Kleptin Tourney: This House Would Legally Recognize Homosexual Marriages

Thanks, Pro. 1A. Re: Equality My opponent begins by noting, "Now, my opponent continually denies that civil unions are marriages." I would like to clarify something that has supposedly been misinterpreted or misconstrued (as you can tell from the Comments Section of this debate). I stand by the fact that civil unions are NOT legal marriages. Under the dictionary definition provided, marriage is strictly limited to occur between a man or a woman (definition 1). The second notation of marriage Pro refers to notes, "a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage." However, that very definition itself specifically states that gay marriage is a SIMILAR institution to marriage, indicating that it's NOT marriage. So, we can take the notation of "gay marriage" being referred to as a similar institution to mean that 'gay marriage' is strictly 'marriage' between gays in a social sense - not a legal sense. Pro's affirmation of gay marriage being 'similar' to marriage acknowledges that the two are not the same. Furthermore, gay marriage and/or civil unions do NOT offer the same rights, privileges and benefits as (heterosexual) marriage. Thus, the two are not the same thing - they're merely similar. To clarify, marriage is an institution limited to a man and a woman. A similar institution to marriage that is available to same-sex couples are called civil unions. However, civil unions are not LIMITED to homosexuals like marriage is to heterosexuals; a straight couple can indeed obtain a civil union. That is why Pro's contention that civil unions = homosexual marriages are wrong. Civil unions can NOT be defined as homosexual marriages (since heterosexuals can obtain them). The way to properly define a civil union is exactly how I presented it: a union similar to marriage afforded to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. A direct quote I used in R1 explains, "When gay couples join in a similar union, it is called a 'civil union' and not a marriage." Nowhere in that description did I say that heterosexuals could not get one; indeed I explained in the last round how heterosexuals CAN get one. So as you can see, any and every attempt my opponent makes to straw man me falls flat. Everything that I have said about marriage and CU's is correct, and I find this focus on semantics to be a gigantic distraction from the debate at hand (he used a good 5 paragraphs desperately trying to present a contradiction that does not exist), though I expected nothing less. 1B. Re: Sexism Pro continues to post the exact same argument repeatedly regardless of how many times I have specifically addressed it. His argument reads, "A man cannot marry a man, but a woman can. Only a certain gender (female) can marry men. Not every gender is free to marry men. That's sexism. Simple enough." Now instead of wasting time repeating myself, I will merely copy and paste the same exact thing I have been saying for the past 2 rounds: "Marriage laws would only discriminate based on gender if they prohibited a certain gender from having them. Every gender is free to marry and utilize marriage. However, they are not permitted to marry someone of the same gender and have it CALLED marriage, because it wouldn't be marriage - it would be something else. Just as everyone would have the equal right to marry regardless of gender, they would have the equal right to obtain a civil union regardless of their gender. In other words, everyone has the right to enter into a similar legal commitment and receive the same benefits; however, what that commitment is called is based on who they choose to be with." As you can see, I have already addressed the sexism argument - twice - and my answer is still the same and has yet to be successfully refuted. 2. Re: STDs Here Pro begins this by saying, "Extend the solid argument that civil unions are marriages." This is laughable to me; I don't know how many times I have to explain that civil unions are not marriages. If civil unions were marriages, they would be called marriages - not civil unions. Civil unions are not marriages because (a) CU's can be granted to both homosexual and heterosexual couples - marriages can not; (b) CU's are not regarded the same as marriage in terms of government benefits, afforded the same rights, etc. Thus, civil unions are not marriages. Moving on, I will copy and paste Pro's arguments about why granting gay marriage (i.e. extending marriage rights to homosexuals) will somehow prevent the spread of STDs. Pro writes, "A legally recognized marriage would help create a sense of commitment among homosexual partners. This would naturally make them less inclined to cheat on their partners, or visit prostitutes. Both of these activities contribute to the spread of STDs, which makes the world generally less safe to live in." So let's dissect these assertions one by one since I have already addressed them all but somehow Pro's understanding was distorted. First, why should we assume that legally recognized marriages would create a sense of commitment among gays that would prevent them from cheating? For one thing, gays have a long history of solid, monogamous relationships regardless of whether the government considers them "marriage" or not. Second, I have presented evidence that 60% of heterosexual married males cheat on their spouse. Thus, we have no reason to believe that putting a title on a relationship will give gay men an incentive not to stray when the title does not seemingly help straight males. And finally, I have explained that it is not the government's job to force citizens to take mandatory STD tests as a requirement for marriage; that is intrusive and unconstitutional. People are responsible for their own bodies and sexual acts. 3. Re: Why Not? Pro's only 'argument' here reads: "This is pretty much irrelevant, given that civil unions are marriages, regardless of what the government calls it." Since this is entirely wrong and I have explained why, please extend my other third point argument. 4. Re: Marriage and Govt. Pro says, "I stated that she should be arguing AGAINST her old arguments" here which is non-sensical. Pro presented my old arguments to me and I have refuted them. My 4th argument was a contention on my part to help my negative side of the debate; nowhere do the rules say that I cannot introduce new arguments as that is to be expected since we have to argue an entire new side of the debate. Nevertheless, Pro writes that he would be in favor of eliminating tax breaks for homosexual couples though gay couples should be afforded other privileges, such as being able to open up joint bank accounts, visit gay partners in the hospital, etc. First, two people of any gender or sexuality can open up a joint bank account together rendering this example useless. Second, all of these privileges can be made simply by obtaining legal documentation listing anyone as your "power of attorney" in case of a death or medical emergency. In other words, even though I cannot marry my girlfriend, I can still put her in charge of my person, estate, etc. simply by seeing a lawyer. Seeing a lawyer to do this is not any more difficult than seeing a priest or judge to be married. I will concede that I did not provide a direct link to the constitution in my last round; I could not afford the characters. However, Pro cannot simply deem my analogy flawed because he thinks "murder" is too extreme and uses "stealing" in its place instead. Regardless of how you look at the analogy - either with stealing or murder - my analogy is still valid. If Pro steals from me - and stealing is wrong - then I should not be able to steal from Pro just because he stole from me. So here I am not making any new argument; I am simply explaining why my old argument was correct and Pro's logic was - not shockingly - flawed. Please extend all my R2-3 arguments. /Characters