Gay marriage is not a civil right

Abbreviations R1=Round 1 R2=Round 2 PR1=Pro' round 1 CR1=Con's round 1 C1 "Well first off, unlike in the Dred Scott case, the U.S. supreme court has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural … that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to promote responsible procreation and rearing of children." PR5 Two things 1.The Dred Scott argument was not about consistency it was proof that the supreme had in fact an immoral decision. So they are fallible if one looks above they will see this. 2.Pros theory of marriage is defined by a court in the U.S. I have shown that they are incredibly biased ( More on this later) "same sex couples still would not and cannot be married because it is impossible by nature. There is no such thing as gay marriage. What societies, religions, and governments (including our country) call "marriage" actually flows from our very human nature." PR5 1.His only source for this reasoning is the supreme courts who are biased based on their moral and religious grounds 2.For us to argue that gay marriage is a civil right or not means that to say its not a civil right is to implies that it exists. ( This should not be considered a new argument since it's a basic principle of logic. 3.There are governments that exist that accept gay marriage (THIS HAS GONE UN REFUTED) "Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden." http://en.wikipedia.org...... CR3 So these governments obviously have their own idea and definition of what gay marriage is. Why should we follow the United States definition only then? "This is why virtually every government in the history of the world even the most simple tribes and secular nations regulated marriage as defined." PR5 Look at #3 above "Since 2001," Really now? This fact has gone un-refuted and it is clear our definition of marriage is completely different. But governments above regulate marriage to allow same sex couples. "I have already explained how gays … are being treated equally and are not being denied anything in the first place. This is because gay and straight individuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex..." They are denied happiness, maybe freedom from oppression or the value of equality. Also since gay marriage exists (Above source) and your denying that from them too. "Cons objection is that separate but equal has been proven to not work out in the past… and CON does not bother to address my refutations on this. In this situation, we are dealing with the Sexes and/or a minority as well, So my argument stands without refutation." PR5 1.I rebutted this in CR4 so my opponent couldn't refute it till PR5 "does not bother to address my refutations on this" So what refutations did your offer? The only refutation is the one directly above so I didn't address any refutations cause they didn't exist 2.My argument is that separate but equal does not work you may try to be fair but one still denies a small group of people (homosexuals) rights held by normal people, so even though that is not discrimination ( According to the state.) It is still removing rights from a minority. Pro would tell you that this is in fact fair. PRO DROPS the Universal declaration of human rights thus proving that the UN and other governments believe in gay marriage thus proving the resolution false. CONTENTION 2 Below is his response to contention 2 "Just because the bible and religions also recognize a fundamental truth does not mean that this objective truth originated in the bible and religions. Marriage is a social institution that precedes state and church.... Is attempting to ensure the well-being of children a religious belief? the religious aspect of marriage is simply a secondary effect." PR5 1.Using the bible to move your decisions is in no way being OBJECTIVE (I should know I am an objectivist) You can't quote the bible then turn around and say that it has not influenced your decision. 2."Marriage is a social institution that precedes state and church." PR5 That is a new argument we have not discussed this at all. And he provides no evidence 3.Protecting children isn't a religious belief. But that clearly not why the court in every single one of your accounts disallowed gay marriage 4."The religious … effect." PR5 Religion should not be decided by the united states look below "In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." http://en.wikipedia.org...; CR3 (THIS HAS GONE UN-REFUTED) So our First amendment clearly states that the even if religion is the secondary affect ( Which in reality it is not) It's not the government's duty to force religion on to people. So all the attacks against Contention 2 fail Since it is not the government's duty to dabble in religious matters according to our constitution THIS WAS NEVER REFUTED. C3 "It still does not follow that the state would be imposing this belief by merely referencing the definition of marriage. …which encourages us to procreate inside a marriage and not outside of it, is not imposing a morality anymore than our understanding that green light means "go" and red light means "stop" is imposing a morality." PR5 1.Just because the state has 1 definition of marriage does not mean it applies everywhere. If one looks through Pros entire case the only place this definition of marriage comes from is the court system which A.Does not do its job correctly since its strayed from our constitution B.It uses religion to influence its decisions results in a biased system C.It is imposing its own version of morality In no way protecting life liberty and property thus if it is using its own morality it is going against the good of the country. There are other countries that allow same sex marriage so thus PRO's definition cannot be applied everywhere. "is not imposing a morality anymore than our understanding that green light means "go" and red light means "stop" is imposing a morality." PR5 Stop lights protect your life the fundamental duty of a government is to protect its citizen's life that is why it is formed. A red light does not impose morality. It gives a warning : If you continue you will get hurt and could possibly die. That is the purpose of traffic lights TURN: As stated before how is the subject of banning gay marrage protect life liberty and property? It doesn't. My opponent states that it is the government's job to rear children in the correct place. One will find that is not in our constitution. (argument is from MY contention 2) "Instead, This is moral rule which can be applied in all circumstances (making it universalized) which is justified (not using others as a means only)." PR5 This sense of morality is the categorical imperative. This is a brand new argument and should be thrown from the round. Also PRO previously stated morality is derived from the state.. Also Immanuel Kant (Founder of the imperative) Also states that regardless of anything all human beings are entitled to equal rights. Also For the empirical studies of pro " He supposedly has two empirical sources ONE DOES not even mention homosexuals so it does not apply THE OTHER does not have any statistical evidence only proof that homosexual numbers are increasing. …SO THUS, same sex marriage does not destroy the family as my opponent would say" CR4 this attack went undefeated Voters 1.)I have won the debate on the definition of marriage 2.)PRO drops the universal declaration of human rights and The argument of Thomas Jefferson so C1 AND C2 stand undefeated 3.)Since I have negated the all counter arguments all of my contentions still stand 4.)I have left PRO with no room to stand on.