Homosexual Marriage

Rebuttal One:"I believe that the homosexuals' culture should have been the one that was protected. Hear me out on this one... What is the absolute problem of not calling [a union of a same-sex couple] marriage? That's the beauty of the thing! The homosexual community could have named it anything they wanted to. They weren't restricted to the bounds of just marriage."My opponent believes that to "protect" the culture of Homosexuals, we must refer to the union of a same-sex couple as something other than Homosexual Marriage. However, this is a blatant act of segregation. Nowhere does my opponent describe what he considers "homosexual culture," nor does he explain how opposite-sex marriage will "harm homosexual culture." Using another term to refer to the union between people of the same sex simply segregates the straight and homosexual community even moreso than it is now. Homosexual marriage activists do not want to attack straight people or their rights to be married. These people simply want homosexuals to be legally be protected under the same laws and rights that straight people have, specifically marriage.I would also like to analyze an article that my opponent introduced, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...;. This article, as my opponent summarizes, is about a homosexual man that does not advocate for homosexual marriage. This man is Doug Mainwaring. He argues that homosexual marriage is perverse and threatens to "adulterate" and "mutilate" the institution of marriage (S1). A brief look at the articles he has published easily shows that he is a highly religious man who bases most of his work around same-sex marriage. He has claimed things such as "Proponents of same-sex marriage haven’t won in the arena of ideas—they have won through manipulation and intimidation..." in his article, "Marriage, Marketing and Intimidation," (S2). It is clear that he defends his claims with religion, accusing it of being sinful, and against God's "gift" of marriage. Yet, he still openly admits that "Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many," (S3). Rebuttal Two:"Marriage is a privilege that is given to a man and woman who wish to spend the rest of their lives together with."My opponent claims that marriage is a privilege specifically given to a man and a woman. However, restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is clearly unconstitutional, as it violates the 14th Amendment. According to the 14th Amendment, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," (S4). Therefore, giving exclusive privileges to opposite-sex couples infringes on the 14th Amendment.Rebuttal Three:"This is the biggest issue with homosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with the homosexuals themselves, but with the government wanting more power in the average citizen's life. The real reason why the left pushed this agenda of homosexual marriage was to get more power over the religious systems... I am worried that the government will use that to its advantage to gain more power in the individual lives of the people they are governing. That religions will soon be forced to do these weddings despite the protection of the first amendment."My opponent's final point is focused around how homosexual marriage will not serve any positive purpose, and is, in fact, not even relevant to homosexuals, but instead acts as the next step for the government to infringe upon the rights of the people. He also talks about how legalizing homosexual marriage is an attack on religions, using hypothetical statements such as "what if it comes down to the day when religions aren't able to defend themselves?" My opponent uses the 1st Amendment, specifically the freedom to practice religious faith and expression, to support his argument.My opponent is implying that homosexual marriage is a malicious scheme to give the government more power, and to take away the power of the church. He also goes as far to say that homosexual marriage is hardly even relevant to homosexuals. Firstly, yes, the freedom to practice your faith is protected by the first amendment. He believes that, because many religions do not accept homosexual marriage, we must prohibit it. With that logic, we should forbid people to wear torn clothes such as ripped jeans, gold or pearl accessories, tattoos and wearing polyester or other fabric blends, being that it goes against the Bible (S5), yet we don't abide by these religious laws. Additionally, there are checks on how extensive the power of the church is. According to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," (S6). The Constitution guarantees religious people's right to believe in their religion freely and assemble, it stringently restricts religions from being an influence in politics. Therefore, the argument that homosexual marriage should be illegal on the account of how it infringes upon the rights of churches is countered by the Constitution. Furthermore, the act of legalizing gay marriage in America was not an act of control, but that of equality and the expansion of American people's civil rights.Conclusion:To summarize, my opponent made three arguments against the legalization of homosexual marriage: the "protection" of "homosexual culture," the belief that marriage is a "special privilege" exclusive to straight couples, and that legalizing homosexual marriage will allow the government to have more power and to infringe upon the rights of the people and religion. He used sources such as an article from Doug Mainwaring, biased writer and religious activist, and the First Amendment of the Constitution. Additionally, my opponent agrees with certain parts of my argument, saying "I do not believe homosexuality is 'immoral' in anyway and I understand that it is a natural, biological occurrence. I also believe that they are capable of raising children in the same fashion as a man and a woman could." He also seems to agree with my argument in that homosexual marriage will not attack the institution of marriage, as he says, "Now, most people might be thinking that I am going to argue that the culture of marriage should be the thing protected. This is wrong."Personally, I was confused during different parts of his argument. He believes that we should not refer to the union of homosexuals as "marriage," strictly for the homosexuals benefit. What benefit would alienating the homosexual community be to homosexuals? Many people advocate for homosexual marriage solely so that homosexuals are more equal to the straight community, not to be segregated from it. What I also find confusing is that my opponent clearly supports giving homosexual couples the benefits and implications of straight marriage, stating "They had their own culture: to be able to live under the same roof and get the same benefits as married couples could. What is the absolute problem of not calling it marriage?" and continues to boast about how "beautiful" it would be to call homosexual marriage something different.Sources:S1) http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...S2) http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...S3) http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...S4) https://www.law.cornell.edu...S5) http://list25.com...S6) https://www.constituteproject.org...