Gay marriage is not a civil right

I reject the requirement of a geographical leaning in the US, due to the fact that it was not stipulated before, and therefore would be changing the parameters of the debate. Further, I also point out my opponent's entire argument was simply a c/p from previous work, which falls under a breaking of the rules I mentioned previously. As such, I reject the Due Process clause issue, due to it being purely an American definition. Of course, if my opponent wishes to actually claim this should hold value for other countries, he should justify it. Of course, I can (and shall now due to the obvious way this clash shall go) refer him to the Natural Justice of the Ridge v Baldwin case, and state that equality is naturally just under the judiciary. Further, Parliamentary majority has said, albeit outside of official parliamentary voting, time and time again that they wish SSM to be legal. Further, American laws do not affect world laws anymore than British law does. In fact, British law is arguably more impacting due to the effect of the EU and stronger diplomatic ties, but that is for another debate. However, I realise my opponent wants to make it American only, so he can use his tried and tested (and failed) argument, which he has copied and used 3 times already. Further, as per traditional rules, I shall post my argument in favour first. This means that it may or may not address my opponent's points directly, but shall pose my own argument. Introduction My opponent puts forth an entirely traditionalist view of marriage. The problem of this marriage is on multiple grounds. Firstly, it states marriage is for "procreation and child-rearing". This means that marriage is "a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together"[1]. I wish to show two things in my argument: firstly, that the revisionist position of marriage is more accurate, followed by how, even in the traditionalist view of marriage, SSM should be legalised. The purpose of marriage As we well know, the purpose of marriage was child rearing and procreation. I do not deny that this used to be the definition of marriage. However, the purpose of marriage was not twofold, but onefold. It has a single purpose. The phrase 'child rearing and procreation' is one that is popular, but is it applicable in modern society? In a society where those needing adoption is at an all-time high[2], and sociologists criticising endlessly about how the high population is causing massively detrimental effects on society[3], do we need to continue ferverously promoting procreation? It is, surely, more reasonable to promote childrearing? But marriage also has a third effect which traditionalists wish to ignore, which are traced back to it's Sumerian roots over 5000 years ago: the loving union it creates that is officially recognised and respected. We know this through a number of ways from unofficial polls[4] to religious groups commenting[5] to professional commentators[6]. Some put forth the idea that marriage is to benefit children instead[7] as well. I shall address this point in a moment. I want to point out a quotation about the definition of marriage being purely procreation: “Marriage is not fundamental to our ‘existence’ and ‘survival’ merely because it sometimes is marked by expressions of love, commitment, and respect. Marriage is fundamental to our existence and survival because it remains society’s best and most effective way of ordering sexual relations between men and women, encouraging procreation, and increasing the odds that a child will have the influence and support of both a mother and a father.” -- Thomas Messner[8] The point is, marriage is not fundamental to society. If we did not have marriage (and we did not for a long time) the human race still trots on. If we leglised SSM, the human race still trots on. The purpose of marriage is love, not war procreation. If it were procreation, then we have an issue: my opponent has decided to abandon the actual purpose of marriage due to its impracticality. If marriage was legal for those unable to reproduce because "it's costly" or "impractical", then we have abandoned the actual purpose of marriage for these reasons. It's like saying you support the red sock (I believe that's a football team in America) but because the black sock is cheaper, you wear the black sock. That means you don't support the red sock, you're supporting the black sock. Procreation among the homosexual communityThe homosexual community being unable to procreate is something that my opponent is claiming to be impossible is an underlying fundamental premise to his argument, which, if proven false, undermines and defeats the entire argument. I am stating this now because, if my opponent cannot refute this, his argument is prima facie wrong. The thing is though, homosexuals can reproduce. Of course, they cannot reproduce in a natural way. Similar to those who are infertile (which can be established with extreme ease, by the way: you take a sperm sample, and you take an egg sample. Simple.), they have access to IVF treatments and surrogacy[9]. These aren't science-fiction events: these are real. I am simply pointing out the facts now, those who are in a homosexual relationship can have children, and many have. Marriage has been stated to promote children, and SSM couples are just as well off, if not better[11,12]. Thus, marriage is better for the children, and allows marriage in society.The democratic agreementFinally, we live in a democracy. This means we get the option as citizens to vote on what we want. The voting allows us to run society, and allows the majority to make decisions on this issue. As it does not have any prima facie effects of discriminating against people in society, then the polls should be able to be used to decide what to do. And what do the polls say? The polls are loud, the polls are clear: democracy should be in action, and my opponent is attempting to undermine a fundamental foundation of our society. To concludeSSM promotes children. SSM promotes strong, loving relationships. SSM is promoted by democracy. SSM promotes the purpose of marriage, that is, to create strong, secure settings for children to be raised, and an acknowledged commitment between two loving people. For these reasons, I suggest a vote in favour of common sense, equality and democracy, and vote CON. 1 - What is Marriage? By Sherif Girgis et al, accessed 13/06/12, http://tinyurl.com... 2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk... 3 - http://www.populationpress.org...4 - http://surveycentral.org...5 - http://www.catholicculture.org...6 - http://www.patheos.com...7 - http://www.news-record.com...#8 - http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...9 - http://www.fertility-docs.com...10 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk...11 - http://www.concordmonitor.com...12 http://www.tandfonline.com...;& http://www.livescience.com...;