Same-sex Marriage

EVERYTHING WAS EDITED FOR CHARACTERS. Rebuttal 1: A. Despite civil unions being given all of the rights of marriage, their rights don't travel from state to state... this is very preventable and unjust. What if the couple decides to move? This happens commonly. Why should gays have to worry about this and deal with it, but straights don't? B. A significant percentage of employers fail to recognize civil unions. This denies gay couples in civil unions guaranteed marriage benefits. You should not have to change your job just to get recognized as a couple who wants to share their lives together. Do you not understand how hard it is to just 'get another job'? Some people have been trying to get another job (or a job at all) for years, but they are stuck at where they were. Most of the 14% are stuck as not being in a legal partnership as far as their employers are concerned. Again, why should straights not have to worry about this, but gays do? This is inequality. C. It doesn't even bear the same name as marriage. Imagine being called an 'ape' but getting all the rights of humans (except 14 percent of people don't recognize you as a human and your human rights don't travel from state to state). It's unfortunate I've had to repeat the same thing three rounds in a row, but my opponent fails to give a competent argument against it, so this point goes to Pro. Again: Marriage is a basic human right. Marriage is supposed to be based around the characteristics of love, passion, companionship, spiritual, etc. If one person is more than anything else in the world to you, you love them, and you have a spiritual, passionate, relationship, then I would reckon it is a human right to be with that person and have specific human rights that are given to this spiritual companionship. Obviously we can both agree that straights should be able to get married, but again, we can both admit that *some* straights are taking marriage for granted! Fifty percent divorce rate. This is far from being sacred. Rebuttal 2: Socialinqueery.comYeah, your first link isn't valid because it was written by ONE woman and it was based off of her opinion only.Freerepublic.com This is equally invalid as your last link. It was written by five or six men and it was based off of their findings and no one else's. Your assertion that gays choose to be gay is still unproven on your part. Www2.nau.edu I found this on the homepage of the website you used: Materials presented on these pages reflect solely the opinions of the individuals, and do not necessarily reflect those of Northern Arizona University. Interesting. Rebuttal 3: Easily refuted. One member of a gay relationship can simply ask a close female friend to be a surrogate mother, while a lesbian couple can do the opposite. That's “natural”. OR: They can adopt a child in need that wouldn't get love otherwise. The fact that they can't have biological children is completely irrelevant to the argument in the first place so I have no idea why I have put my time and effort into rebutting this claim. Both options sound fine to me regardless. And some animals are entirely gay! Many animals have homosexual tendencies (not bisexual). Some are monogamous, too. Such as two female Swans, Romeo and Juliet. (They were named before they found both were female). They cannot make a conscious decision and are merely reacting to their homosexual urges. These two did not procreate with the male gender either. http://www.mombian.com... Rebuttal 4: I admit I screwed up there. We all make mistakes. When I was researching things on gay marriage I would occasionally read studies for the Con side out of curiosity and preparation for possible rebuttals to come. I would have up to six or seven tabs up on my computer at once. I must have misclicked and accidentally used that link in place of another. I had no intention of posting it, and I have always believed that study isn't credible for reasons stated in the last round. I would like the voters to dismiss this mistake as I had absolutely no intention of posting that link. I knew it was stupid to begin with. Hopefully one tiny mistake won't determine the outcome of this debate. Rebuttal 5: I should start reviewing what I write a bit better... That Church dismissing blacks as cursed thing was meant to revolve around the racism not the Churches. It seems so far you've broken far more rules so I have nothing to fret over. I never said interracial marriage had anything to do with the bible. I can give you other examples: Blacks used to be slaves to whites in the early days of America. Women weren't allowed to vote. Only white males have ever been president before 2008. Seemed a bit limited, doesn't it? I'm going under the assumption that my opponent believes that a non white male can run the country as good as a white male. Why is it different for gays? Have you ever heard of separation of Church and state? Religious marriage is a subset of marriage. Gays can get married by the state, not the Church. We are in the US where religion can't play a part in passing laws such as these regardless. Therefore plenty of marriage is non religious, so your argument is invalid and greatly misinformed. My point is, there are many points in history where there are gross injustices toward a certain group of people simply because they are different and people (such as yourself) are afraid of acceptance and change. (Gay marriage wouldn't significantly change anything anyway but only gives a basic right to a group of people). Whenever we give basic rights to that group it only benefits and furthers society. Rebuttal 6: Think of all the people married for less than a single year. Sacred?.Yet a gay couple who have been facing prejudice for the last 40 years, have stuck together, and love each other, but can't get married. Marriage is no longer sacred. If that gay couple were to get married, giving them the basic human right they deserved in the first place, justice would be served. Keep in mind being gay is not a mental illness! So your argument of 'what's next' is invalid. They are just as likely to be fully functioning, successful members of society as straights. I stated why it wasn't sacred earlier in this round and in round three, too. Which I've now refuted three times while you fail to give a competent response.“You know what isn't justice? One percent of the world's population commanding at least 45% of the world's population. If you view that as justice, you have a pretty weird mind.” -Con This argument doesn't even make sense. This is for the United States only. I stated this in the first round. How are gays commanding 45% of the world's population? That doesn't even make any sense! As I explained before they deserve to be in a legal relationship. Earlier in this debate I explained why allowing gay marriage is, indeed, justice. Again religious marriage is a subsetof marriage. Considering more than half of Americans are for gay marriage and most Americans are Christian, that means that plenty of Christians are for gay marriage or they don't care! Therefore your argument is, once again, invalid.Rebuttal 7:“Again, refer to my previous arguments. You would choose to be gay out of rebellion, statement, and wanting to be a woman.” -Con Once again, no credible sources and is simply based off of homophobic prejudice.Rebuttal 8:“Again, if my source is not valid, then why did you try to use one of mine to use for your argument? That removes one of your sources, and CBS is one of the first three T.V stations and you are telling me that this is invalid. I sense that there is something wrong here.” -Con Read rebuttal four for me using the link.WHOA! You got one link supporting your opinion from one source fromone TV station that was done from onegroup! And the station is around the same age as my multiple news stations support me! You must be right! Not. And you even got one from a website no one's ever heard of! Wow thanks for enlightening me. It's also based around a Republican family council! There must be no bias on that website at all! I guess I'll start believing anything I hear from a popular network! I sense that there is something that is screwing up my opponent’s logic.“Not the majority, but there are still some that do. Think, you are gay, if your child wants to be straight. Are you going to think nothing of it, or do something? Again, some children become gay because of their guardians influence saying that gay is good.” -Con What proof do you have that gay parents would want their children to be gay? More prejudice from you. Tisk, tisk. The only support you have are from links that are not credible from earlier. Original argument rebuttals:Rebuttal 9:I'm assuming my opponent is talking about gay being a choice? I already dealt with that, too.Rebuttal 10: Dealt with. (Civil unions).Rebuttal 11: Hmm... Um... you do realize that I won't be able to respond to that rebuttal after this round since it is my last round of responding, right? You're openly claiming that you'll only post your argument after I am unable to refute shows desperation in winning and cowardice on your part. Rebuttal 12: Read rebuttal four.Rebuttal 13: Opponent conceded. Rebuttal 14: All of your information on this relies on one link that is invalid. He also used the same link that is useless and has been used by him multiple times and the link to google.com that simply says 'American'. The other link is moot as it merely states the gay population for a cause I refuted earlier in this round.Rebuttal 15: It would affect them positively. Check my previous arguments and rebuttals.“However, the voice of the people isn't always the wise choice.” -Con My opponent basically concedes this part. I gave proof that most Americans are Pro gay marriage and he simply refuted it without any logic and proof because he could not come up with a better rebuttal.