Kleptin Tourney: This House Would Legally Recognize Homosexual Marriages

1+. Equality A. My opponent "obviously agrees" with extending the rights and priveleges sof civil unions to the level currently found in marriages. However, in that case, a civil union is, by definition, a homosexual marriage, the definition being "a similar institution involving partners of the same gender. " If the same rights and priveleges are involved in marriage and civil unions, then the two institutions are obviously very similar. We know that we can't be talking about the first sub-definition of "marriage" when we discuss "homosexual marriage" because under the first sub-definition, "homosexual marriage" cannot exist, leaving only the second definition, which pretty much IS a civil union. My opponent agrees with the legalization of civil unions, and civil unions are, by definition, homosexual marriages, so my opponent agrees with the resolution, a fatal mistake for PRO. My opponent claims that not legalizing homosexual marriages would not discriminate based on gender, and yet it does. She admits that men may not marry men, while women may marry men, and women may not marry women, while men may marry women. My opponent's alternative, a civil union, is marriage; however, if you do not think that a civil union is, by definition, a marriage, then that is still sexist; my opponent cannot make a disctinction between civil unions and marriages, and then claim that civil unions are equal to marriages. As for my opponent's analogy, an orange is not, by definition, an apple. However, a civil union is, by definition, a marriage. Therefore, the analogy is not completely appropriate. B. Extend my previous arguments about why civil unions are marriages. "And remember that the definition of marriage that applied to gay couples merely said that it was a 'similar' union to marriage. " Yes, but the definition is for "marriage," so it is a marriage because it is similar to another type of marriage. 2+. STDs My opponent claims that because a large number of men cheat on their wives, marriage will not help keep partners committed to each other. However, "studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically" [1], and as people who are emotionally better off tend not to try to forget their troubles through something new like a new parter or a prostitute, it stands to reason that such things would be lessened by legalization of marriage. My opponent claims that it is not the government's job to help protect people from STDs. However, if the government tries to protect heterosexual couples from STDs through marriage, it should do the same for homosexual couples. 3+. Why not? Although religious people get religious marriages, not all marriages are religious, as they do not even require a priest or other religious person to be present at the marriage. "Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction" [2]. As we are talking about legalization, civil marriages are the ones we are concerned with. My opponent argues that because America is mostly a Christian nation, they consider marriage a sacred religious experience. However, they aren't complaining about the lack of a priest attending non-religious weddings. As long as their churches aren't required to hold homosexual weddings, there isn't a problem. Additionally, many Americans used to have problems with inter-racial marriages. Would this be justification to not label such marriages as marriages? Finally, extend the argument that civil unions are homosexual marriages, so my opponent is still affirming the resolution while seeking to negate it. 4-. Marriage and Government The entire purpose of this debate is for my opponent to go devil's advocate against a position that she holds. However, this argument - that government should not be involved in marriage - does nothing for that purpose. According to the debate rules, my opponent has to be arguing directly against her old arguments. Arguing for no government intervention in marriage whatsoever - something that CON never did in the linked debate - is a desperate bypass of having to face her own position. Therefore, this argument should be considred null. Now, I am in complete support of removing tax breaks from marriage, but there are special priveleges that we would definitely want to extend to homosexual couples, but would not need individual people to have, including the right to open joint bank accounts, the right to inherit each other's property, the right to visit each other in the hospital, the right to visit each other in a morgue, the right to adopt children, etc. My opponent argues unconstitutionality, but does not source the Constitution at all. The Constitution is kind of important in determining constitutionality. Finally, the equivocation of murder to granting married people the right to open a joint bank account is rather crazy. Plus, a more appropriate analogy would be stealing (A steals from B, so B steals from A, and all is fair), which or direct, not indirect, murder (A murders B, so the state has A killed, but the jury's still out on that one). My opponent is trying to construe an analogy in the weirdest, most biased way possible. Conclusion+: Civil unions, by definition, are marriages. Benefits of these civil unions would include increased equality, and increased prosperity and happiness for the homosexual population. That will be all for now. Thank you. 1. . http://atheism.about.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...