Kleptin Tourney: This House Would Legally Recognize Homosexual Marriages

1A. Re: Equality My opponent's response has been a desperate reach for semantics, however, all attempts fail. Pro says, "My opponent 'obviously agrees' with extending the rights and privileges. .. " etc. Yes, Pro, I "obviously agree. " Did putting the fact that I "obviously agree" in quotations somehow make a point? I think not. Pro's whole argument here is, "If the same rights and privileges are involved in marriage and civil unions, then the two institutions are obviously very similar. " Obviously I am not denying that they are similar. Them being similar - i. e. granting equal rights - is the entire point. However for the reasons I mentioned in the previous round, calling the homosexual union very similar to marriage a 'civil union' under the law is the most beneficial for all of these reasons I mentioned and Pro seems to have ignored: "It keeps legal marriage between a man and a woman (appeasing conservatives and Christians); it gives gays equal marriage protection under a different term; and finally it allows gays to use their freedom of speech to call their union 'marriage' whether anybody else likes it or not. " Next Pro writes, "We know that we can't be talking about the first sub-definition of 'marriage' when we discuss 'homosexual marriage' because under the first sub-definition, 'homosexual marriage' cannot exist, leaving only the second definition, which pretty much IS a civil union. " I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what my opponent is talking about. I would like my opponent to clarify what this actually means, because to me it just seems like one run-on sentence that isn't actually making a point. Also, regardless of what my opponent is trying to say -- saying something is "pretty much" a civil union is not really relevant to this debate. I've said that civil unions ought to extend the same rights, privileges and benefits to homosexual couples that the concept of marriage is afforded to straight couples. Since there is no sense in changing the definition of the word marriage in the legal sense (see: apples and oranges example), then it makes sense to call the legal binding a 'civil union' and if gay couples want to call their civil union "marriage" in a social context, then it would be okay because they have that right thanks to the wonderful concept of free speech. With my proposal, everybody wins. Pro concludes this portion of his argument by saying, "My opponent agrees with the legalization of civil unions, and civil unions are, by definition, homosexual marriages, so my opponent agrees with the resolution, a fatal mistake for PRO. " However, that is not the definition of civil union that I have provided, nor has my opponent provided that definition to me. In fact, the definition of civil unions that I provided as determined by Wikipedia (to which Pro has not contended, and which it would be too late to in the last round) specifically notes a civil union as a, "legally recognized union SIMILAR to marriage. " In other words, Pro's notation that civil unions = homosexual marriage is actually something he just made up for his own convenience. Furthermore, there are indeed jurisdictions in which civil unions are granted to OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES [1]. Therefore, Pro's statement that I made a "fatal mistake" is actually quite false; he is the one in making the mistake in implying that civil unions means "homosexual marriage. " In fact, it simply refers to a legal union similar to marriage. Therefore, Pro's argument fails. 1B. Re: Sexism First, Pro insists that marriage discriminates based on gender. It is a complete waste of my character space to force me to repeat the same arguments as I did in the last round (bad conduct). As I said in R2, marriage laws would only discriminate based on gender if they prohibited a certain gender from having them. Every gender is free to marry and utilize marriage. However, they are not permitted to marry someone of the same gender and have it CALLED marriage, because it wouldn't be marriage - it would be something else. Just as everyone would have the equal right to marry regardless of gender, they would have the equal right to obtain a civil union regardless of their gender. In other words, everyone has the right to enter into a similar legal commitment and receive the same benefits; however, what that commitment is called is based on who they choose to be with. Pro also says, "my opponent cannot make a distinction between civil unions and marriages, and then claim that civil unions are equal to marriages. " However, I never said that civil unions were equal to marriages. I said that they were SIMILAR, and then I explained their similarities (same rights, privileges, etc. ) and differences (based on the gender of people entering the union). Pro is completely ignoring and straw manning my arguments. 2. Re: STDs Pro's statistic about married couples is irrelevant. People aren't happier and healthier because they're in a commitment called marriage; they're better off because of their commitment itself - not the title of their commitment. Therefore saying that couples have to be married in order to receive the benefits of married couples (non-legal) is bad logic. Also, Pro claims that the government tries to protect heterosexuals from STDs through marriage. However, you'll notice that Pro has not provided a source proving that this is true. Instead, I will contend that the government mandates blood tests to people who want to seek marriage; however, that in no way implies that they're trying to "protect" people from GETTING the STDs; instead they just want to mandate that people know if they HAVE or if their partner already has an STD. So overall, all of this logic fails. Pro also never responded to my point about how marriage doesn't stop men from straying, nor did he comment on the fact that lesbians are by far the lowest demographic with STDs. 3. Re: Why Not Pro says that not all marriages are religious. This is irrelevant; I never implied that all marriages are religious. I said some people consider marriage to be a religious ordeal, therefore calling homosexual commitments "civil unions" appeases them. Though of course, gays can call their commitment whatever they want (free speech). Pro also questions, "Additionally, many Americans used to have problems with inter-racial marriages. Would this be justification to not label such marriages as marriages? " The answer is no, because marriage is never and was never defined as the union between people of the same race. However, marriage WAS/IS defined as a man and a woman, therefore this point is also irrelevant. 4. Re: Marriage and Government Pro states, "The entire purpose of this debate is for my opponent to go devil's advocate against a position that she holds. " This is INCORRECT and a straw man of the tournament's parameters. This debate is not about going against a position that we hold; it's about going against a position that we have debated and won in the past. Fortunately for me, I agree with everything I have said in this debate - especially the part about non-legalized marriage for both gays and straights (this contention). I do not believe that the government has any place in marriage whatsoever. However, I frequently argue in favor of gay marriage on this site. What we debate does not always line up with what we believe, therefore Pro is taking the tournament out of context. Furthermore, he says that my last argument should not be included because I did not argue this position in the past. I believe that this is the most ridiculous thing said, as clearly I have not mentioned this in my previous debate because I WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RESOLUTION. In short, Pro completely ignored one of my strongest contentions for absolutely no reason. Extend it. / Character Space, Thank you. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...