Gay marriage is not a civil right

I will begin with attacks against my own case then move on to my rebuttal of my opponents ATTACK AGAINST MY CASE Contention 1 "the nature of my arguments can still apply anywhere and to this resolution because I don't just say that gay marriage is not a civil right merely based on what the government and courts have randomly declared as CON even alluded to. "[1] I never said courts randomly declare anything, but if one goes through my opponent's case one will find all of his evidence is directly related to court systems. He himself says its geared toward the courts He goes on to state that he applies moral aspects His whole banking behind "moral" aspects is that his morality has been determined by courts that 1. I have proven these courts wrong ( See dredd scott case) 2. That the court is trying to influence morality which is not the purpose of the government (more in contention2) He has two remaining attacks against C1 They are as follows A. I miss quote the universal declaration of human rights B. Human rights vs. civil rights A. Im not miss quoting He states that a "family" must be created for marriage and that is what makes his argument moral (His source is a court case) I WILL ATTACK THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF A FAMILY IN MY REBUTTAL Also he states I am miss quoting the U. N. cause of family Look below Article 29 (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations In other words you can't use this document against the U. N. Since the U. N. can appropriately interpret the document Look below: [2] According to the above source the U. N. supports homosexuals and wishes them to have equal rights Thus my opponents attack is invalid since he is using the declaration of human rights against the U. N. who clearly have respect for the rights of homosexuals Thus the argument does not stand since my opponent himself misquoted the U. N. 's ideals B. Human rights vs. civil rights I am assuming that this is an attack "Civil and political rights form the original and main part of international human rights. [4] They comprise the first portion of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (This comes from the same source pro used to clarify civil rights) . http://en.wikipedia.org... "This means something can be a civil right but not a human right, but I am going to assume he means Civil rights in the context of human rights like I am referring to and not something separate. "[1] So my opponent and I agree that civil rights come from human rights "The Dred Scott case is a perfect example of something being a civil right but not a human right. "[1] Or do we? The Dred Scott case essentially said that (excuse the terminology) 1. Black people are slaves regardless of there situation in the united states 2. Black people are also not citizens This violates both the three natural rights (Life liberty…) AND the Declaration of human rights. According to the definition it is also a civil right CONTENTION 2 "The point of showing the U. S. Supreme Court cases … was to show that traditional marriage is an OBJECTIVE reality as well as a religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in civil matters here. "[1] My response: NO! You can't seriously say that you are being objective and then throw in religion! Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: -dictionary. com The state is not being objective if it's using a religious belief! It is stated by Pro that they are using a religious belief Since this is happening their laws are reflecting that, They are impeding on rights So my contention still stands since they are using religion that affects their laws and they are pressing their religion on the populous resulting in inequality and rights violations "Instead, It is actually gay marriage supporters who are actually using the law to super impose their morals and beliefs onto society. " Just, just stop that. No. We aren't using the law because there are no laws in America that allow homosexuals to marry. That is erroneous and an insult CONTENTION 3 "For example, the mere appearance of green / red traffic signals … Is this also a situation where the state is imposing someone's morality? I think not. "[1] Above is from opponents attack (look to his case for full attack) 1rst. I have yet to find anyone to have a morality that is against red and green lights so no one can actually be offended 2nd I never said everything a state does is bad. It is the states duty to protect your life. They didn't put lights for any religious purposes they place them there cause its their duty 3rd That whole example has nothing to do with civil rights. When has there ever been a riot over red lights and green lights? The two subjects aren't even close! "Civil rights are about fairness and justice. .. The concept of gay marriage does not provide fairness nor is just and it potentially creates disorder if we consider making it into a Civil right. "[1] So the pro tries to ban gay marriage because having a particular sexual leaning is un-fair to the populous… How can something be fair to everyone if its singles out a single group? MY REBUTTAL "CON must provide a compelling state reason for how redefining the purpose of marriage benefits society as a whole. " No I don't have to prove society will benefit, I just have to prove you wrong in that society won't change. PURPOSE OF MARRAGE. My opponent has stated that the purpose of marriage is to found a family and produce offspring. Also that it is the governments job to enforce this I am refuting it now MY OPPONENETS reason for saying the marrage is to start a family is that civil courts have said so. I have already proven the American Court systems wrong (Which has gone un-refuted) Because the courts are 1. Religious 2. They have made mistakes in the past (Dredd Scott case) So thus their view cannot be used here He says that by letting homosexual marry it will cause children to be lead astray He supposedly has two empirical sources ONE DOES not even mention homosexuals so it does not apply THE OTHER does not have any statistical evidence only proof that homosexual numbers are increasing. (urban. org) other than that they offer no hard evidence of anything SO THUS, same sex marrage does not destroy the family as my opponent would say EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE "There are no laws that target and only say "Same sex couples are not allowed to get married" This may be true but there was no laws saying that Blacks could get the same jobs as Whites so thus Blacks could only get certain jobs. This was a discriminatory practice until a law was passed creating "Equality" Even though equal protection isn't "discriminatory" it still creates Inequality thus making homosexual in this case not equal to heterosexuals THE PRO'S EQUAL PROTECTION is still promoting inequality and downgrading homosexuals not giving them the same rights as heterosexuals SEPARATE BUT EQUAL "In a case called Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia school District, the Supreme Court ruled, that "Separate" is essentially "Equal" The civil rights era has already proven that separate is in no way equal. Inequality is still produced by creating restrictions on rights LONG TERM EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE The Social ramifications: Ive already proven those studies worng Legal ramifications: There are countries as ive stated before that promote same sex marrage and they haven't collapsed obviously what ever the ramifications were (He quotes a book and offers no assement) they wont collapse America THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE He states that same sex marriage laws will offend people and not allow them to live with freedom of conscious Well at the moment that is exactly what is happening with homosexuals. He is statingwe should lower homosexuals so heterosexuals feel better