Civil Unions are the Current "Separate But Equal"

Con stated: I compared this to black America's struggle in school systems. They were white funded. They received less funding, less books, and the buildings were in much poorer shape. Rebuttal: Civil union is a universal alternative to marriage. It cannot be compared to separated schools. The school where either "white" or they where entirely "black". Civil union is open to anyone. Con is trying to win a sympathy vote by appealing to a genuine horror of the race struggles past. Gay marriage is not synonymous with race struggles. A homosexual was never declared 3/5th human and homosexuals didn't require voting acts rights. The homosexual community has a fair opportunity to fight for their rights. Civil union is the result of the gay movement. It was not conceived by straight men and women. The current incarnation of civil union is being pushed by the gay community. It originated in Vermont. The court case of Baker v. Vermont [1] ended in 2000, yielding a controversial recognition of a gay couple's right to join in union and be granted the same rights. It's not the evil heterosexual empire's design. The gay community created civil union. It' hard to play the victim, when you designed your own "oppression". Con failed to refute my arguments concerning the voting population amongst the gay movement. If marriage is truly for anyone, then it should be easy to convince everyone. The votes are lacking for a reason. Argument extended to next round. Con argued about the establishment of the 14th amendment concerning the civil liberty to marry. This is Con's source: http://civilliberty.about.com... Rebuttal: The 14th amendment was created to protect the civil rights of non-whites. Again, not a gay struggle. This amendment allowed interracial marriage between racially distinct, heterosexual couples. This does not pertain to homosexual marriage. Neither does any other race struggle. You're riding the coattail of civil rights giants. Con is still arguing that homosexuality is a casual choice between milk or juice. Rebuttal: While the evidence is lacking that people are born gay, there is plenty of evidence that: Once the human brain maps out it's sexuality during childhood, it's almost always permanent. Homosexuality is generally not a choice. (While there are a lot of "poser" gays, true homosexuality begins during early childhood.) [2] Gender confusion, homosexuality or gender neutrality are recognized as being real, however, their existence does not merit that we change marriage. Christians and Muslims also recognize each other. That doesn't mean that they should start worshipping in each others shrines. Civil liberty is not always absolute. Con said: In order to be married you need a license, you do not need a wedding. Rebuttal: Wow. Wrong. The license needs to be signed by the officiating authority at your wedding. Whether it's a lavish church wedding, or a court hearing. You need a wedding. As quoted by the source: The wedding ceremony must take place within this period; if not, the couple will need to apply for a new marriage license.[3] 　 Next Round Arguments: Existing restrictions on marriage: Restrictions to marriage have always existed. For instance: You cannot get married if you're already married. You cannot get married to a relative. You cannot get married to an animal. You cannot get married to extend legal status to an immigrant. Love is not enough. Neither is good intention. 　 http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://www.cwfa.org... [2] http://www.kingcounty.gov... [3]