Gays should have a new type of civil union as a major option.

Introduction To sum up the criticisms of my opponent, I shall state them here. Firstly, there is a problem with my counterplan, stating that “the religious and traditional aspects witch[sic] people use to oppose same sex marriage”, which means simply put that religious people will not be happy, and it does not solve their grievances. The other criticism was based on the idea that my counterplan would work only if gay marriage was legal on a federal level. Due to this, it was stated that “we wont[sic] meet the conditions of cons[sic] counter plan”. Finally, the religious argument was reformed again, to “they should not get married because it contradicts their own beliefs”. To state again, my opponent claims the counterplan does not work on a federal level and makes the religious unhappy. Further, gay marriage contradicts the beliefs of those involved. I aim to show how the criticisms are either false, or irrelevant to my case. My opponent also states that his arguments have been uncontested, which counts as his being stronger. I shall point out that this is a counterplan, not a traditional refutation: I accept that, though it is possible that these benefits exist, they are less compared to the benefits of legalising SSM. Examples, examples, examples My opponent’s first criticism is that gay marriage would “gay marriages will probroly[sic] never be approved on a federal level”. I claim that this criticism is irrelevant. As the debate is an ought debate (as per the use of the word ‘should’), the practical ability is irrelevant: as long as it is possible and there are no serious obstructions, of which I state there are none other than religious, which I shall later address, there is good reason to have it legalised. However, the major problem is that my opponent is saying this as if the debate only matters in America. I wish to point out that the debate has no geographic bias in the title. This attempt to restrict the debate to a region is unjustified. In the majority of modernised countries, of which is our standard - as our standard should be based in countries that can feasibly impose legislation - nine countries have SSM legal, including Netherlands, Sweden, and others. Discussions in the UK are underway to legalise SSM, with the system most likely being legal in 2014, when the referendum is called (and all projections show a pass)(picture). In France, “D'après le sondage Ifop dont les résultats détaillés paraîtront dans l'édition du 26 juin de Dimanche Ouest-France, 63% des personnes interrogées se sont dites favorables au mariage homosexuel et parmi elles, 37% y sont même "très favorables" (in short, 63% are in favour of SSM) and in Germany, and only 40% of Austrians are against SSM. In short, as a turn, it is more democratic to legalise SSM than it is to oppose it. Living in a democracy, we need to follow out the will of the people. Further, as legalising SSM is something we need to promote, as shown previously in the argument from J.S.Mill. It is affirmed that SSM should be legalised instead of Civil Unions. Religious aspect I felt I adequately covered this in the previous round, but I shall do so again. If marriage is not religious, the fact that religious people are offended by marriage is irrelevant. We do not live in theocracies: we live in democracies, where the majority should set the laws. Whether the religious mind is an irrelevancy: the only important part of this issue is the part regarding the majority, not the majority of the religious. However, many religious groups find that SSM is not just compatible but promoted in their faith. “Some examples of [Christian] organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ "Marriage Equality and the UCC"., the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),[1] the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America and the Unitarian Universalists church which has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry both in the church and through the state.[1] Also, my opponent’s second paragraph on “Religion and Tradition” is nonsensical, either for self-contradiction, non-adherence to the facts, or sentences not making coherent sense. For example, my opponent says “It seems majority of American voters support those beliefs”, meaning (I think) that the majority of Americans are against SSM. Not only does this artificially and unjustifiably narrows the scope of debate, but is categorically false: as shown in the previous round, the majority of Americans are in favour of SSM. My opponent claims the problem is with things such as traditional values not changing, which is why SSM will not be able to be legal. However, my opponent is pushing for civil unions, which has the exact same problem in this region. I wish to make a final point: the idea came up about conservative values not being able to be updated. I wish to state that by legalising SSM, we can make people more open minded. The inverse slippery slope shows that by legalising SSM, we can gain more insight to whether it is a good idea to legalise it or not[2]. By taking a cautious approach, we limit information and freedom. Any arguments making empirical, justified claims against the legalisation of SSM is purely speculation until we test the hypotheses put forth: to actually make any of the claims for SSM justified, we need to legalise it t test them. Hence, we have good reason to legalise SSM. In short, my opponent’s conclusion comes down to the idea that the time for equality is in the future. My conclusion is that the time for equality is the present. My opponent states it will take thousands of years for equality to occur. I am simply more optimistic. And realistic. The evidence is clear: same sex marriage should be made legal. edit: I apologise for the forfeit. I had this argument written, but it didn't seem to send. I apologise for this. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...;2 - Intertemporal Disagreement and Empirical Slippery Slope Arguments, by Thomas Douglas