Legalization of Gay Marriage

Before I state my contentions, I must clash with my most worthy opponent.My RefutationsWhat is marriage? What is the right to marry?Con begins this refutation by asking a direct POI (Point of Information) :"What exactly is the right to marriage?" The right to marriage in legal terms is this: "the right to favorable treatment in tax, inheritance, insurance status, immigration rights, adoption and custody, decisional and visitation rights in healthcare and burial" etc. [1] Basically, the right to marry is to grant two homosexuals the same legal marriage benefits as heterosexuals. In an societal aspect, it's the right to declare love and commitment, while society dignifies that commitment. [1]Con then states that my third contention "Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations" is a non sequitur and that this is could be the same rational for letting a brother and sister get married. I think we need to clarify a few aspects of my argument. First of all, by love, I meant an intimate love that two homosexuals or heterosexuals share with each other. Haven't you seen Brookback Mountain? A brother and sister aren't sexually attracted to each other like heterosexuals or homosexuals. A brother and a sister aren't meant to share legal obligations with each other since they're from the same family. He also states that people can share rights and obligations without entering a marriage, however, civil unions aren't the same socially. Also, the Defense of Marriage Act prevents homosexual couples from receiving federal level benefits. There is also a number of states that don't recognie civil unions.[2]Therefore, I think we need to change my argument to : Two people who love and respect one another should be allowed to share rights and obligations equal to heterosexuals.Defining marriage as between a man & a woman (Procreative Argument)My opponent refers to classic, but highly flawed procreative argument to ban gay marriage. He quotes: "In other words, marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive." However, homosexuals can procreate. Gays can choose to adopt, while lesbians can adopt or have artificial insemination where it's legal. According to Urban Institute, 65, 000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with 14 000 foster homes headed by gays and lesbians.[3] Not only are gays helping our society, but they're helping internationally. According to an October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 60 percent of all lesbian and gay couples adopted across races, with more than half of them being special needs kids. In 2007, Urban Institute reported that more than half of gay men and 41% of lesbian women would like to adopt. [3] Not only is this procreating, but it's also giving special needs kids around the world a home.Second of all, marriage isn't all about procreating. Let's see how semantics will backfire on Con. According to Con, if a couple can't reproduce, then they shouldn't marry. Let me provide the hypothetical: If a sterile man loves a woman, but can't have kids, should they get married? If a man and woman can procreate but are occasionally physically abusive to each other, should they get married? After all, "The procreative act is at the heart of what marriage is." My opponent fails to provide evidence on why marriage is just about procreation. As I stated previously, marriage is also about love and the sharing of obligations. Legally, marriage is about "the right to favorable treatment in tax, inheritance, insurance status, immigration rights, adoption and custody, decisional and visitation rights in healthcare and burial". It's not all about procreation. Even if it was, I have proved that gays and lesbians can through artificial insemination and adoption. [3] [4]My ArgumentsGays raising kidsMy opponent accepts that sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting and that homosexuals can be just as good of parents as heterosexuals.Marriage is a Constitutional RightAgain, the 14th Amendment and the Universal Decleration of Human Rights actually state that homosexuals have the right to marriage. Homosexuals are granted equal rights as everyone else since the 14th Amendment states nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws in section one[5]. Basically, gays are given equal rights including marriage, equal to heterosexuals in the Constitution. The Universal Decleration of Human Rights also states that men and women of full age should be entitled to equal rights to marriage[6]. Therefore, we should abide by this and let them marry.Two people who love and respect one another should be able to share rights and obligations equal to heterosexualsCon uses semantics to dissaprove of my contention, however, the type of love I was talking about was the intimate love between spouses. In my opinion, I think it's rational to grant same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as heterosexual couples through marriage. Civil Unions don't convey the same rights, so homosexuals should have the right to marry as I've already defined. If gays benefit society just as much as heterosexuals, why shouldn't they be able to marry?Summary:1. Con's one and only contention is flawed in two ways as I've shown2. I've proven that homosexuals should be able to marry since it's a Constitutional right and that it's equality3. Homosexuals benefit society just as much as heterosexuals, therefore the should be able to share the same rights and obligations through marriage.Sources: http://www.dissentmagazine.org...;[1]http://divorcelawfacts.wordpress.com...;[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[3]http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...;[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[5]http://www.un.org...;[6]