Homosexuality with a twist

Thanks for the debate aero. == Voting issues == {{{ 1. Burden of proof }}} My opponent had the burden to negate homosexuality, not just gay marriage. He clearly fails to do so, at the point where he argues for civil unions and merely against calling gay marriage "marriage. " {{{ 2. Homosexuality is an immutable trait }}} My opponent concedes that homosexuality as just as immutable a trait as race. Homosexuality is determined by genetics. Thus, you're going to vote on my evidence from Desmond Tutu: "black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. . .. We treat them [gays and lesbians] as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God – and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are. " Homophobia is no better than racism. {{{ 3. "Marriage" }}} My opponent's only real argument in the last round is that Webster's defines "marriage" as opposite gender, and thus we must keep it this way. This is the is-ought fallacy. Webster is defining common usage. Since we don't allow gay marriage, the common usage, according to Webster, is opposite gender. In addition, times have changed. Webster's *does* include same sex marriage under its definition: "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. " Regardless, it's silly to say we'll get "confused" if marriage doesn't mean between a man and a woman. When is it important for us to know the gender of a couple, merely by us saying they are married? If I say "Jonathan and Kathy are married," then the gender is obvious. If I say, "Jonathan and Abraham are married," again, the gender if obvious. If I say, "those two are married," then I'm referring to people that the listener can either see or knows, so my audience already knows the gender of the people involved. It isn't the job of the word marriage to tell us the gender of the people involved, just like it's not the job of marriage to tell us the *race* of the people involved. The same argument could be used against interracial marriages: that calling them normal marriages, rather than something like "multi-racial unions," takes away clarity from the term marriage. Marriage used to mean a union between two people of the same race. Now the term is more confusing. But who cares? This is a silly argument against gay marriage. Thus, you should vote on the Al Sharpton evidence that it's an insult to even *ask* if someone supports gay marriage; this is "like asking 'do [you] support black marriage or white marriage'. .. The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings. " This is *insulting. * If gays are just like all other human beings, who did not choose their sexuality at birth, then it makes no sense to create separate institutions for them. Brown v. Board ruled that separate is inherently unequal (and insulting). Vote Pro because gay people are human beings and deserve equal rights, both under the Golden Rule (treat others the way you want to be treated) and under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. {{{ 4. Equal protection }}} This is an easy voter. Homosexuals don't have equal protection. They can't help their life partners get a green card. They can't qualify for their life partner's Social Security, Medicare, or employer health insurance. They cannot automatically inherit from their life partner. Federal law (DOMA) prohibits them from having equal protection under federal law, which is clearly unjust. Easy way to vote Pro. {{{ 5. Evolution straight turn }}} Another easy way to vote is the turn I put on evolution. Gay marriage increases the chances that gay couples will raise their children in a stable home and that wealthy/talented gay couples will have biological offspring (related to one of them). This ensures that good genes are passed on. My opponent concedes this turn. {{{ 6. Tax revenue }}} My opponent concedes that since gay couples (particularly two men) are more likely to both work and have comparable incomes, they are more likely to pay *more* in taxes after marrying, not less. This is known as a tax penalty. This means allowing gay marriage would raise additional tax revenue for our cash-strapped state and federal governments. This turn is another easy way to vote Pro. For all these reasons, I urge you to affirm homosexuality. Affirm it as a valid lifestyle choice. Affirm it as an immutable trait. Affirm acceptance of homosexuals. Affirm a society that treats others the way that you want to be treated.