Intermediate's Debate Competition R1: Legal/Civil Protection for LGBT Unions

Merry Christmas!In Round2 I argued that the benefits of extending legal and civil protection for same-sex unions outweigh the drawbacks for a number of reasons:Improved religious freedomImproved equality among citizensImproved health benefitsImproved legitimacy for the children of same-sex couplesImproved economic benefitsImproved civil benefitsImproved international relationsMy opponent's opening argument offered a significant degree of congruity with mine. We are in agreement that homosexuality ought not be criminalized in any jurisdiction. We agree that no religious institution should be required to sanctify unions that are not in accordance with the the tenants of any specific belief. We agree that LGBT unions should be celebrated by those who so wish, and we agree that homosexual couples should be permitted to adopt children.Our primary disagreement centers on the value of LGBT unions to the state and the improved degree of protection LGBT peoples might enjoy from those states that recognize same-sex unions.R1 Civil Unions vs. MarriageI note that Con has focused his argument almost exclusively on the institution of marriage. This is a bit of a "straw man" argument since Con's argues against only the most traditional and doctrinal form of union. For many people, the word "marriage" is itself a bridge too far. By way of example, here is a sampling of polls taken by Brigham Young University of the Utah electorate. We see here that even among the relatively conservative group of voters who belong to the Mormon Church, LGBT unions now enjoy majority support (62%) while the notion of granting legal marriage is only supported by 8%.[1] The legal distinctions between marriage and civil unions are hard to qualify because they vary by country and region. Nevertheless, most civil union law in the US is constructed to provide nearly every right and privilege granted to married couples, only withholding the religious and civil label "marriage." Now there are many gay marriage activists who will argue that a marriage in every respect but name should be rejected because it continues the institutionalization of discrimination. I am not one of those people and this argument does not insist on marriage as a a religious or civil label. To the extent that most civil union legislation offers significant improvement to the public benefits I listed, I support civil union protection even where the label of marriage is not proffered. In places like Utah, where the word "marriage" itself is the primary roadblock to improving the lives of LGBT people and their children, I say take the legal protections now. We can debate the cosmetics later or not at all. Since, for the purposes of this debate, civil unions are just as acceptable as marriage, Con's arguments must apply to civil unions as well as marriage. To the degree that Con might endorse civil unions without endorsing gay marriage, I will consider those endorsements concessions to my argument.R2 Procreation and ProgenyMy opponent and I are clearly at odds regarding the history and transformation of the institution of marriage. Con has offered one example from the Upanishads to support his perspective of marriage "a wilful self-sacrifice taken up for the BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN." I depicted marriage a primary socio-economic contract between two families which has evolved in some places into a primary love contract as a response to feminism. However noble the sentiments of Svetaketu, the idea of securing an abstract right for future children is not and has never been a principle factor driving the marriage contract. For most societies and governments, the securing of inheritance rights is a more important consideration, from which the notion of child legitimacy is derived, not the other way around. Certainly, in most historic cases, children were implicitly or explicitly owned by their parents until adulthood and could not be said to have any natural rights of their own, including the right to know who the true identity of their parents.Even so, the mission of securing a "stable environment" in which children may thrive is consistent with the promotion of LGBT unions.As discussed in round2, millions of children have been and continue to be raised by same-sex couples. Some children are adopted. Some children are the result of prior heterosexual coupling. Some children are the result of sperm donors, etc. Denying these children the opportunity to be raised by state-endorsed couples clearly destabilizes and in fact, explicitly stigmatizes the families of these as something "other than legitimate." If the goal of marriage is a stable environment for children, than the definition of marriage must be extended to encompass these children.R3 DivorceCon's divorce argument is his weakest rebuttal against LGBT unions. First, he has not documented or established by argument the ways in which divorce represents a "burden on the government" or "an intrusion of privacy." Second, he has not shown how these considerations might reflect on the endorsement of same-sex couples. What's the connection? Nevertheless, divorce is an inevitable flip-side of the right to marriage. Any couple granted the right to marriage should share the right to a no-fault divorce, including LGBT couples.R4 ProcreationCon made a number of arguments regarding procreation as the sacred and exclusive purpose for sex within the marriage: " if married couples are prohibited from sex that does not result in procreation, it is not discrimination against homosexuals as their marriage can never result in children." I'll take exception to this point of view from two perspectives.While baby-making is base function of sex as it found across biology, many higher mammals including humans also employ sex for pleasure and intimacy. The political and religious motivations for emphasizing baby-making are obvious: more citizens for the state, more congregants for the church. Political and religious views aside, most humans would admit that sex for pleasure or intimacy are also strong human drives with important biological benefits. Such basic psychological nourishment deserves some recognition by the state, if only to the extent that governments refuse to interfere.Furthermore, we have to recognize that times have changed. In a world with improved health, longevity, and agriculture, adherence to traditional views about procreation has resulted in a dangerous global overpopulation. Whatever the traditional political motivations, every modern state must recognize that lowering birth rates is strongly linked to improved national prosperity and sustainability. States need to find ways to reduce the size of the next few generations: supporting non-procreative sex and particularly endorsing LGBT unions can represent an important to this end.R5 RE: Homosexuals can still hold public celebrations, be faithful, adopt etc. but marriage need not be redefined to include them.I'll agree that marriage need not be redefined. If the definition of marriage is the sticking point, then let's set that semantic argument aside. But a public ceremony that does not include any of the protections of civil union is an empty celebration. A state that trusts same-sex couples to adopt their children, but refuses to enfranchise any of the important legal, financial, social, or civil protections that come with civil unions for those particular children is hypocritical and discriminatory. [1] http://utahdatapoints.com...