terms of marriage vs. civil unions, Con wrote, "A better option than legalizing gay marriage would be to give civil unions the same legal rights as marriages, though I still oppose both." Con has yet to explain why this is a "better" option or why he opposes both. On that note, however, if civil unions extended the same rights as "gay marriage," then they would be synonomous and thus the resolution would be affirmed. I'm glad my opponent agrees with my side of this debate. 5) In regard to marriage and morality, Con wrote, "You are correct in that marriage is losing its moral value. Even so, this does not mean that it should be further lowered. These issues are independent from the argument of gay marriage." Aside from the fact that I find this opinion to be ridiculously low-class, close-minded, ignorant and personally offensive, in terms of this debate I will point out that Con didn't explain why allowing gay marriage would further devalue the instituion of marriage. If marriage is supposed to be about love and commitment, then allowing a couple in love to be legally commited doesn't seem like it is devaluing it at all. 6) In his defense of family values, Con notes that there are different types of "love" that can't be ignored to explain why gay people should not be allowed to legally wed. Note that nobody in this debate is arguing for the promotion of sibling marriage or the marriage of minors and the elderly, etc. I'm not saying that because I love my dog, I should be able to marry my dog. Clearly there are different types of love. What I am advocating for in this debate is for the legal union of two consenting adults who are in a ROMANTIC loving and committed relaitonship. Con has not argued against this at all whatsoever. Moreover, he noted that gay people shouldn't be "having kids these ways in the first place." I'd like to know what he means by "these ways." Is he referring to in vitro infertilization? If so, that's a whole other debate -- and note that he didn't argue against it at all anyway. Is he referring to adoption? Good luck defending that one. Is he referring to the "traditional" way? Note that many gay people have kids while in straigh relationships; those kids don't just disappear when beginning a relationship with someone of the same sex. Re: CON'S CONTENTIONS 1) Con attempts to use an analogy of indecent exposure to gay marriage. This is a riduclous statement. The only way it could pertain to this debate is if straight people were allowed to run around naked, and gay people weren't. In that case, it would be discriminaiton. In this case, it's taking two completely unrelated things and trying to make them synonomous with each other when in fact they're very different cases. Regarding indecent exposure, it's illegal if ANYONE does it (in the streets, as Con noted). However, gay marriage is discriminated against based on sex. And like I said - it's illegal to discriminate in the United States based on sex (See: Civil Rights Act of 1964). 2) I cannot actually believe that people are still using the "What's next? Maybe someone will want to marry their dog" argument. That's pathetic. So pathetic, in fact, that I don't care if I lose a "conduct point" because of it. I think it is one of the grossest, most despicable arguments I've ever heard. Why would someone want to marry a house? Or a dog? It's illegal for ANYONE to marry a house or a dog, and with good reason (which I don't feel like citing now, but I will if my opponent insists). There are simply no good reasons to not allow gay marriage, as my opponent's lack of argumentaiton implies. If anything, the criteria for marriage can be extended to include the union between LIVING beings that are NOT animals, that are NOT minors, etc. There is simply NO REASON to discriminate based on sexual preference. CONCLUSION: Con insists that increasing the rights of civil unions to mirror the rights that accompany marriage would be enough. I don't entirely disagree. However, gay people will still call their partners "my husband" or "my wife" implying marriage, so I don't see how much this would accomplish. To answer Con's question regarding taxes, married couples receive tax benefits that gay people in the same relationships (minus the title) don't. Plus, if civil unions are going to be the same as gay marriage, why not just call it marriage? Why is the WORD more important than the union?