args

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

In my opponent's opening points in the previous round he refers to the 'fact' that same-sex couples didn't exist around the dates that I mentioned for the founding of monogamy, unless he has any kind of source for this fact, I request that that statement is retracted for being unfounded. Also, the argument of marriage hasn't always included same-sex marriages, therefore people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to get married, firstly, this point is the entire basis for this debate existing, if same-sex marriages existed, we wouldn't be debating this. Secondly just because something has always happened a certain way doesn't mean it is right, most law systems worldwide were originally based on archaic books that declared what good and evil were (Bible, Qu'ran, etc), and didn't leave any room for discussion. Modern laws are slowly changing towards a more understanding and progressive view of the world, which is why nowadays we have freedom of speech, women's rights, no capital punishment (mostly), contraception, fabric blends, shellfish or football (soccer). Just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it is worthy. Just to clarify, I have never argued in this that marriage hasn't been, and isn't still involved with procreation, my contention is that procreation isn't necessary in a marriage. Webster's dictionary defines marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law", (btw there is an addendum to include same-sex marriages) nowhere is this definition does it claim that procreation is a necessary part of marriage, I also can find no legal definitions that include procreation, of Con can find a source I would love to see it. I was entertained by the Matthew D. Staver quote " 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" 1) Homosexuality has had a history of "longstanding, widespread discrimination" to the same extent as any protected class, sodomy laws have been in place until very recently in many countries, in the US the military was only technically allowed to allow homosexuals in less that two years ago. Not only has there been legal discrimination there is also a long history of institutionalised, internalised and social homophobia throughout the world. 2) Economic disadvantage - I don't know about the laws of the US but in the UK a civil partnership does not have equal economic rights to a marriage. 3) Immutable characteristics, the two major attempts to prove that homosexuality is not immutable were "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?" by Robert Spitzer, and "Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumer's Report" by Shildo & Schroeder. Spitzer did originally report 'positive results' in sexuality conversion. In 2012 he retracted his own study due to inaccuracies and requested that all "anti-gay" organisations stop using his report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). I couldn't find a source more valid than wikipedia for the Shildo & Schroeder report unfortunately, however their final conclusions were that not only was the therapy unsuccessful, it was harmful to the participants Con then claims that same-sex marriage isn't the will of the people, again please cite sources or retract. Next it is claimed that homosexuality is a 'sexual perversion' then follows a lot of claims with no evidence about 'sodomy' and again the claim that it is unnatural, earlier I asked Con to clarify his definition of unnatural. As far as I can tell he is using it to mean 'no biological benefit' just like all art forms, and most scientific research, and a belief in any religion, and love, and marriage.