Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts

Thank you for your response :) While the stated topic was, "Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts," it was clarified in R1 to be about the root issues behind same sex marriage, and the change in legal rights accordingly. The topic, limited by character count, was by necessity somewhat vague, however, I expanded that with the statement, "Essentially, I feel that it is unethical to change someone's legal rights according to what biological sex they were determined to be at the time of birth." Considering that this made very clear in the proposal argument, I say it is fair that this be used as the actual basis of the debate. As stated in R2, I have no objection to the abilities of individuals or groups to selectively engage in legal contracts. Contracts which can have limits according to specific individuals, or classes of individuals, as long as such limitations are regulated by the government to ensure no discrimination. The stated issue is the right of the government to change the legal rights of individuals based on their birth sex. Answers: 1. I do believe it should be legal for someone to specify what sexual characteristics are required, in certain, limited types of contracts. For instance, specifying a female stripper is entirely reasonable. I do not, however, feel that the government should be able to say that a male, for instance, cannot legally become a stripper. And to forestall a potential rebuttal, semantics are beside the point. If you define a job as "male only," then of course, by definition, a female cannot partake of that role. However, the job itself should be legally available to anyone who can meet that job's requirements. 2. Yes. However, in the instance of childbirth, the mother tends to have significant physical impairments that the father does not. In instances of actual childbirth, I feel the woman should receive additional time off - what amounts to a specialty sick leave. However, beyond this additional leave, which would not apply in cases of adoption, I feel that men and women should both receive equal leave. And in fact, here in Canada, it is just so :D (Yes, I'm a Canadian debating US politics. Sue me :P) As it happens, I also feel that maternity/paternity leave should be guaranteed by the government, barring unusual circumstances, but anyway. 3. The answer is, it's irrelevant. I know, it looks like a cop-out, but the thing is, the purpose of this debate is to dig into government interference with rights. They "should" do as their morals and/or society and/or the local, relevant laws suggest that they do. The government, however, should not mandate that males open doors for females. There are 3 types of "marriage" in the united states: 1. It is a specifically religious institution, with massive religious connections. 2. It is a public declaration of love and invitation for family, that has absolutely no religious connotations whatsoever (such as when atheists marry). 3. It is a legal contract that provides certain benefits, the majority of which are entirely unrelated to procreation. To my knowledge, that's it for the types. Religious organizations, I feel, should have the right to do as they please, as far as marriage goes. Part of freedom of religion allows for the freedom for religious discrimination, even on the protected classes. The government should not mandate who they must or must not marry, and in fact, should be utterly uninvolved (with few exceptions, like child abuse). The second type should also not be interfered with by the government. It is a social construct. The third, however, is a legal contract granting legal benefits. If in your nation, civil unions grant precisely equal legal rights, then great! That's all that's needed. Take a job where sex is part of the description – there's a male waiter and a female waitress. Can a male be a waitress? No, but there's a precise, and perfect match, with precisely equal pay/duties/etc. That's fine. If "marriage" is the term for male/female unions, and "civil union" is the term for same sex unions, but they are in every other regard precisely equal, then there's no issue. (I still don't like it, but it's a tolerable solution) However, if one grants less rights, as is the case in the USA, then there is a problem. Civil unions are not the equal of government marriages (religious marriages are entirely irrelevant, unless you argue that atheists should also receive inferior treatment) Ultimately, I feel the government has the right to do 2 things: it can tell people that they may involve sex in a specific agreement, and it can tell them they may not. I feel that it absolutely may not, under any circumstances, mandate that they involve sex in a legal arrangement. To more fully expand the topic, I feel that birth sex (a designation that is both medically changeable and in many cases arbitrary) should not be a government mandated factor in legal contracts. Enjoying this debate so far :D