Gay marriage is not a civil right

I did not plagarize. This is my own work and I made the necessary citations. So I don't know what CON is talking about, he can't just make baseless assertions like this. Nevertheless,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. I explain the moral and philosophical aspects behind it. For example, from the Universal Declaration of Human rights: "Article 16 1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a FAMILY. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 3.The FAMILY is the NATURAL and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. " [1] (If you noticed, it never said without any limitation due to GENDER and the ARTIFICIAL family. Con even admitted that gay families are not naturally produced) Therefore, Gay marriage is not a civil right because the purpose of civil marriage involves the procreation and rearing of children. Its something that only a man and woman can do. This is why civil marriage is a civil human right. In addition, since this is what civil marriage "is", it logically follows that gay marriage cannot be an equal right as well. Let me explain how and why: EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Since civil marriage has always been defined between one man and one woman for responsible procreation and rearing of children, this is not about whether a law banning same sex marriage is constitutional or unconstitutional. The legal issue that is before us is whether traditional marriage laws are based on invidious, arbitrary, discrimination. Discrimination: " The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right." [2] 1. Sex Equality Bans on interracial marriage were about the segregation of protected classes ,which has been deemed in the Brown decision to be another form of discrimination. When it comes to the Sexes, The Supreme Court has never ruled integration to be a form of discrimination. Thus, there is no discrimination between the sexes because men and woman can equally marry someone of the opposite sex. 2. Sexual Orientation Equality Traditional marriage laws do not violate the equal protection clause because providing a separate institution like civil unions to same sex couples has been deemed constitutional on basis of sex (with some conditions of course). For example, We have separate but equal situations for men and women that permeate our country ranging from restrooms, the military, prisons, sport teams, and even separate but equal public schools. We have this even though women are a minority that historically have been discriminated against. In a case called Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia school District, the Supreme Court ruled, that "Separate" is essentially "Equal". As long as each gender equally has a choice in going to both schools for both genders and that, interests in creating separateness based on the biological differences grounded in sex and GENDER are a legitimate state interests.[3] In United States v. Virginia , the court agreed with this rationale as well: "Had Virginia made a genuine effort to devote comparable public resources to a facility for women, and followed through on such a plan, it might well have avoided an equal protection violation."[4]"it is not the 'exclusion of women' that violates the Equal Protection Clause, but the maintenance of an all-men school without providing any -- much less a comparable -- institution for women... It would be a sufficient remedy, I think, if the two institutions offered the same quality of education and were of the same overall caliber." Obviously, this is deemed constitutional because there is a fundamental difference between race and sex. This is why we no longer have bans on interracial marriage or have Jim Crow laws but still have and always accepted apartheid for the sexes and define marriage between one man and one woman. JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW Now, if they were being discriminated against, the existence of an infringing liberty or equal right would not automatically make a law unconstitutional. However, Let's pretend for the sake of argument we are discriminating on same sex couples or gay individuals. I will even pretend that they are a suspect class ,which would require passing strict scrutiny from my side. Even if this is the case, my arguments would still pass the strict scrutiny test and justify the discrimination. I showed earlier how there's a compelling state interest for traditional marriage laws; now I will show how they are fully narrowly tailored: GAY MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS PURPOSE My argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in law, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. There would be no reason to have public recognition of marriage. Let me explain precisely how and why: If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood. Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent, would decay and its effect would basically be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it would end up discouraging them as well. If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible. Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to continue advancing this interest. The state can use the traditional definition to encourage procreation and rearing of children to take place inside a marriage to each generation while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. JUSTICE is applied EQUALLY in each case. Now, I have established the "is" portion by showing that gay marriage "is" not a civil right. I will explain what we "ought" to do going forward regarding public policy and legislation in the next round. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [3] http://law.justia.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...