Gay Marriage should be legal everywhere

I accept this debate and am just clarifying with the voters that this is on a global context.

I approve of your picture, jackinthebox.

I'd like to thank my opponent for his response. I'll first break down my opponents arguments then move on to a few contentions.

Rebuttal:
"Anyway, gay marriage Gould be legal because gays are just people."
Yes, gay people are people. This is an undeniable fact. Does mean that they must "marry"? I don't think being a person means you can marry, for example we do not let 10 year olds marry? They are people too! Why shouldn't they marry?

"They should have the same rights as everyone else."
I am not advocating that gay people should not get rights, I am advocating that they should not get married. I believe civil unions are capable of giving rights to gays. There is a certain reason why gays should not get married and I will justify the reason in my contention

"Gays do nothing to hurt society. People love gays. Of they don't hurt our society."
An extremely blanket statement. How can you just assume people like gays? Really? What about all the anti-gay violence on the gay parades? I'll link several examples in the sources section. I'm not saying all people don't like gays, but a large number of Christians believe homosexual acts are immoral and are an abomination. Again I am not saying people don't love gays, but you can't disregard the fact that there are people who do not like gays. Being gay is not bad. That isn't what this debate is about, my opponent needs to justify why they should get married.

" Or do anything wrong except find love I'm the same sex why is it bad they have the same rights as everyone else."
The point is unclear, but I think my opponent was saying that all gays do is find love. However, love is not what we recognize marriage for. We recognize marriage for procreation, or in other words producing children. Why aren't all couples in love married in that case? Marriage is a commitment, a commitment to stay by your partner and to produce babies. Gay people often "sleep around" more. For instance, "the annual sexually transmissible infections data Annual Surveillance Report by the Kirby Institute showed more than 10,000 people were diagnosed with gonorrhoea in 2010 — a jump of 25 percent on 2009. The increase was predominantly among men who have sex with men."

"We gave blacks the same rights as us.. Why not gays?"
To respond to this, let's look at the content of this debate. Are we arguing about gay rights? No, we are arguing about gay marriage. Although it can come with gay marriage, I have provided a different solution, a civil union. I believe that they do deserve rights, but not marriage.

Moving on, I will justify my claims in my contentions.

C1: Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values related to procreation. It is a common misconception that we recognize marriage for love. We do not recognize marriage for love. If it was merely a recognition of love then everyone would get married and the term would be a lot less serious. Like I stated earlier, getting married is a commitment. A commitment to your partner, and that you will produce babies. One may argue that many abuse this "commitment", however that does not mean that isn't what it's recognized for. Yes, unwed couples are producing babies a lot more nowadays but that does not by any means defeat the purpose of marriage. Love does come with this commitment but it is not what marriage is recognized for. If marriage was a love commitment then why would the state recognize it at all? Societies that reproduce, survive. Thus they have a reason to recognize the procreation stance of marriage, otherwise it would be pointless. There is a certain reason why girls today consider marriage normal and something they should do. The reason is so they will reproduce. They will make a commitment and carry on life.

C2: Since this debate is on a global context, the governments of certain countries will not appeal to such a minority when they have so many religious people against gay marriage. For instance a survey in the United Kingdom found that only 1% of Britons were gay or lesbian. There are many countries outside of the U.S. who have very few gays in their society. In some societies gays are killed, and they are told never to commit a gay act from the day they were born. The point is, many countries have minuscule amount of gays. Not only do many countries have a small gay population, many countries have an overwhelming religious population! For instance, 82.7% of Mexico are Roman Catholics. So, if these countries strongly believe in a religion that states that being gay is an abomination, have a very small gay population, and do not have a sufficient number of people voting for gay marriage, why should they allow gay marriage.

Conclusion:
Marriage is recognized for procreation. My opponent argues that gays deserve rights and I stated that I disagree. I advocate for civil unions. The reason I believe that gays should not get married is because it destroys the recognition of procreation and they do not create, or reproduce. Also, since this debate is on a global context, there is no reason for certain countries to recognize such small gay population. My opponent is only looking at the gay population in the U.S., however many countries have a demography that is almost entirely against homosexual actions. Thus, due to the fact that my opponent has provided very little and no apparent arguments, I strongly urge a CON vote.


http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.rferl.org...
http://www.starobserver.com.au...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent's response was extremely unclear. I'm not really sure what he/she is trying to convey however I will refute his points to the best of my ability.

"But when you say that you're not, not giving gay rights. You aren't."
I think my opponent is trying to say that when I say I am giving them rights, I am not. My opponent provides no justification. I don't really understand t message he/she is trying to convey. I advocate that we should use civil unions. I believe in "separate, but equal". I don't see a problem with this. They get their recognition for committed partners in love, and straight people get their recognition.

"They only want the right to marry and love each other. Like every one else in the world. "
So because they want it, they get it? If I want to be president, I get to be president? Yes they are like everyone else but they do not deserve a "marriage", for it is a recognition of something else. You can not get recognized for something you do not do!

" Gays put up those petitions for one reason! And it's to gain rights and marry. They would not have all these petitions. Of they had those rights they would not be petitioning and become violent. "
I don't see an argument. Just because they put up petitions doesn't mean they get to marry. It just shows they want to marry. If gay marriage was legal, there would be petitions put up against it as well. As I have clarified numerous times they can still get rights through civil unions. So if I want the right to go kill someone, and I violently protest, I should get this right? I am not advocating that this is correct, just that it's not a valid reason to give something.

"Also, people who are not gay and married adopt! Adoption agencies are looking for more people to adopt and that's a per"

Adopting does not correlate with procreation. They are two totally separate things. I'm sorry for I do not really understand my opponent's message.

Conclusion:
My opponent has basically no arguments for gay marriage. All he states is that they are people and they deserve rights. However, as I have stated numerous times throughout this debate, they are people and do deserve rights, but not marriage! Marriage is something that does not currently coexist with the homosexual population in most places today. My opponent completely drops my second contention that states that many countries have an extremely high religious population and an extremely small gay population. He provides no justification as to those countries should allow gay marriage. My opponent has no response to the fact that giving gays rights defeats the purpose of marriage because marriage won't be a recognition of carrying on life, but rather a love commitment. Due to the fact that my opponent has little to no arguments, dropped a whole contention, and provides blanket statements with no evidence, I urge a CON vote. I urge you vote on who provided better arguments, not what you believe.