Gay Marriage

I. It's Not A ChoiceFirstly, my opponent uses an article from Wikipedia to justify his claim, whereas I use a professional health website. Think about that when voting. Anyways, my opponent claims that brains don't develop genitalia, so they have no gender. There is a difference between sex and gender. Here are the definitions. Gender - the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). [1]Sex - either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. [2]In other words, they're much different. To make this even simpler, I'll use two examples: me and Caitlyn Jenner. I was born a female, so my sex is female, but I also identify as a woman, so I'm a woman biologically and psychologically. Now for Caitlyn Jenner. She was born a male, so her sex was male. (Unless she got a sex change, but I don't know.) She identifies as a woman, so she's a woman. It's that simple! My opponent gives an example to combat mine about the rest of the world being gay with the following: "Say there were a man who ran around naked, when he is arrested for public nudity, he says 'but what if there were a world where everyone were naked and you prefered to be clothed, but to them that would be being naked to you!'"There is one major difference here; you choose to be naked, while you don't choose who to be sexually attracted to. Here's even more proof.Apparently, genetics, birth order, womb environment, and the mother's immune system, among others, can determine sexuality. [3] II. EqualityFirstly, my opponent gets out unalienable rights wrong, saying that humans are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. I don't know if he misunderstood my excerpt or if it's from an unlisted source, but I wanted to point that out. Next, my opponent claims that I'm misinterpreting the definition of liberty, saying that it's the ability to move around freely, not do whatever you want. The ironic thing is that he's misinterpreting me here. Neither of these so called definitions my opponent provides are true. I got my definition from a dictionary, while my opponent used no source to justify his view. To reiterate, I'll post my definition again.Liberty- the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. [4]By not allowing homosexuals to marry, you're oppressing them from how they want to live their lives with a partner. Civil unions aren't the same thing as marriage either, as they restrict access to the rights that are exclusive to marriage. My opponent then says that a gay person can just go out and find someone of the opposite gender to marry. Again, this relates back to how homosexuality is not a choice. Think about it this way: you're a man who wants to marry a woman. Let's say someone told you that you couldn't do that and that you'd have to marry a man instead. You can't just change who you're attracted to, can you? Then, my opponent makes the claim that gays can't redefine marriage. I'll address this in a later point in which I talk all about this. III. Separation of Church and StateNext, my opponent claims that marriage is a religious institution, but provides no proof of this. I, however, will show why marriage isn't a religious institution. Firstly, marriage licenses are given out by the state, not the church. [5] Why would this be if it really were a religious institution? Secondly, plenty of atheists get married, yet they aren't religious. Why is that? Also, you don't have to be married by a priest. In fact, you can be married by a judge in a courthouse. [6] IV. Adoption IncreaseMy opponent says that you don't need to be married to adopt children. Yes, this is true, but I was arguing that there would be an adoption increase, not an chance to adopt. V. What Is Marriage? My opponent claims that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman and that it was like this in every culture, but again, has no source or proof of this. For an example, he says Egyptian culture, but this isn't true. "Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites’ departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge)." [7]This proves that there were unions of same-sex couples that resemble a marriage that straight couples would have in history. Also, here's another example of "redefining" marriage. Before it was legalized in 1967, interracial marriage was seen as unnatural marriage. In fact, interracial marriage is more similar to gay marriage than we might think. In fact, almost all the points I made in my opening statements could be made be made with adjustments in information and wording, save separation of church and state. Anyways, when interracial marriage was illegal, it was seen as a sign of an obscene act, but now it's seen by most as perfectly normal. In a way, you could say they redefined marriage but allowing couples of different races to marry. So is interracial marriage a bad thing? VI. Economic BenefitNo offense, but this is one of my opponent's most ridiculous rebuttals I've seen in this round. He claims that unemployment went down because they didn't count people who had been unemployed for over two years and that gay marriages makes people lose jobs, so my opponent is basically blaming gay marriage for making the economy worse. He provides no proof of this, so does this even need to be defended against?Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Best of luck. So long and goodnight!Citations[1]https://www.google.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://time.com...[4]https://www.google.com...[5]http://addictinginfo.org...[6]http://www.usmarriagelaws.com...[7]http://www.randomhistory.com...