Marriage is a Civil Right.

I read my opponent's R2 argument and I still maintain the pro position. 1) I am very familiar with Blacks Law Dictionary. I own a copy, but as I stated, I simply don't have it available. I do not doubt the validity of the dictionary and agree it is well accepted and was one of the texts I used most frequently in my first year of law school. I merely asked my opponent to put the full definition forward, so I could see it - nothing more. I am in no way criticizing the source, I just want to see the full definition. My request is not unreasonable as my opponent listed the source. My opponent, after offering no links to sources claims I did not understand her sources. I must point out that I found the full document my opponent listed, she did not provide it, and she still has not provided a full definition from Black's Law ( I don‘t need a link, I will trust you, but you did not list the full definition). How do I misunderstand a source that my opponent refuses to provide in full? 2) My opponent claims I critiqued her source as one too broad for one definition. I did nothing of the sort. I READ the source in its entirety and simplified the preamble into a more manageable sentence. I had to diagram that sentence twice to make sure I captured the full content. I showed my opponent used only a small portion of the preamble and further showed the full text conveyed that marriage is a right that "derives from the inherent dignity of the human person." I will explain in the most simple terms I can use after I deal with my opponent's rebuttal. 3) My opponent lists the different definitions of marriage in different countries, but this was not necessary as I stipulated that marriage does not have a universal definition. Sorry to repeat myself, but I will state, again, I understand this point and do not rebut it. 4) I will be as clear as possible. My opponent proffered the definition of a civil right as "one that derives from the inherent dignity of the human person." I did not offer this definition, my opponent did and she is the instigator. The document she uses as a reference is fine with me, her quote-mining of the preamble is not. The document is titled: "The United Nations INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS" The document provides a list of rights. We have to agree that the document is listing civil and political rights as the title states very clearly. Any right listed must fit into one of three categories: 1) A civil right 2) A political right 3) Both a civil and political right Now, marriage is specifically listed in Article 23. Since marriage is listed then we can conclude from my opponent's source of authority that marriage must fit into one of three categories: 1)A civil right 2)A political right 3)Both a civil and political right My opponent's only hope in her final round is to show marriage is ONLY a political right as the other two refute her position, I wish her luck. Lastly, all the rights listed in the document are described as ones "that [derive] from the inherent dignity of the human person." as made very clear in the preamble and shown in my R1 argument. My opponent stated twice that a civil right is one "that derives from the inherent dignity of the human person". Marriage is listed in the document; therefore, marriage is a civil right under the authority of the legitimate resource my opponent provided and further accepted by my opponent's definition. I never questioned the legitimacy of the source, just my opponent's use of it. The source does not contradict itself; it contradicts my opponent's position. I see no need to provide a further source as the one my opponent provided, when read in full, supports my position. 5) My opponent states, "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." This statement is very important for several reasons. First, a full reading of the source my opponent provided shows marriage to be a civil right as my opponent chose to define it. Second, and most importantly, my opponent says I must prove the civility of the right. I never claimed civil rights must maintain civility. This statement is a logic fallacy. My opponent is mixing and matching definitions. I need only show marriage is a civil right, not a right demonstrating civility. Civility is defined as a polite act or expression. http://mw1.m-w.com... I need not show marriage is a polite act or expression (my wife just punched me), only that it "derives from the inherent dignity of the human person." a definition provided by my opponent, and my opponent's legitimate source has done that for me. The Con position cannot hold as the position's only basis for support favors Pro.