Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries

Pro hasn't addressed my arguments properly which is necessary to win this debate. He has simply brushed them off as assertions. Let's remember that Pro made the initial claim. Therefore, he must show that same-sex marriage should be allowed in all countries. My task is to show why it shouldn't, I do not have to prove my point but only disprove Pros. It would help if my argument made sense and was strong. I actually think my argument is strong and I could add more contentions onto my argument. Now let's take a look at what my opponent said last round and address it. Pro says my point that same-sex couples did not exist at the founding of marriage should be retracted. Well if I had made such a claim I would retract it but I did not make that claim. I said, "it establishes a founding institution for marriage. That founding institute has never included same-sex couples", saying that same-sex marriages were not in the institute of marriage, not that they did not exist. Us having this debate today, combined with the many countries that have already been shown to not allow same-sex marriage should be enough evidence for this point. My opponent agrees, "this point is the entire basis for this debate existing, if same-sex marriages existed, we wouldn't be debating this. " Not until the 60's and 70's has same-sex marriage gained ground. Not a basic civil right 1) A history of longstanding, widespread discrimination "Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity, it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. For example, airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. When gay activists and their supporters cry "discrimination" they conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Yet this question deserves our close examination, for the danger posed to our society by redefining marriage is no less than permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes. " . http://www.opposingviews.com... (2) Economic disadvantage Same-sex couples are not entitled to special treatment. Marriage is not a right to homosexual couples under the law. Therefore, advantages for married couples are not a right for same-sex couples. (3) Immutable characteristics Sexual orientation does not meet any of the three objective criteria in the protected civil rights categories. "Sexual orientation" should not be elevated to the category of a protected civil right. " . http://www.lc.org... Why it is not right Just because same-sex marriage has always been looked negatively on, does not make it wrong, it is wrong because it does not fulfill the relationship of marriage. Pro does not prove his point by any means. He is correct in saying that some laws in the past should have been corrected. But, he has not shown that same-sex marriage is one of them. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. Pro says he cannot find a definition with reproduction in it but male and female means procreation. "A rationale must be given for marriage law which explains the restrictions placed on entry and exit, the allocation of resources to marriage, and legal discrimination on the basis of it. " . http://plato.stanford.edu... This is the U. S. federal government's definition,"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. " . http://www.law.cornell.edu... "Legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring. The universality of marriage is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions it performs, such as procreation, regulation of sexual behaviour, care of children and their education and socialization, regulation of lines of descent. " . http://www.merriam-webster.com... "Marriage -2a combination or mixture of elements: Marry -2join together; combine harmoniously. . http://oxforddictionaries.com... All of these sources have a formal definition of man and woman. Same-sex couples do not combine harmoniously with nature, they are against nature. To put a male and female together is to symbolize procreation, only a male and female can procreate. Marriage is the procreation and nurture of children; as the only proper place for sexual intimacy; and for the sake of lifelong companionship. Even if they do not procreate, the symbol of procreation is still present through their male and female form. Therefore, any definition putting male and female together exhibits procreation. Pro appeals to marriage not necessarily needing procreation, so we should allow same-sex marriage. What about people who get married for reasons other that love, like citizenship, money, or social status. This indicates that society regards love as the basis for marrying, not producing children or advantages. This leads into the argument that should force everyone who is childless to take adopted children. My opponent skips this argument because it is outrageous. Therefore, this point is outrageous. Not a right in all countries "Con then claims that same-sex marriage isn't the will of the people, again please cite sources or retract. " We can look and see that the majority of the world does not recognize same-sex marriages. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro has problems with me using the term unnatural, I found a definition for him. Unnatural - not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Who can say that homosexual activity is a normal course of events from male and female design? If nature made male and female, can homosexuality be in accord with nature? Were homosexual impulses truly inherited, we should be unable to find differences in homosexual practice due to religious upbringing or racial sub-culture. . http://www.biblebelievers.com... Conclusion What marriage represents is the fundamental relationship for human survival. But, same-sex marriage cannot contribute in that survival. Marriage is between a man and a woman by many governments and making them change policy is human right violations. Marriage is an institution founded on procreating and child rearing couples. Pro needs to demonstrate that same-sex marriage is being discriminated on. The male and female represent procreation and the biological function of mating. Pro tries to pull the institute of marriage away from raising and teaching children in a home with a mother and father. Pro needs to back up his argument. I send back to Pro.