Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

Before we begin, I'd like to make a few clarifications regarding the resolution. First, I'd ask that my opponent avoid any semantics arguments (i. e. Gay Marriage is already legal in SOME states, etc. ) as the resolution implies legalization of gay marriage at the federal level. Second, the resolution also implies that gay marriage should be recognized in the U. S. so long as heterosexual marriage is legally recognized. In other words, my opponent should not put forth the argument that marriage in general should not exist in the first place, or that it's merely a state of mind (as opposed to a legally recognized binding). That said, I hope we can agree on the simple definition of Gay Marriage to mean the legal binding between people of the same sex. Let's begin. CONTENTIONS: 1) Sex vs. Gender 2) Minority Discrimination 3) Marriage vs. Religion 4) Civil Unions vs. Marriage 5) Sanctity of Marriage 6) Family Values 1) I'd like to begin by clarifying the differences between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological differences that make people either male or female, while gender describes cultural aspects of masculinity and femininity. In other words, a person of the male sex can identify with the female gender. As such, he can live his life as society would expect a woman to live their life, by dressing, talking, and even acting like a woman or in a feminine matter. By law, this feminine man can legally marry another woman regardless of how feminine he behaves or identifies (i. e. transvestites). Con must explain why it is the biological chromosomes and not personal characteristics or traits that are paramount in determining the law. 2) Not legalizing gay marriage is a form of minority discrimination. As new information about homosexuality emerges (i. e. the discovery of so-called gay genes and other biological evidence that homosexuality is not a choice), and exposure to forthcoming heterosexuality increases, society is becoming more accepting of the gay lifestyle and aware that homosexuals are people with the same rights as everybody else. The government believes that people have the right to marry, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Con must explain why this right applies only to people who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex. Con must also explain why it is acceptable to discriminate against people based on sex when it comes to marriage, but why it remains illegal in other institutions such as employment via the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 3) Opponents of gay marriage offer that marriage is a religious ritual and as such the government has no right to legislate what is and is not considered to be marriage. However, the spiritual contract of marriage carries with it a legal binding, meaning that it is most definitely the government's business. While most denominations do not condone gay marriage, some churches and religious institutions DO recognize same-sex unions, whereas the federal government still does not. In choosing which unions it does and does not uphold, the government is discriminating based on religion which is unconstitutional. Additionally, whatever is considered "God's will" is irrelevant in a democracy such as the United States which supports a separation between Church and State. I'm assuming I don't have to structure an argument about which "God" the government is required to obey supposing my opponent would dare to disagree with this obvious separation. In other words, one can morally be opposed to gay marriage based on their specific beliefs via their religion; however, expecting a government to use those religious beliefs in legislation is entirely immoral, anti-democratic and contrary to the founding principles of the United States. 4) To rectify the issue of religious marriages verses federally recognized unions, the government has proposed a mockery of the marriage institution otherwise known as Civil Unions. Many ignorant Americans assume that Civil Unions and Gay Marriage are synonymous; however, they are grossly misinformed. Marriage carries with it over 1,050 state and federal benefits, whereas Civil Unions only receive 300 benefits at the STATE level (and not every state has legalized civil unions, making this point almost obsolete). Thus civil unions are deprived of 750 benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. So what exactly does this all mean? In our society, when people marry it is typically out of love and commitment. However having a ceremony is not enough; legal rights should be extended to couples who have accepted this commitment. Some examples of civil union verses marriage benefits can be seen when we look at things like TAX RELIEF (marriage couples can file for state *and* federal tax breaks, whereas people with CU's can only apply for state benefits); MEDICAL DECISIONS (couples with CU's can only make emergency medical decisions in the state of which they live and were married); DEATH BENEFITS (a marital spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits, whereas CU partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death); CHILD SUPPORT (CU partners are not required to pay child support payments if they move out of state); etc. Con has the burden of proving why these benefits should only apply to those within heterosexual marriages, despite the equal love and commitment present in partners who happen to be of the same sex. 5) Some people think that gay marriage would eliminate the so-called sanctity of marriage. In a country where a heterosexual can get married at any point in time for whatever reason (including intoxication), I'd like for someone - anyone - to explain how legalizing same-sex marriage would devalue the marriage of any other couple. Marriage is supposed to be about commitment, and yet Britney Spears was able to engage in a 55-hour long union while gay couples who have spent decades together are not able to legally wed. The point is, the divorce rate in this country is at an all-time high and that's while gay marriage is still prohibited. TIME magazine recently published an article on the rate of infidelity among married couples rising drastically, again while gays have nothing to do with this dilemma. By recognizing same-sex unions, no statement is being made about the sanctity (or lack thereof) amongst heterosexual couples. Nobody is being negatively affected. 6) Similarly, some people cite family values as a reason to be against gay marriage; however, I'd suggest the opposite: allowing same-sex marriages shows children that everyone regardless of sex, gender or sexuality is capable of love and commitment. It would also decrease discrimination and hate crimes against homosexuals; children would be taught from an early age that sexual differences are acceptable within society. Moreover, gay individuals are having children whether people like it or not (via in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc. ). If gay marriage were legalized, same-sex adoption would increase thereby providing good homes to orphans who need the love, care and protection of decent parents. Additionally, it would alleviate some of the funding necessary by the State to house all of these orphans, making it economically beneficial as well (as an added bonus). CONCLUSION: A plethora of evidence supports that people don't choose to be gay, meaning to deny them basic marriage rights is blatant and unlawful discrimination. However even if it WAS a personal choice, Con has the burden of proving why this lifestyle choice in particular warrants discrimination, even while gay individuals are required to abide by the same laws and pay the same (more) taxes as every other American. I have proven that there are only benefits to legalizing gay marriage, whereas there are detriments in not doing so. Back to Con.