Gay Marriage should never be accepted legally in the U.S.

I am Con. I know this topic is one we see alot here on Debate.com. But I never debated this so I figure, why not!

I welcome the opponet and thank him/her for accepting the debate.

Gay marriage should not be accepted as legal in the US. Rather, we should create civil unions.

A) Gay marriage would cause outrage among many of the religious that feel homosexuality is immoral & wrong.

B) These people often connect marriage with religious institution, which in the past, has certainly been the case.

ALTERNATIVE - to create civil unions, in which any two persons, gay or straight, bisexual or transsexual, or of any other sexuality to be "civily unified". Yep, I just made up two new words.

CONDITIONS - The US will recognize only civil unions, and all prior recognized marriages shall be categorized as "civil unions". Those that seek a certain type of "marriage" will be free to do so. All benefits and other stipulations of marriage will be applied to civil unions.

Benefits

A) Sure, some people will be mad, but they'll be less mad than simply legalizing gay marriage.

B) This keeps the government out of religion, which I think most shall agree is a good thing.

C) Peoples of all sexualities, not just homosexuals, gain access to the benefits of marriage.

D) More people support neutral civil unions over "gay marriage", the fact that it's more acceptable makes it all the easier to get done in real life.

I reserve the right to clarify intent and add arguments in my second speech.

Conclusion------

I have all the benefits and more of the Affirmative. Not only is my option more expansive in providing rights, but it incurs less hostility from those that oppose "gay marriage". It is entirely fair for all, and the best policy option presented to you thus far.

To paraphrase:

"If I have a milkshake, and you have a milkshake, and you have a straw, and I have a straw that reaches all the way across the room and into your milkshake, I drink your milkshake! SLURP!! I drink it up!"

Thank You for accepting.

Marriage- 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 (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

I have a better solution to the issue at hand than refering to this as "civil unions". Just call it marriage.

You see, the traditional concept of marraige in America has been altered way too many times to keep track of. For example, during the early history of the United States, a man virtually owned his wife and children as he did his cattle and land.

We jump to the slave states. When slaves wanted to be married the attitude of traditonal marriage became an exclusive ceromony between whites. There were 3,000,000 slaves or former slaves denied the right of marriage, being told that the sancitity of marriage was specific for the Whites.

We now come to 1967 where judges from all over the country denied interraccial marriage. The most tenacious form of legal segregation, the banning of interracial marriage, was not fully lifted until the last anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967 by the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia. People before then were told, marriage is a sacred ceromony between folks of the same skin tone.

So my question to Pro is this:
Why is it that marriage has been altered throughout history (American History) and we have no problem with it now, but today we are denying two people who are in love to have the same title as everyone else: Marriage. Why are we discriminating amoung the homosexuals?

It's irrelevant what the dictionary definitions are. The truth is that many, like myself don't care whether two of the same sex can get married, while many others are vehemently opposed to it. The fact is that some people attach a religious connotation to marriage, and thusly they oppose the right for gays and others to be married. For them, it is a moral issue (though I for one find such a thing immoral), and it would be hard to convince these people otherwise.

The solution is obviously for the government to stop recognizing the term "marriage". If someone seeks to be married at their church or other place of religious worship, they may go ahead and do so. However, the government would recognize civil unions. All current marriages would then be recognized by the government as civil unions.

What this ultimately means is that the religious can have their definition of marriage without infringing upon the rights of gays and those of other sexualities.

Line-by-Line (Sort of) -------------------

You claim that the definition of marriage has changed numerous times.

First, you claim that early on, men controlled the entire family in marriage. However, you should recognize that this has nothing to do with legal definitions, but rather just shows that the structure of family life has changed.

On your second claim, you say that marriage was denied to Africans based on the definition of marriage. However, we must look at the root of both situations. Africans were seen by the majority of whites as lesser if even human (in the past of course), as well as generally treated like property. Africans were treated this way because of their cultural/physical differences with Europeans. There were many other factors, however, you will see that religion was not a primary factor. Although some religious verses were used to justify slavery, they were hardly the root of oppression. Even after many Africans converted to Christianity, they were treated the same (very badly). These problems took centuries to solve.

On the other hand, our current situation is deeply rooted in religion. Gays are not seen as property, nor are they seen as inferior. Gays are recognized as human beings. So why is it that some people don't want them to be able to marry? Because some people feel their religion does not allow it. Religion is something people are stubborn about, and something people will not bend on. The truth is that this is a prejudice that at best would take many more years than slavery to remove. Because the situations are entirely different, a parallel is not valid.

Finally, my opponent commits a fallacy in their last paragraph. They assume that I am discriminating against homosexuals, which makes it clear that they have either not read my arguments, or misunderstood them. Civil unions provide equal rights for all, and are much less contested then "gay marriage".

Conclusion ----------------

Civil unions provide perfect legal rights for all, even those that are not gay/straight. Not only is my proposal more expansive, but it is much less likely to meet resistance. My opponent is yet to list any potential negative aspects of my proposal, while I have shown that his proposal is less universal and more likely to be rejected in real life. With my proposal, the religious can have their definition of "marriage", and persons not under this definition still have their rights because of civil unions. There is absolutely no reason not to prefer my proposal over my opponent's.

My opponent has literally forfeited this round by not engaging in their last speech. All of my arguments are a) barely touched or b) unanswered. Seeing as this is the case and that my opponent has not refuted my arguments, I see no possibility other than an affirmative vote. You can extend all my arguments down and see that not only do I provide all the benefits my opponent provides, but I provide them with less negative expense. Ultimately, I win because I provide the better option. So yeah, vote AFF.