Gay marriage is not a civil right

I want to add something that I may not have been clear about before. The nature of my arguments can apply anywhere in the world because I don't just say that gay marriage is not a civil right merely based on what the government and courts have randomly declared. I explain the moral and philosophical aspects behind it. For example, from the Universal Declaration of Human rights: "Article 16 1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a FAMILY. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 3.The FAMILY is the NATURAL and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. "[1] (If you noticed, it never said without any limitation due to GENDER and the ARTIFICIAL family) Therefore, Gay marriage is not a civil right because the purpose of civil marriage involves the procreation and rearing of children. Its something that only a man and woman can do. This is why civil marriage is a civil human right. In addition, since this is what civil marriage "is", it logically follows that gay marriage cannot be an equal right as well. CON'S CONTENTION: "To say that marriage laws are in place to shape culture and conduct is similar to saying that the government supports drunk driving as a result of ending alcohol prohibition." let me clear up the argument I made before. Our marriage laws regulate opposite-sex relationships by establishing a baseline definition of who is married. As a by-product, it provides a shared framework of concepts such as adultery, remarriage, divorce, etc. to be understood. Moreover, We come to know how these choices and situations can be detrimental for families as a result. Although, as a secondary effect, marriage does provide incentives and disincentives; the idea of marriage and the other social institutions that are associated with it do not require people to use them by the state as CON is implying. Primarily, it is the very existence and understanding of these social institutions, the social exchange, and the government's reinforcement of these social rituals that combine to make it seem reasonable and even natural for people to apply these concepts. For example, The mere appearance of a green/ red traffic signals helps us know when to make the right choice to drive so drivers won't harm themselves and others. This is done to maintain order in the public arena. Is this also a situation where the state is imposing someone's morality? I think not. CON'S SECOND CONTENTION: "No evidence supports the view that the ideal gender mix of parents is a man and a woman" Well first off, I was not trying to argue that straight parents are better than gay parents in the first place. I was just stating that this is part of the purpose of marriage and it does not refute the claim that two biological married parents are the ideal partnerships for heterosexuals. This is because step parents married has been shown to be harmful and less desirable. So this is why the state's interest is a combination of encouraging couples to procreate inside a marriage and rear children naturally, which is two biological married parents. GAY SO-CALLED MARRIAGE IS DETRIMENTAL TO SOCIETY In the previous rounds, My arguments established the "is" portion by showing that gay marriage "is" not a civil right. Now, we are at the "ought" portion regarding public policy and legislation. I will explain why it should not be made into a civil right as part of why its not a civil right. Civil rights are about fairness and justice. They govern behavior to make sure we have order[2]. The concept of gay marriage does not provide fairness nor is just and it potentially creates disorder if we consider making it into a Civil right. LONG TERM EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE The Social ramifications: Based on the arguments and studies I mentioned in Round 1&2 involving the promotion of non-traditional views of marriage and discouraging traditional views of marriage as well; it logically follows that vulnerable future generations, will be programmed to formulate choices (like divorce, fatherlessness, etc) that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general as a result. Legal ramifications: The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parental laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and parental consent laws in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws". [3] THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE This new law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this and reject their own beliefs that reflect objective (not subjective) reality in the process or else live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly impose their convoluted notion of equality and human rights. Nevertheless, these immediate effects of redefining marriage will also give us more reasons to believe the long term effects are inevitable: Schools: In 2006, the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children. Media: "The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it." Businesses: The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals' preferences when it comes to dating services in California. The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to accommodate homosexual married couples to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather than go against their deep held beliefs. In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception. Now, I have explained how gay marriage is not a civil right based on the "is" and the "ought". CON must provide a compelling state reason for how redefining the purpose of marriage benefits society as a whole. However, even if he was successful in providing an argument for gay marriage, the benefits would have to outweigh or at least equal the costs for gay marriage to be considered a civil right as its defined. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.law.harvard.edu...