Gay Marriage

PRO CASECivil RightsIn this round Con continues to confuse natural and civil rights in relation to marriage. Perhaps this confusion stems from confusion over the two types of marriage: social unions and legal unions. The right to a social union does stem from freedom of speech and the natural right to Liberty. There is no natural right to a legal union; no government has the obligation to provide a legal union to its citizens. Once a government recognizes a right to legal unions, however, it becomes a civil right because it is a right that is gained by being a member of a society. Con protests that a natural right cannot become a civil right just by a law being passed, but that is not what I am saying at all. The natural right to a social union does not turn into a civil right as a legal union; the natural right remains. Adding a civil right on top of a natural right is not a modification of the natural right, it is the addition of a new right. Legal unions are not, as Con says, state recognition of a natural right. Con continues by arguing that civil rights are granted by the state, therefore they can be implemented in any manner that the state chooses. This leads to an important difference between the words can and should. A government can restrict civil rights and implement them however they want. A perfect example of this is Jim Crow laws that existed in the South to restrict the voting rights of Black Americans. My contention is not that a government cannot restrict those rights, my contention is that a government should not restrict those rights, as shown in the first premise of my R2 argument: "People should not be denied their civil rights."Once a government has recognized a civil right to marriage, this right should be applied fairly to all. Con claims that all people have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, however marriage can be a union between a man and a woman, or a two people of the same sex. Therefore, there is discrimination involved, because the government is placing heterosexual marriages over homosexual marriages. The only point of my original logic that was challenged by Con in her R2 response is that marriage is a civil right. She dropped my points that people should not be denied their civil rights and that if marriage is a civil right, then gay marriage is also a civil right. Since drops count as concessions, she basically conceded my points. She is now challenging some of those points, but doing so is a contradiction since they were already conceded. Therefore, my original logic stands: People should not be denied marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.BenefitsCon makes a ridiculous claim here. A heterosexual union can be understood to be a marriage between two people of the opposite sex, either social or legal. She says: " The problem is that all of these [technologies] are still based on heterosexual unions; the gays are simply using heterosexual unions in order to extract children." This is a completely false claim. Gays are not "using heterosexual unions in order to extract children." Let's say there is a lesbian couple who is committed to each other and wants to start a family. This couple finds a sperm donor, and through in vitro fertilization, one of the women is able to have a child. Heterosexual marriages have nothing to do with this. I am not claiming that a child can be produced from two sperm or two eggs, but I am claiming that heterosexual marriage is not necessary for children to be born. A marriage is not necessary at all for children to be born, as a single woman could find a sperm donor and have a child without any union at all. Additionally, Con acts like if we give benefits to homosexual couples, heterosexual couples will stop reproducing. This is utter nonsense. Giving benefits to homosexual couples will allow them to live better lives together, perhaps produce and/or raise children of their own, and heterosexual couples will continue to reproduce as well. Giving benefits to homosexual couples does not hurt heterosexual couples, or society, in any way.Next, Con argues that it is possible to grant homosexual couples some benefits without legally recognizing them. This is not the case, however. If a government were to grant these benefits to same-sex couples, they would need to recognize the couples in some way. I contend that granting these couples a legal marriage is the best way to do this. CON CASECon writes:"If there is even one significant difference (i.e ability to produce children within the marriage), they are not equal and thus merit unequal treatment." Thus, in his argument, it is unjust to allow infertile couples, post menopausal women, etc. to marry, because there exists a difference: they are not able to produce children within the marriage. So the procreative in type vs. effect thing really is, in fact, irrelevant because, like Con says, the ability to produce children within the marriage is compromised. Con says that if a couple knows they cannot produce children, then they should not be allowed to have legal marriages. Since I am arguing for the legalization of gay marriages in relation to what is currently the status quo, and Con is arguing for maintaining the status quo, I can argue that because we allow couples who know they are infertile to have a legal marriage, we should also allow gay couples to have a legal union. I have many more arguments regarding this point, but alas, must ablidge the character count.Con next argues that the function of marriage is to create a child. This cannot be, however, because a child can be created outside of a marriage. Marriage is not necessary for procreation, therefore producing children cannot be the function of marriage. I must assume responsibility for a fallacy in my R3 case. I stated that the function of marriage is child raising, however, child raising is no more the function of marriage than child creating. The true function of marriage is to allow two people to show their commitment to each other. Legal recognition of this union allows a couple to be officially viewed in this light in the eyes of the government and of society. Neither child creating, nor child raising is the function of marriage. Con brings up a study that claims that gay parents do not raise children as well as straight parents. The Chronicle of Higher Education writes on their website that that the study referenced by Con is "severely flawed," the study was not properly peer reviewed, and an audit of the study done by the journal found that the study was flawed."Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple" [1].Thus, this study cannot be considered reliable evidence that same-sex couples are worse parents.Back to Con's sole contention:No union, much less a heterosexual one, is required for procreation. Her first premise falls, and so does the rest of her case.Finally, Con says that "The state has no compelling reason to recognize same sex marriage."As I have already explained, the purpose of marriage is to allow to people to publicly recognize their commitment to each other. A legal recognition means that this couple can be recognized as a unit in the eyes of the government, allowing that couple access to the legal benefits outlined in previous rounds. The compelling reason for the state to recognize same sex marriage is so that homosexual couples can have equal access to the benefits described and be recognized as a couple in the eyes of the state.Source:[1]- http://chronicle.com...