The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry.

My Rebuttal Let me say I appreciate my opponents response. However, my opponent has not provided evidence of discrimination against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. Con has only provided evidence of discrimination against choice of gender. This is not sexual orientation discrimination. C1: State or Federal government is not discriminating against homosexuals couples right to marry because of their sexual orientation. My opponent sites the state of Alabama and the Alabama Marriage Act as evidence the state discriminates against the sexual orientation of the individual or couple. Con provides 3 paragraphs which I accept as a valid source: (b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state. (c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract. (d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex. (e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.[2] However, nowhere in these 3 paragraphs does the language say the couple must be heterosexual to marry, or does the language deny homosexuals from marrying. In fact, the words heterosexual and homosexual are not found in the section of marriage recognition in the Alabama Marriage Act. 1. The act does state same-sex marriage license shall not be issued, and marriage contracted between individuals of the same-sex is invalid in the state. This however does not specify whether the same-sex marriage is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. Certainly two heterosexual males would be allowed marriage if the state specifically denied only homosexuals. This is why it is not discrimination against sexual orientation, because all sexual orientation are prohibited from same-sex marriage, not just homosexuals. 2. My opponent states, “How would this be possible as two homosexual persons would not marry the opposite sex.” This is an argument from omniscience, for Con cannot possible know everyone’s intention for marriage, nor can Con know what gender a homosexual may marry. Con is implying homosexual must marry the same-sex because of their sexual orientation. This is not an absolute. Example: (Names protected) Brooke is a homosexual woman. Brooke married Tony, a homosexual man. Brooke and Tony do not have a sexual relationship; they do not live together; and both have same-sex partners. Brooke and Tony only married to exploit health insurance benefits at Brookes work, for Tony needed surgery. Now the state did not deny Brooke or Tony a license because of their sexual orientation. Brooke and Tony are a couple; Brooke and Tony are both homosexual; and Brooke and Tony are opposite-sex. Therefore, Brooke and Tony are a homosexual opposite-sex couple. Their right to marry was not based on their sexual orientation, nor was it denied based on their sexual orientation. 3. The state of Alabama (from what I’ve read so far) does not use the term “Gay Marriage”, in any of its language. It uses the term same-sex marriage, which could mean any sexual orientation. It is discrimination against choice, not sexual orientation. C2: All homosexuals currently have the right to marry just as all heterosexual have the right to marry. Con claims this this statement is false and sites the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and list states that do not allow same-sex marriage. 1. Same-sex marriage is not the same as gay marriage. Gay marriage is definitely a same-sex marriage, but the vise-versa does not apply, because as I provided above: two heterosexual males cannot marry either. If two heterosexual males could marry this would not be a gay marriage, for the two males are heterosexual, but instead just a same-sex marriage. 2. Con assumes that all homosexuals would marry only homosexuals and this once again is an argument from omniscience fallacy, for Con cannot know who all homosexual would marry, or the reason they would get married. 3. DOMA does not (from what I have read so far) use the language “Gay Marriage, homosexual, or heterosexual” in defining who and who cannot get married. DOMA only defines a marriage as between a man and a woman, but does not say what sexual orientation that man and woman may be. While society may imply an opposite-sex marriage is “heterosexual”, and a same-sex couple as “homosexual” it does not state so in these laws and acts. Therefore, any sexual orientation may get married. It is only the choice of gender that is being denied, not sexual orientation. C3: Arguments that allow same-sex marriages can be argued for all types of marriages i.e. polygamy, incestuous, bestial. Con is correct in saying this contention is a debate on a different subject than the topic. Therefore I digress my contention. Summary Con’s refutations introduces language that is not in the law or acts of the states or federal government. Con uses the terms “Gay Marriage” and “Same-sex Marriage” as synonyms. While “Gay Marriage” may always be a synonym for “Same-sex Marriage”, “Same-sex Marriage” is not always a synonym for “Gay Marriage”. This is why the states chose this particular language. The law and acts are non-ambiguous to encompass all sexual orientations without discrimination. If the state used the term, “Gay Marriage” it would be a discrimination against sexual orientation. For the states that do grant “Same-sex marriage”, those states do not limit the marriage to only homosexuals. A heterosexual same-sex couple could marry in those states, for whatever reason they want and not have to identify their sexual orientation. Con suggests I contradict my argument by “calling two homosexuals marrying the opposite sex heterosexual.” I did not say this at all. Con is implying that an opposite sex marriage is heterosexual, meaning the man and woman have a sexual desire towards each other. Sexual desire is not a requirement for marriage.Therefore a homosexual opposite-sex couple may marry and not be heterosexual. I conclude the right to marry is not discriminatory based on sexual orientation.