Gay marriage is not a civil right

Apparently, we are not on the same page here. Again, I am here to prove that gay marriage is not a civil right under the definition I provided of civil rights. Since the burden of proof was on me, My arguments were geared toward making my case NOT rebutting CON's case that gay marriage is a civil right.This is not simply a moral debate but a public policy debate as to whether or not we should make it into a civil right. Just like in the Dred Scott situation, Something can be a civil right but be proven morally incorrect or violate human rights. If I simply explained the "is" without the "ought", then I would commit the naturalistic fallacy. I would not be able to do one without the other. This is why part of my argument was to show how gay marriage "is" not a civil right to provide context and understanding as to why we "ought" not to make it into civil right which is what I am about to do. However, since CON has completely misconstrued my argument let me first clear up the argument I made before. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF MARRIAGE I never said that the purpose of marriage is for procreation in the first place. Instead of a couple procreating naturally outside of marriage either by choice or by accident; I made it clear that the purpose of marriage is to encourage couples to procreate inside a marriage. The only couples that can do this action by choice or by accident is a man and a woman. This is why our marriage laws regulate opposite-sex relationships by establishing a baseline definition of who is married. As a by-product, it provides a shared framework of concepts such as adultery, remarriage, divorce, etc. to be understood. Moreover, We come to know how these choices and situations can be detrimental for families as a result. For example, The mere appearance of a green/ red traffic signals helps us know when to make the right choice to drive so drivers won't harm themselves and others. Now, our understanding that green light means "go" encourages to drive and red light means "stop" to discourage us from driving. Our understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman encourages us to procreate inside a marriage and not outside of it. In short, This is moral rule which can be applied in all circumstances (making it universalised) which is justified (not using others as a means only), which fits right into Kantian ethics. The law does not make us do right from wrong but helps us understand what is right and wrong regarding the well-being of children. Whether or not we choose to do what's right is entirely our choice. This is done to maintain order in the public arena in both situations. Now, Are traffic signals also a situation where the state is imposing someone's morality or will? I think not but according to CON, that seems to be the case. CON'S REVISIONIST VIEW OF MARRIAGE I have already shown how redefining marriage to just two people would remove two of the three attributes of promoting marriage CON spoke of . Now, even though CON's alternate view of marriage does not remove secure relationships from the idea of marriage, CON never explains how including same sex couples into the definition would strengthen the bond and love between heterosexuals in marriages, which would create a better environments for children. Moreover, The revisionist view of marriage is overinclusive and underinclusive. Douglas Allen , in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws" [1] said it best : "Many people love one another in both sacrificial and sexual ways (for example, cohabitants, polygamists, homosexuals), but are not married. At the same time, there are loveless marriages in which love, though once present, no longer exists, and arranged marriages in which love is not present at the beginning. Historically, love played almost no role in marriage; matches were arranged between kinship groups." When it comes to democracy and the Gallup poll, The only poll that matters is the BALLOT box and Last time I checked 32-32 states rejected gay marriage with the last two states (California and Maine) that voted being the most liberal states in the nation. This reveals that people do not accept CON's view of marriage but the traditional view of marriage. GAY SO-CALLED MARRIAGE IS DETRIMENTAL TO SOCIETY In the previous rounds, My arguments established the "is" portion by showing that gay marriage "is" not a civil right. Now, we are at the "ought" portion regarding public policy and legislation. I will explain why it should not be made into a civil right as part of why its not a civil right. Civil rights are about fairness and justice. They govern behavior to make sure we have order[2]. The concept of gay marriage does not provide fairness nor is just and it potentially creates disorder if we consider making it into a Civil right. LONG TERM EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE The Social ramifications: Based on the arguments and studies I mentioned in Round 1&2 involving the promotion of non-traditional views of marriage and discouraging traditional views of marriage as well; it logically follows that vulnerable future generations, will be programmed to formulate choices (like divorce, fatherlessness, etc) that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general as a result. Legal ramifications: The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parental laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and parental consent laws in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws". [1] 959-964 THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE This new law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this and reject their own beliefs that reflect objective (not subjective) reality in the process or else live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly impose their convoluted notion of equality and human rights. Now, I have explained how gay marriage is not a civil right based on the "is" and the "ought". CON must provide a compelling state reason for how redefining the purpose of marriage benefits society as a whole. However, even if he was successful in providing an argument for gay marriage, the benefits would have to outweigh or at least equal the costs for gay marriage to be considered a civil right as its defined. [1]http://www.law.harvard.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...