Kleptin Tourney: This House Would Legally Recognize Homosexual Marriages

Many thanks to Pro for the swift and timely rebuttal. 1A. Re: Equality Pro brings up an alternative definition of the word marriage which reads, "a similar institution involving partners of the same gender." Most importantly here is the word 'similar.' Indeed marriage is either a legal or a SOCIAL contract [1] and homosexuals who are 'married' merely experience the social definition; not the legal one. Under U.S. laws, the first definition of marriage - i.e. a union between a man and a woman - applies. Proof of this can be found by using my 2nd link from R1 where I posted all of the terms and conditions for marriage in each state. When gay couples join in a similar union, it is called a "civil union" and not a marriage [2]. Now, while Pro might mention that civil unions do not afford all of the same rights and privileges as a marriage, and therefore inequality exists, then all he is really doing is proving that the rights of and privileges of civil unions should be extended to equal those of marriage, which I would obviously agree with. Next, Pro writes that not recognizing homosexual marriages is sexist. That is far from the truth. As I said in the last round, both men and women of any race, creed or sexuality can choose to obtain a marriage in the United States. Therefore, saying that the laws are "sexist" simply does not make any sense. A law would only be sexist if it discriminates (prohibits) based on gender, which marriage laws do not do. Both men and women can get married. If a man wants to marry a man or a woman wants to marry a woman, they can seek the legal equivalent of a civil union while still referring to their commitment socially as a marriage. In cases where civil unions are not an option for a gay couple, I would propose extending that option to them everywhere in the country - not legalizing gay marriage. Here's an analogy: If the school cafeteria only sold apples but people thought oranges should be sold too to accommodate orange-lovers, then a change in policy would make both apples and oranges available, price them at the same amount, make sure that both fruits came from a good vendor, etc. However you wouldn't re-name oranges "apples" simply because they are now being included on the menu. At the end of the day, apples are still apples and oranges are still oranges, though both considered and treated equally, and/or both are an available option. The same logic applies to marriage and civil unions. If civil unions are afforded the same rights and privileges as marriage, then there is no need to change the legal definition when people can still socially refer to their civil union as a marriage. 1B. Re: Fourteenth Amendment / Equality Pro says that I have ignored his argument that equality under the law is a long-standing American tradition. I did not ignore his argument; I noted that the 14th amendment granting equality was true and right. But sure. Let's assume I didn't respond to that direct sentence enough for Pro's liking. I'll begin by stating that under the law, Americans are not all expected to be equal but rather all afforded the same opportunities. For instance, if I was born into a rich family and Pro was born into a poor family, that does not mean that Pro and I are entitled to the same things under equality laws. On the contrary, we are simply equal in terms of opportunity, though it is just a sad coincidence that I was born rich and Pro was born poor. As long as his rights are not being violated, then no injustice is being committed. Similarly, the same concept applies to marriage. If Pro was gay and I was straight, then under equality laws he and I could both still obtain a legal marriage. However, it would just be his poor and unfortunate circumstance that he was born gay while I was born straight, just as it is an unfortunate reality that some people are born poor and others are lucky enough to be born rich. So, if Pro's concept is that Americans should have equal legal rights, then yes I would tend to agree. Though Americans both gay and straight do have the equal right to marriage, and equal protections under the law does not translate to automatically giving everybody "the same." Instead, I have already proposed extending the right for everyone to obtain civil unions and ensure that civil unions afford the same rights and protections as heterosexual marriage. As Phil Ferrera says, "There's no use in trying to change the dictionary to push a social agenda." And remember that the definition of marriage that applied to gay couples merely said that it was a 'similar' union to marriage. 2. Re: STDs Pro contends that recognizing marriage would help create a sense of commitment among homosexual partners, therefore encouraging them not to cheat on their spouse and limit the spread of STDs. So here I'll make 2 arguments. First, lesbians are the demographic LEAST likely to contract STDs so this statistic does not really apply for gay women [3]. Second, I pointed out in my previous debate that 60% of married men (heterosexual men) engage in extramarital affairs [4]. Since that is the case, then why should we assume that a commitment will keep homosexual men faithful while it does not keep heterosexual men faithful? The bottom line is that it is not the government's job to make sure that people stay STD-free or don't cheat on their partner. That is a moral preference and a personal responsibility that should be left up to the individual. 3. Re: Why not? In the first round, my opponent made just one contention and thus I only had one contention to respond to. Since Pro expressed his right to list more contentions in R2, I feel I am obviously afforded the same privilege. In this round I talked about why it is unnecessary to legalize gay marriage if instead the rights of civil unions were expanded to be all-inclusive and guarantee the same privileges and benefits. I would also like to mention that this is a preferable alternative to those who feel marriage is a sacred religious experience - especially because 83% of Americans claim to be Christian [5]. My proposed solution is one that makes everyone happy. It keeps legal marriage between a man and a woman (appeasing conservatives and Christians); it gives gays equal marriage protection under a different term; and finally it allows gays to use their freedom of speech to call their union "marriage" whether anybody else likes it or not. 4. Furthermore, for a Con argument, I'd like to point out that marriage isn't a right at all for anyone either gay or straight. Anyone can choose to be in a long-term relationship with a consenting partner; however, one does not have the right to marriage i.e. the right to demand special privileges or tax breaks because they are choosing to be in a long-term relationship. This is essentially rewarding people for putting a title to their commitment which is technically unconstitutional. Therefore, by allowing gay marriage, you're simply perpetuating an already bad standard thus not solving the problem. For instance, if I murdered Pro's mother - and that was wrong - should Pro be allowed to murder my mother just to have "equality?" The answer is obviously no. This Con's position states that the fairest solution to this issue would either be (a) implement my civil union policy detailed in Point 3; or (b) negate marriage as a government standing all-together. Both of these proposed alternatives are superior to Pro's suggestion of legalizing gay marriage. Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.wisegeek.com... [3] http://www.guttmacher.org... [4] http://menstuff.org... [5] http://abcnews.go.com...