Marriage is a Civil Right.

However, due to the lack of research there are several reasons why my opponent's rebuttals cannot stand. I will go in order to what my opponent said. First of all, this is not a policy debate, Black's Law Dictionary is the most commonly used law dictionary around, and for my opponent to question the source is, there is no other word, disgraceful. No, I am not one of those debaters who bends the facts just to fit my side. And my proof are my legitimate sources which my opponent has not read carefully enough to understand. Now, my opponent critiqued me on my United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights source, saying that the source is too broad for just one definition. However, Pro side, don't bend the wording, the exact wording that was in this source, and I listed in my first speech, was "one that derives from the inherent dignity of the human person. " This is proof enough that marriage cannot be a CIVIL right because around the world, also defined as the topic, cannot practice marriage as a civil right. Let me just make one thing very clear. My opponent mentions the word right, as in marriage is a right. Especially directed at 2A. I agree, marriage is a right, but it's just not a civil right. You see, like stated above, it can rise to the rank of civil right, but only when the MAJORITY of the people confer. Marriage is widely disagreed upon today, especially that of Gay Marriage. If marriage was a civil right, than everyone, regardless of race, age, or sex, would be able to marry. California today has voted through Proposition 8, which denies any two people of the same sex to marry. When my opponent says that marriage is a civil right regardless, they simply say that it's okay to call something a civil right, even when it discriminates others. Their point about 2B), like I said before. Marriage throughout history has never been considered civil, and as I stated above in my speech, it is possible to have a right, without having a civil right. That is exactly what marriage is. A right, just NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. What my opponent needs to do in order to win this debate is prove why it's a civil right, not a right. If they are unable to prove the civility of the right, I automatically win, why? Because they are proving all of my side. And this is what my opponent has done so far. Now, before we continue this debate I want to clean up this whole misconception of my legitimate source. The Pro side stated: Article 23 The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children. Once again, this stated marriage as a right, not once does it even state the word civil. My source does not contradict itself. Thank you. Also, because it stated "No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses. .. " This simply cannot mean it's a civil around the world. Because there are many types of marriage around the world and throughout history, and they cannot all be considered civil by everyone. Example: Imperial China- arranged, social class, polygamy (more than one wife) Christianity- monogamy (one man, one woman) India- Henogamy (only the eldest son marries), Child marriage (A practice in which the parents of two small children (even infants) arrange a future marriage. ) Africa- Female Husband Marriage (in which daughters have been raised as males in order to ensure the continuity of the family and take a wife. ) France- Posthumous Marriage (a living person marrying a dead person) Taiwan- Shim-pua Marriage (a poor family would sell a daughter into a wealthy family) Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be universally excepted, it just needs to have the majority of the people confer that it is indeed a civil right. Conclusion: My opponents lack of any source, besides criticizing my own, shows how little they have actually studied this topic, and how they cannot refute my sources and points in the appropriate way. They shouldn't say their bad, my opponent should say their wrong. But because my sources are irrefutably accurate, there is no way to say that their wrong. Once again, my opponent needs to prove with reasoning and legitimate sources with evidence why marriage is a civil right, not a right. So far all my opponent has done is try and prove my sources bad, and why it's a right. This is not enough to win my opponent the debate. For these reasons, marriage is irrefutably not a civil right. Thank you!