Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries

Pro goes on about marriage not being essential for procreation and vice versa. Pro asserts that marriage should be defined as a commitment of love to your partner without attacking my case. Not a basic civil right To understand what type of marriage there actually is we should look at, how it is bodily, sexual, and is it a type that would fulfill procreation. In every society men and women are committed to sharing their lives together, on the bodily, emotional, and in the kind by procreating and rearing children together. There are, of course other relationships similar in some ways to marriage, like same-sex couples. But these relationships are not marriages, and no society should recognize them as marriages. Marriage is that type of that is both a comprehensive unity and a community that would be fulfilled by procreating and rearing children together. Moreover, there is a link between these two aspects of the community; the relationship is fulfilled by, and is not merely incidental to, the procreating and rearing of children. . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... Same sex marriages cannot fulfill all the aspects of what a marriage represents. The communion of a man and a woman as husband and wife establishes a real biological union, they are biologically a single action to carry life. The male and female function in a coordinated way to carry out a biological function of the couple as a unit—mating. "When a man and woman make a commitment to each other to share their lives on all levels of their being, in the type of community that would be fulfilled by cooperatively procreating and rearing children, then the biological unity established and renewed in sexual intercourse is the beginning or embodiment of that community we know as marriage. " Pro mentions that monogamy was not common in human society until 20,000 years ago but this helps my case as it establishes a founding institution for marriage. That founding institute has never included same-sex couples. In fact most marriages until the last few hundred years were arranged and never are marriages arranged between same-sex individuals. Even the method of arranged marriages shows a desire for not only the linking of families but also the rearing of children. Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and conflating the issue with wedlock, older people that are in marriage not able to have children is just misleading. Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained: "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics. .. 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights categories. " Gay marriage could potentially lead down a ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. . http://prezi.com... Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. It is important that laws be passed in accordance with the will of the people. Permitting gay marriage will require changing the function of our current legal system. Not a right in all countries This contention was dropped. Though Pro says that same-sex marriage should be a universal civil right until he proves this, then this contention applies. We would be forcing our own rights and beliefs onto other nations. Therefore, their civil rights are violated. Why it is not right Pro is mistaken in thinking that marriage is solely about love and then changing the institution away from children and focusing on adults. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would explicitly sever the institution’s connection to the two interrelated realities, gender difference and procreation. It can be reasonable to think that homosexuality is just a sexual perversion. Homosexuality is often referred to as sodomy and perverse. There has never been an established benefit for homosexuality. There is absolutely no evidence that suggest that homosexuality is innate. Our biology does not support homosexuality. In fact there is no biological reasons for homosexuality. Matter of fact homosexuals have no more or no less rights than heterosexuals. Civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Same sex couples have the same right to marry as anyone else only they want a choice that is not a civil right. Perversion are sexual acts that are understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed unnatural. Homosexual acts are in disagreement with our natural law. I have shown the definition of marriage in nations other than the United States and within the United States. Same-sex couples do not have the civil right to marry by these definitions and views on marriage. I have shown the view of marriage as a child rearing relationship. I have briefly shown that homosexual relationships are not a natural design in nature even if objects in nature exhibit homosexual activities. Same-sex couples cannot properly fit the definition of marriage. Pro has offered us little in evidence.