Gay Marriage

PRO CASE Civil Rights Here my opponent confuses natural rights and civil rights. Natural rights are rights that are gained simply by being a member of humanity [1]. All humans have these natural rights. These rights include Life, Liberty, and property. Civil rights, as I explained in the previous round, are rights that are gained by being a member of a society. An example of civil rights is voting rights. Voting rights are positive rights: the government takes action so that it is possible for people to vote. Marriage, as a legal institution, is also a civil right. Marriage as simply a declaration of mutual love and commitment is indeed an extension of the natural right to Liberty. The reason marriage as a legal institution is a civil right is because legal unions are not something entitled to every member of humanity, but they are something entitled to societies that recognize marriage as a legal institution, rather than simply a social one. Therefore, while her comments on marriage being a negative right are correct regarding marriage as a social institution (a natural right), they are not correct regarding marriage as a legal institution (a civil right). This misunderstanding of the difference between civil and natural rights has led my opponent to the false conclusion that legal unions are an extension of the natural right to liberty, when in fact they are not natural rights at all. While Con did challenge the second premise of my logic, she did not actually address the logic I used to defend this premise. Her rebuttal was based on a flawed understanding of natural and civil rights, and when viewed in light of the actual meaning of civil rights, my conclusion that gay marriage is a civil right remains standing. Benefits of Marriage My opponent next addressed my argument that the government should provide equal benefits to same-sex marriages. Her argument is that "Homosexuals are not producing more children fro society when they are engaged in gay relationships, so gay marriages do not deserve these benefits." While it is true that a homosexual couple cannot produce a child independently, homosexuals can still produce and raise children for society. 1. With today’s technology, a heterosexual union is no longer needed for procreation. In vitro fertilization, sperm donations, and surrogate mothers makes it possible for homosexuals to bring new children into the world and to raise those children. 2. Adoption also allows homosexual couples to give children that have already been created a good home. This gives homosexual couples a valuable role in society. These two reasons do provide solid justification for giving gay couples these benefits. Giving these benefits to homosexual couples may encourage them to engage in the aforementioned actions that provide benefits to society. My opponent continues to say "I’m sure my opponent will pull out some benefit that isn’t necessary for child-producing couples who have not received recognition from the state, but that is irrelevant because we can simply eliminate those benefits or extend them to couples who have not received recognition from the state." As Con so kindly pointed out, there are numerous benefits that are given to heterosexual couples that have nothing to do with procreation. In fact, all of the benefits that I mentioned in R2 are not related to the act procreation. My opponent brings up two possibilities: 1. To eliminate those benefits, or 2. Extend those benefits to couples that are not recognized (i.e. homosexual couples). 　 Option 1 is not desirable as it would mean the elimination of such benefits as making medical decisions for a spouse if he or she becomes unable to do so, receiving equitable division of property if a divorce occurs, and visiting benefits in a hospital, jail, etc. where only immediate family is allowed. These are just a few examples, among others. This leaves us with option 2, extending those benefits to gay couples. This would mean a change in the status quo, which is what I am arguing for. My case is that same-sex couples ought to receive these benefits, and my opponent agrees with me! The best way to give these couples access to these benefits is to recognize their relationship with marriage. Finally, I believe my opponent and I can agree that my point about marriage benefiting families, although correct, is irrelevant in a discussion on legal unions. CON CASE My opponent’s sole contention is that it is unjust to give legal marital recognition to same-sex couples because their union does not benefit society as much as heterosexual unions. Unfortunately, in much of her arguments, Con only presents bare assertions without any reason to accept them as true. A prime example of this is her observation: "‘Marriage is fundamentally centered around procreative type acts.’" No reasoning why marriage is fundamentally centered around these type of acts is given, so there is no reason to accept the observation as accurate. Beyond the lack of reasoning given on my opponent’s part, I have some reasoning of my own contrary to this observation: the purpose of marriage is not child-creating, but rather child-raising. Creating a child means nothing, it is about whom the child becomes as a result of his or her upbringing that really makes a positive impact in a society. Same-sex couples are not only able to bring children into the world through the modern methods mentioned above, but also, and more importantly, to raise those children, or children others have created through adoption. Because of this, same-sex couples are able to have an impact that is just as positive on society as heterosexual couples, and therefore, their marriages should be recognized. 　 Con continues by saying that infertile couples are still capable of engaging in acts that are procreative in type. I would argue that the acts are not procreative in type if there is no chance that procreation will occur. My opponent differentiates between procreative in type and in effect, but, again, infertile couples have no chance of procreating, so the acts are not procreative in type. Next , Con provides five premises, all of which are simply bare assertions, except for the fifth premise which is supported by Con’s earlier discussion of justice. Her source for these five premises is a blog. Beyond the lack of reasoning to support the premises, the first premise is false: "Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has a special social value." As I explained in my case, heterosexual union is not the indispensable means by which humans come into existence. The existence of in vitro fertilization, sperm donations, and surrogate mothers, demonstrate the fallacy in this premise. Because of this fallacy, my opponent’s self proclaimed sole contention falls. 　 CONCLUSION In this round I have demonstrated that legally recognized marriage is a civil right, and same sex couples can obviously make the commitment to each other described in the definition of marriage that is described in R2. I also showed that the benefits provided to married heterosexual couples have nothing to do with procreation, therefore, they should be extended to same-sex couples. Finally, I have shown that my opponent’s sole contention unsound. I also presented reasoning explaining why gay unions can contribute as much to society as straight ones. My opponent herself seems to value justice above all else, and she herself contends that it is unjust to not treat equals as equals. Not recognizing gay marriage is unjust as it treats equals as unequals. Therefore, the resolution is upheld with flying colors. Source: [1]- http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...