Gay marriage is not a civil right

Contention 1 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 marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to promote responsible procreation and rearing of children. However, What CON does not seem to get is even if the U.S. supreme court overturns baker v. nelson today or the country establishes gender neutral marriage into our constitution, 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. It is a relationship that we apply the word "marriage" to, but the relationship is what comes first and the central aspect of this relationship is the sexual union that brings about and develops the next generation which is an absolute necessity for the civilization to continue or any civilization for that matter. Since the continuation of society is the first concern of the state. The government has a vested interest in protecting the institution of marriage ( the relationship). This is why virtually every government in the history of the world even the most simple tribes and secular nations regulated marriage as defined. Instead of my opponent addressing this argument, he starts talking about how gay people have human rights according to these governments. I have already explained how gays and lesbians and their relationships 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 to potentially procreate and rearing children or enter into a civil union. Cons objection is that separate but equal has been proven to not work out in the past. If he is referring to the race segregation, then he would be correct. However, this is simply not true for men and women in principle or in practice 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. 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. I have a question to CON. Is attempting to ensure the well-being of children a religious belief? the religious aspect of marriage is simply a secondary effect. CONTENTION 3 Lets just assume for the sake of argument that the traditional definition of marriage is purely a religious belief. It still does not follow that the state would be imposing this belief by merely referencing the definition of marriage. Again, The mere appearance, existence, or understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman ,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. Instead, This is moral rule which can be applied in all circumstances (making it universalised) which is justified (not using others as a means only). In other words, The law does not make us do right from wrong but helps us understand what is right and wrong regarding the well-being of children. Whether or not we choose to do what's right is entirely our choice. This is done to maintain order in the public arena and protect ourselves or others quality of life in both situations. However, the difference is that you get punished by the state if you drive pass a red light. When it comes to marriage, you are allowed to raise a family outside of a marriage or without the father and not get penalized. You have the freedom to marry or procreate and not get married or procreate. What CON says simply has no basis. Therefore, the state merely recognizing an objective biological reality cannot be considered imposing a morality "So the pro tries to ban gay marriage because having a particular sexual leaning is un-fair to the populous… How can something be fair to everyone if its singles out a single group?" Again, The marriage laws on the books don't say "Same sex couples are not allowed to get married". When states legalize gay marriage, they do not call them gay marriage or straight marriage. They redefine marriage to just two people regardless of gender by no longer referencing the gender. If, instead of "disallowing gay marriage", CON meant " legally recognizing marriage only between a man and a woman" , then the argument would be subject to the fallacy of equivocation ("traditional marriage" does not equal "disallowing gay marriage") in the same way that "disallowing satanism" does not equal "Christianity"); it would therefore be structurally unsound." Nevertheless, Continuing to define marriages between one man and one woman for responsible procreation, along with providing civil unions for same sex couples, benefits all people including gay people as I demonstrated earlier. Therefore, since this purpose helps all people, it provides fairness and equality to all people . Ensuring the well-being children ensures the future of any country. CON is attempting to redefine and change this purpose of marriage, So the question becomes why should we redefine marriage to just two people? How does this benefit society as a whole? the onus is on CON to provide an answer and argument because I satisfied my burden of proof as to why marriage should be defined traditionally. If CON does not provide a reason that equally benefits all people, he would attempting to discriminate in favor of same sex couples in a unjust and unfair manner. Just because it would discriminate in favor of gay people rather than against does not make it any less discriminatory. In other words, Special rights are not civil rights. CON says his argument is based on proving that society won't change at all. Well first off, I could have easily said the same thing and said that traditional marriage laws won't change or hurt same couples. However, even if we accept this as a bonafide argument for gay marriage, it conflicts with empirical observations. let's assume the long term effects will not happen, the short term effects I showed earlier clearly changed society for the worse. Therefore, my argument stands, especially if he does not provide an argument for this Non-traditional view of marriage. Besides, this is reasonably a new phenomenon. When we changed the divorce laws to no-fault and reduced all barriers, it was at least 10 years of research before they began to accumulate data that indicated the impact of that change on an empirical level. Therefore, it is not realistic to find evidence of a causal link (or possibly even a correlation) between redefining marriage and the weakening of marriage. In conclusion, Other than mere assertions, CON refused to provide arguments that gay marriage is a civil right and simply made no effort to fully address the heart of my arguments and my refutations of his claims. Most importantly, he still did not provide a compelling state reason for his Non-traditional view of marriage that benefits all of us. Therefore, this is a concession on CON's part and I urge a PRO vote.