Gay marriage is not a civil right

I would like to apologize to my competitor. As many of you who followed my debates have already noticed, I am really bad at forming the right resolution and being consistent with that resolution. The resolution was suppose to be "gay marriage is a civil right". My arguments above were geared more towards disproving this claim like in the context of a court room. To prevent a conduct violation, I will go along with this resolution. PRO'S FIRST CONTENTION Nevertheless, the nature of my arguments can still apply anywhere and to this resolution because I don't just say that gay marriage is not a civil right merely based on what the government and courts have randomly declared as CON even alluded to. I explain the moral and philosophical aspects behind it. For example, when Con mentioned Article 16 of the universal declaration, he put it out of context: "Article 16 1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a FAMILY. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 3.The FAMILY is the NATURAL and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. " (If you noticed, In article 16, it never said without any limitation due to GENDER or the ARTIFICIAL family.) Gay marriage is not a civil right because the purpose of civil marriage involves the procreation and rearing of children. Its something that only a man and woman can do. This is why civil marriage is a civil human right. In addition, since this is what civil marriage "is", it logically follows that gay marriage cannot be an equal right as well. Its also important to explain the difference between civil rights and Human rights. Human rights are natural rights that exist absence of the government. Civil rights are rights that reside within constitutions of a particular nation that may or may not be recognizing a human right [1]. This means something can be a civil right but not a human right, but I am going to assume he means Civil rights in the context of human rights like I am referring to and not something separate. The Dred Scott case is a perfect example of something being a civil right but not a human right. PRO'S SECOND CONTENTION Again, CON puts another legal document out of context and this time he even admitted it by only mentioning the religious component. The point of showing the U.S. supreme court cases Murphy v. Ramsey and Baker v. Nelson was to show that traditional marriage is an OBJECTIVE reality as well as a religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in civil matters here. Instead, It is actually gay marriage supporters who are actually using the law to super impose their morals and beliefs onto society . PRO'S THIRD CONTENTION As I explained before, 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. Although, as a secondary effect, marriage does provide incentives and disincentives; the idea of marriage and the other social institutions that are associated with it do not require people to use them by the state as CON is implying. Primarily, it is the very existence and understanding of these social institutions, the social exchange, and the government's reinforcement of these social rituals that combine to make it seem reasonable and even natural for people to apply these concepts. 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. This is done to maintain order in the public arena. Is this also a situation where the state is imposing someone's morality? I think not. 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. 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". [2] 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 impose their convoluted notion of equality and human rights. Nevertheless, these immediate effects of redefining marriage will also give us more reasons to believe the long term effects are inevitable: Schools: In 2006, the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children. Media: "The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it." Businesses: The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals' preferences when it comes to dating services in California. The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to accommodate homosexual married couples to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather than go against their deep held beliefs. In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception. 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 the costs for gay marriage to be considered a civil right as its defined. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.law.harvard.edu.... 959-964