Gay Marriage

"Now my opponent seems to think that traditional marriage is discriminatory towards gay couples because it doesn"t allow homosexual relations into the picture." Actually I said denying gay couples the right to marriage is discrimination because the overall basis of distinction is in reference the the gender of the individuals involved. This, by definition, is considered discrimination and is therefore considered illegal and unconstitutional via Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are denying a couple the right to a legally binding contract and state and federal recognition because of their biological sex, gender identity and in some states, sexual orientation. http://www.eeoc.gov... "Since the government recognizes marriage for the public benefits it brings, rather than the private relationship of two people, it is logical to believe that only couples that have these public means of giving to the society should be allowed to marry." The government does NOT specifically recognize or even consider marriage as a "public benefit" but more of a private negotiation between two people under state and federal law. Exactly what "benefits" do heterosexuals who get married automatically bring to society that homosexuals who get married do not? And where is your source to support this claim? "This public means of giving to society would be the direct connection heterosexual couples have to the family unit, which the government wants to promote." Again, it is not the government's job to promote any form of family function. And once again, you are contradicting yourself when you claim "the government recognizes marriage for the public benefits it brings, rather than the private relationship of two people" because if the government is "promoting the family unit" then they are in fact intervening into the personal lives of the people involved. But until you provide a source or some form of evidence to support these claims, none of them are valid. If this were true, having biological children would be a legal requirement in marriage but that is not the case. "This is why that we can logically say that things that polygamous relationships, relationships with animals, relationships with inanimate objects, and also of course homosexual relationships" There are several errors to this claim... 1. Animals and inanimate objects cannot consent nor are they capable of signing a legally binding contract. 2. Polygamous marriages are much more difficult to regulate and keep track of and are usually very unstable in regards to the number of people involved, how it affects immigration, and the outcome of divorce. 3. Homosexual marriage still involves TWO consenting adults who are capable of paying and filing taxes with one another. You claim "This is because no relationship except a heterosexual relationship has the means to publicly support the society through its inherent connection to the family unit." Again, please specify and provide evidence to support this claim. "This means that your relationship, through completely natural means, produces children to be raised efficiently." Again, having children (biological or otherwise) is NOT a requirement in marriage and is not a logical reason to deny gay couples the right of marriage. There are heterosexual couples who choose not to have children and those who adopt. Are their marriages somehow less legitimate and meaningful because of it? By your logic, their marriages should be illegal too. Just because a fertile man and woman can get married and produce biological offspring through intercourse does not mean that gay couples shouldn't have the right to get married because they cannot. Especially because having biological children is NOT a legal marriage requirement. The traditional "family unit" is not a realistic expectation for everyone in society, especially gay people because homosexuals are sexually/romantically attracted to the same sex, not the opposite. And whether you like it or not, there are children out there who already need loving homes that gay men and women are already willing to provide provide for them. You claim... "Since the government"s interest is in the relationship itself, and not in the fruits of this relationship, this still allows infertile couples and couples who choose not to have children into marriage." This is not completely true. If the government didn't recognize the children of married individuals, there would be no benefits given to a married couple who CHOOSE to either adopt or biologically have children. It may not be a requirement, but those who have children are also recognized under state and federal law. And yes, gay couples have biological children as well which is either a result of or through surrogacy, artificial insemination or previous marriages. As of now, I have yet to fully understand the logic behind your argument. It would be greatly appreciated if you gave me at least one clear, valid reason as to why same sex marriage should not be legalized with evidence to support it. Your current argument was simply a repetition of the same points from your previous argument which did absolutely nothing to help me understand why gay couples should not be allowed to get married. Marriage is not a reproductive or heterosexual privilege and the government is not responsible for promoting any form of family function and you still haven't provided any sources to support this claim. I await your response, once again. Please provide evidence if necessary.