I am challenging my opponent to a debate on gay rights. I see he is a Conservative, gay, and for Civil Unions. He seems to be against Gay Marriage, but he still supports Civil Unions. This is very hypocritical in my opinion.
As my opponent pointed out, yes I am a Gay Conservative. I do not have any problem however with Homosexuals (such as myself) receiving some government benefits. Civil Unions are exactly what the Homosexuals need. I do not agree with Gay Marriage because I personally believe Marriage is a sacred ceremony for One Man and One Woman. I do not understand my challengers accusation that I am somehow hypocritical because I believe Gay Couples deserve some recognition. My opponent seems to forget that Homosexuals are people too and they deserve some rights. Let me be clear, I do not believe states should ever be forced to allow Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, or Marriage. I just want every state to be able to decide for themselves what is best for them. I am okay with a state not allowing Civil Unions because that is their choice as an individual state, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with Civil Unions for Homosexual Couples. They do deserve the same basic benefits offered to Heterosexual couples, because they still contribute to society and pay taxes just as straight people/couples do. I personally believe that Civil Unions are good enough, but what can my opponent offer for Homosexual couples? Under the laws, they deserve to be treated equally and fairly as Heterosexual couples when it comes to benefits. The government didn't used to be involved in these kind of Unions, but now that they have injected themselves as much as they have, they must treat it equally. Now, Marriage is one thing. That is a historically religious institution that should be run by the church and not the government, but we are talking about Civil Unions here. ANY couple can enter a Civil Union. It is not just a "gay" Union and was never meant to be a "gay" Union. Since Civil Unions have no historical ties to religion, not allowing Homosexual couples to benefit from them is a direct violation of our 14th Amendment rights.
So a Gay Conservative for Civil Unions, but against Gay Marriage? You seem very hypocritical in your ways. I am assuming you're religious since you are a Conservative and therefore also gay. It seems as though you are supporting something that goes directly against your religion, ideology, and political parties views. You Homosexuals always say you don't want states to be forced to allow your sodomy, but in the long run, all you want to do is destroy the foundation of marriage and the family. I have not forgotten that homosexuals are people, I just believe they need help. It is not natural or normal to pursue a relationship with someone of the same sex and therefore, a couple who chooses to do this deserves no recognition under the law.
It is in no way hypocritical to be for Civil Unions and against Gay Marriage. You are making assumptions and accusations that are quite moronic. I am a Conservative because I believe in Economic Freedom and Social Justice. I have no idea why you tied religion into this so randomly. I am a Gay Christian, but supporting recognition for Homosexual couples doesn't mean I am going against my religion. You are approaching this debate as if Gay Rights is the main issue in every party or ideology, but that just isn't true. There are many many Conservatives who support Civil Unions like I do and there are even some who are for Gay Marriage. Stereotyping me as, "you homosexuals" is also quite alarming. You are only debating one Homosexual here and as far as I am concerned, you're getting beat by a homosexual. I have no such intentions of destroying the family or "forcing" any state to accept sodomy of any kind. States can do as they wish and I am quite sure I made that clear in my opening argument. I believe in the Traditional family and I believe it is a great environment to raise children and enhance a society or a community. Just because I want some sort of recognition for my own lifestyle and relationship does not mean I want to tear down everyone else's. Would you use that same argument in terms of slavery? Because African-Americans wanted the same rights as White people, do you also believe that their goal in the end was to destroy the rights of Whites? Your argument is quite absurd and your assumptions show that you have no case here. You cannot simply assume someone is a religion or belongs to a political party and then proceed to attack them based only on your vague assumptions. This is a debate on Civil Unions. It has nothing to do with if you think same sex couples are normal/natural or not. Not too long ago, interracial couples were deemed "unnatural" and quite frankly sir, the only one who needs help here is you.
I rest my case and look forward to the voting period. Thank you for this debate. Next time, try to cut down on the personal attacks, especially when you have no knowledge of the individual you choose to attack.
Reasons for voting decision: "I do not have any problem however with Homosexuals (such as myself) receiving some government benefits. Civil Unions are exactly what the Homosexuals need." To me, this statement is disgusting. People have actually have convinced themselves that they deserve my taxpayer money because they love somebody?
Anyway, Con bails on the argument in the last round and starts spewing bigoted nonsense, so arguments and conduct go to Pro.
Reasons for voting decision: Con had no interest in debating civil unions, he just wanted to rant hate speech about how the existence of gay's is destroying america... (I know that's a straw man, but it's better than what he actually said). Pro on the other hand presented a case for the existence of civil unions, and did not argue for more (such as marriage, which would be outside the scope of this debate)