Drafts

Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity. Legal recognition of same-sex marriage or the possibility to perform a same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as marriage equality orequal marriage, particularly by supporters.[1][2][3][4][5] The legalization of same-sex marriage is characterized as "redefining marriage" by many opponents.[6][7][8]

1. I am favor of Same Sex Marriage in the Philippines primarily because this is a right of every Filipino LGBT. Marriage, I firmly believe, is a fundamental right. Whether you are LGBT or not, marriage must be available to those who want it. 1. Actually, Same Sex Marriage is not a religious issue, it is a human rights issue. 1. MARRIAGE IS ABOUT MUTUAL LOVE, RESPECT AND SUPPORT

I do not want to single out Marriage for Same Sex alone. I believe understanding Same Sex Marriage is understanding Marriage as it is. Marriage for some people is something that is forceful and that you can not get away from it once you avail it. Marriage is something, for them, are required to love your partner no matter what. This is unfair. Marriage is about mutual love, respect and support.

MUTUAL LOVE In any relationship, love must be the central aspect of marriage. It is love that makes the relationship, in the first place. Without love, we can not have a good and stable relationship. Thus, mutual love must be essential is marriage. RESPECT Respect is universal. Respect is not gain but due to everyone. Respect your partner is another thing that marriage must be remembered and understand. Without respect for each other is like treating with each other with no honor and dignity to one's being. SUPPORT We have to admit, we can not survive in a relationship without supporting each other both emotional and material things. To say that many of us think that the socio-economic aspect of life that one must take to consider in order to have a good marriage. This is also part of that concept of marriage but this is not the only one. A person who love his/her partner must responsibly support his/her partner for both of you to survive. 1. Rev.Ceejay Agbayani Founding Pastor LGBTS CHRISTIAN CHURCH INC.

4-B Auditing St., GSIS Village Proj 8, Quezon City, Philippines Mobile Number: 09152904310 Email Address: rev.ceejay@yahoo.com Website: www.lgbtschristianchurch.wordpress.com

LGBT RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

LGBT citizens may face different social attitudes and legal challenges thanheterosexual citizens with more traditional gender roles. Tolerance for LGBT people has increased over the years due to greater education about sexual orientation and gender identity issues and the growing visibility and political activism of the LGBT community.[4] Same-sex marriages are not legally recognized and the LGBT community is not protected by any civil rights laws.

Criminal laws against homosexuality[edit]

Noncommercial, homosexual relations between consenting adults in private are not a crime, although sexual conduct or affection that occurs in public may be subject to the "grave scandal" prohibition in Article 200 of the Revised Penal Code. The universal age of consent is set at 12, but contact with minors (under 18) is an offense if the minor consents to the act for money, gain, or any other remuneration or as the result of an influence of any adult person.

LGBT Rights & Religion[edit]

The Philippines is a predominantly Roman Catholic country,[5] with approximately 92.5 percent claiming to be Christian. Despite this, the Philippines has recently been ranked as one of the most gay-friendly nations in the world, and the most gay-friendly in Asia.[6][7][8]On a global survey covering 39 countries, only 17 of which had majorities accepting homosexuality, the Philippines ranking as the 10th most gay-friendly. The survey titled The Global Divide on Homosexuality conducted by the US-based Pew Research Center showed that 73 percent of adult Filipinos agreed with the statement that homosexuality should be accepted by society, up b y nine percentage points from 64 percent in 2002.[9] Prevailing social attitudes about sexual orientation and gender identity issues are heavily influenced by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which has been active in opposing LGBT rights.[10][11] Beyond the Catholic Church, most other citizens affiliate with a Christian or Islamic sect that generally looks upon homosexuality and cross-dressing as signs of decadence and immorality. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has always been against any civil rights legislation for the LGBT community.[12][13]

Bangon Pilipinas senatorial candidate Eddie Villanueva, a religious leader who founded the Jesus is Lord Church, said he is against same-sex marriage because, "Sabi ng Good Book, huwag gayahin 'yung nangyari sa Sodom and Gomorrah dahil darating ang paggunaw sa isang bansa 'pag 'yun ay ginawa, (The good book says, don't do what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah because judgement will befall the country if it should be done.) " Villanueva said in an interview.[14]

LGBT Rights & Media[edit]

The LGBT community in the Philippines has steadily been gaining greater visibility in the news and information media. LGBT people working in fashion and arts are often given some measure of tolerance, especially if they are successful.[15] The explosion of online social media, has led to many different expressed viewpoints on the subject of LGBT rights, from citizens and even celebrities. Miriam Quiambao,[16] Floyd Mayweather[17] & most recently the article of Christine Bersola-Babao entitled "Being Gay."[18]

Military[edit]
Sexual orientation or religion does not exempt citizens from CAT, although some reports do suggest that people who are openly gay in this high school curriculum are harassed.[19] On 3 March 2009, the Philippines announced that it was lifting its ban on allowing openly gay and bisexual men and women from enlisting and serving in the Philippine Armed Services.[20]

Sectors[edit]
"Sectors" recognised in the national electoral law include categories such as elderly, peasants, labour, youth etc. Under the Philippine constitution some 20% of seats in the House of Representatives are reserved. In 1995 and 1997, unsuccessful efforts were made to reform the law so as to include LGBT people. A proponent of this reform was Senate President Pro Tempore Blas Ople who said (in 1997), "In view of the obvious dislike of the ... administration for gay people, it is obvious that the president will not lift a finger to help them gain a sectoral seat."[21]

Political party opinions[edit]

Philippine political parties are typically very cautious about supporting gay rights, as most fall along the social conservative political spectrum. The Akbayan Citizens' Action Party was the first Philippine political party to integrate LGBT rights into its party platform in the 1990s, although they are a minor political party. A major political opponent of LGBT rights legislation has been Congressman Bienvenido Abante (6th district, Manila) of the ruling conservative LakasCMD party.[22] Rodolfo Biazon and his son Ruffy Biazon along with Miriam Santiago are the most vocal

opponents of same sex marriage in the Philippines. They have filed bills in the Senate and Congress in 2006 that would ban recognition of such marriage, even if those marriages were performed in other countries. As of 2009 the bills are stalled.[23] The administration of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was recently called "not just gender insensitive, but gender-dead" byAkbayan Party representative Risa Hontiveros. Rep. Hontiveros also said that the absence of any policy protecting the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender betrays the governments homophobia. This homophobic government treats LGBTs as second-class citizens, she said.[24] Philippines did not sign the United Nations declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity, which condemns violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Ang Ladlad LGBT political party[edit]

The Ang Ladlad is a new progressive political party, with a primary agenda of combating discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. On 11 November 2009, the Philippine Commission on Elections(COMELEC) denied the Filipino LGBT political party Ang Ladlad's petition to be allowed to run in the May 2010 elections, on the grounds of "immorality".[25][26] In the 2007 elections, Ang Ladlad was previously disqualified for failing to prove they had nationwide membership.[27] On 8 April 2010, the Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed the ruling of COMELEC and allowed Ang Ladlad to join the May 2010 elections.[28][29]

Marriage and family[edit]

The Philippines does not offer any legal recognition to same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership benefits. In 1998, Senators Marcelo B. Fernan and Miriam Defensor Santiago submitted a series of four bills that barred recognition of marriage involving transgender individuals, contracted in the Philippines or abroad, and bar recognition of marriages or domestic partnership between two people of the same biological sex contracted in countries that legally recognize such relationships. Since 2006, three anti-same sex marriage bills have been introduced and are pending before the Senate and Congress. In early 2011, Rep. Rene Relampagos of Bohol filed a bill to amend Article 26 of the Philippine Family Code, to prohibit "forbidden marriages." Specifically, this seeks to bar the Philippine state from recognizing same-sex marriages contracted overseas. The bill is in committee.[30][31][32]

LGBT community[edit]

In LGBT community did not begin to organize on behalf of its human rights until the 1990s. Poverty and the political situation in the Philippines, especially the dictatorship, may have made it difficult for the LGBT community to organize. One of the first openly gay people of significance was the filmmaker Lino Brocka. The first gay lesbian bisexual and transgender pride parade in Asia and also the Philippines was led by ProGay Philippines on 26 June 1994 at the Quezon Memorial Circle. It was organized just a few years after students organized the UP Babaylan group. The pride event was attended by hundreds, and the march coincided with march against the government's VAT or the value added tax. Since the 1990s LGBT people have become more organized and visible, both politically and socially. There are large annual LGBT pride festivals, and several LGBT organizations which focus on the concerns of University students, women and transgender people. There is a vibrant gay scene in the Philippines with several bars, clubs and saunas in Manila as well as various gay rights organizations. Today, the main gay rights organizations in the UP Babaylan UP Babaylan founded in 1992. It remains the oldest and largest LGBT student organization in the Philippines, Progay-Philippines, founded in 1993, which led the first Gay March in Asia[33] in 1994, LAGABLAB, the Lesbian and Gay Legislative Advocacy Network established in 1999, and STRAP (Society of Transsexual WOMEN of the Philippines), a Manila-based support group for women of transsexual experience and transgenders established in 2002.

Summary table[edit]
Homosexual acts legal

Equal age of consent

Anti-discrimination laws in employment

Anti-discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services

Anti-discrimination laws in all other areas (incl. indirect discrimination, hate speech)

Same-sex marriage(s)

Recognition of same-sex couples

Both joint and step adoption by same-sex couples

Gays allowed to serve in the military

Right to change legal gender

Commercial surrogacy

Access to IVF for lesbians

MSM allowed to donate blood[34]

Automatic parenthood for both spouses after birth

See also[edit]

Same-Sex Marriage and Homosexuality: The Philippine Setting

October 12, 2013

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND HOMOSEXUALITY: THE PHILIPPINE SETTING Same-sex marriage has been stirring debate and catching political and religious attentions worldwide particularly in the United States and some European countries, the issue is so widespread that it even reaches some Asian countries. Same-sex advocates, mostly LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bi-sexual and transvestite), are out crying petition of legalization of homosexual marriage and condemning religious and political conservatives of their oppression, or what they usually call as discrimination and unequal treatment of their marginal group who wanted to be treated normally and accepted in a society as individuals who are capable of loving and affection. The issue is so hotly debated that confusion has brought enough dissension among sociologist, clergies/ministers and law makers as to whether the issue falls under ethical, religious or legal sphere. Nevertheless, such issue could not be left unresolved as it can bring moral, religious and political upheaval as popularity of this then unpopular and treated as taboo is now inciting trouble between pros and cons that even resulted in lawsuits.

Homosexuality is an issue as long as we can remember, we have heard of them in biblical histories and literature, mostly condemned as unnatural, evil and treated as a disease of the society. We have heard of Sodom and Gomorrah, the place consumed and destroyed by God with fire because of gay promiscuity that was described as wicked. In our modern-day, act of sodomy is being criminalized, For example, male homosexual acts, at least in theory, can result in life imprisonment in Barbados and Guyana. In Africa, male homosexual acts remain punishable by death in Mauritania, Sudan, and some parts of Nigeria and Somalia. Male and sometimes female homosexual acts are minor to major criminal offences in many other African countries; for example, life imprisonment is a prospective penalty in Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Uganda. A notable exception is South Africa, where same-sex marriage is legal. In Asia, male homosexual acts remain punishable by death in Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen; but anti-sodomy laws have been repealed in Israel (which recognizes but does not perform same-sex marriages), Japan, Kazakhstan, India, the Philippines, and Thailand. Additionally, Life imprisonment is the formal penalty for male homosexual acts in Bangladesh, the Maldives, Myanmar (formerly Burma), Pakistan, and Qatar. Non-consensual sexual relation of any kind, man to man, female to female, man to animal or nature etc. draws an unethical or immoral perception among rational people in general. However, this is not the case of consensual sexual relations between homo or heterosexual monogamous or even polygamous relationships, whose individuals involved are capable of reason and volition, such act is accepted and regarded as normal way of expressing intimate feelings usually associated with love within their bound, but outside, traditional conservatives perceived it as unnatural and immoral, moreover, not sanctioned by religious rites or supported by legal provisions. When LGBT was recognized as a marginalized group, it has been given representation in the legislative body and was supported by many political and liberal organizations championing to protect their rights against discrimination and prejudices by the society particularly on employment, bullying, physical assault, and recently, marriage. As opposing sides argue, did we not come to think that as to what extent is the fundamental right of all people extends to when both the pro and con to same-sex marriage utilizes similar rights but with opposing views and differing outcomes? Ethics and morality varies in different countries depending on culture and religion. What is ethical here in the Philippines may not be ethical in other countries, what is moral for a predominantly Catholic country may be immoral or offensive to other non-Catholic or non-Christian countries. Moreover, other countries customs and traditions permit rites and practices that may be taboo to other countries. Since marriage is an essential practice common to all people and among all nations, delineating same-sex marriage without prejudice to sexual orientation or preference or without harming the widely establish definition of traditional marriage would be difficult if not impossible. Even if it has been legalized in other countries, opposition to it will likely increase consequential to unending battle between opposing proponents. Introducing same-sex marriage to our legal system or even in our society is like duplicating a menu with different ingredients, thus, whether we brand it as similar menu, the taste and contents would always be different and consumers would always react in different ways, some may favor the original and disown the duplicate or vice versa. In comparison, there would always be confusion and discrimination similar with introduction of same-sex marriage in our established legal system and traditionally accepted practices. It may sound absurd but if we treat this issue lightly, one day it would lead to decay in ethical and moral standards in our society, it may also be likely to cause confusion of legal definitions that may lead to a collapse or reconstruction of legal provisions. The Philippines as a predominantly Catholic country and as far as the Archbishops or the high-ranking Clergies of the Roman Catholic Church have a hold of influence in the society or in the government; introducing samesex marriage would bring chaos and unprecedented divide among Filipinos. Filipinos are

conservative democrats mainly due to their religious heritage and the principles that they embrace Christianity. If we introduce same-sex marriage in the Philippines, we will witness similar or worse scenario as was during the introduction of the controversial Reproductive Health Bill which though approved by the President amid strong opposition of the Catholic Church and conservative organizations, it never loses opposition resulting it to be held under Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Philippine Supreme Court for review. Another reason why it is not viable in the Philippines is that marriage is plainly defined under their Family Code as a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code (Chapter 1, Article 1, emphasis added) and in Article 2 paragraph 1 of the same Code the Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female is a requisite for a valid marriage, without which no marriage shall be valid or allowed. Marriage in the Philippines is either a legal and or spiritual union between two individuals (man and woman) who felt the same desire to share the rest of their lives one with another, the passionate yearning to build a family and produce a legacy of name (usually of the patriarch) to past throughout generations. Throughout the Philippine History, there has not been any issues regarding the definition of marriage, it is clear, authoritative and generally accepted as morally upright to be between a Man and a Woman. In our legal system marriage could not be mistaken as only between two opposite genders and there has been no debate or opposition to that only until the advent of the technological era and liberal awakening that people try to distort the traditional meaning of marriage by their personal and seemingly unnatural desires as what the traditional conservatives describe against proponents of same-sex marriage. So, would the introduction of same-sex marriage thrive in Philippine settings? My personal answer would be no, and should same-sex marriage advocacy reach the same intensity here in the Philippines as was in the United States and some European Countries, it would definitely bring moral confusion, political dissension and social unrest. Philippine Law clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman whose purpose is for an establishment of a family which is the basic unit of the society and its religious heritage strictly protects the sanctity of marriage as a matrimonial bond between one man and one woman whose main purpose is procreation. Clearly, Philippines is not ready for this kind of consideration or would it ever be, so long as the constitution stands firm in protecting the basic unit of the society, so long as it is clearly defined in its Family Code and so long as Christianity is the main religion of the country. LGBT here in the Philippines would left only with the fundamental rights of life, property and liberty just as anyone else, those rights if elaborated are against discrimination, abuse, and unreasonable restrictions particularly of speech, expression and assembly. The only thing the government can do to protect LGBT rights in the Philippines is for them to have congressional representation (which has already been granted) but as long as they fall under recognized gender (male or Female) and status (Single or Married) which has already had an equal protection under the law, they cannot otherwise invoke equality by recognizing third gender as sexual preference or recognizing homosexual relationships as legible for legal marriages, LGBT couples in the Philippines are bound by no legal obligations and similarly void of any legal protection or recognition by the state hence, neither disclaiming nor accepting such has no legal sanction and they are best left that way unless other rights such as right to life, liberty, property, expression and assembly are violated and besides same-sex or homosexual couples here in the Philippines is seldom discriminated and quite more discreet than in other countries that they do not catch much public attention.

The state of same-sex marriage is constantly changing. If you live in a state that allows same-sex marriage, or a similar legal union, there are many complex issues you have to evaluate before deciding whether it is right for you and your partner. Even if you live in a state with lesser domestic partnerships, many of the same issues apply. Here are some legal considerations you may want to think about before taking the plunge. Legal Pros: Children and Your Rights If you plan on having or raising children, your status as a couple greatly affects your rights regarding your children. In marriage, both partners have the same rights and responsibilities. In a divorce, both partners can seek custody and visitation rights like any married couple. Upon death, the remaining parent automatically becomes the primary legal parent. Absent marriage, same-sex couples can sometimes turn to adoption in order to gain the rights of legal parents. In some states, same-sex couples can jointly adopt a child. In other states, one partner can legally adopt the biological child of his or her partner through domestic partner or stepparent adoption. Joint Property Rights Marriage generally creates a presumption of joint ownership of property accrued during the marriage. The presumption is the opposite for unmarried couples, where your property will be presumed to be owned by whoever acquired it. Deciding which presumption works best for you and your partner can be helpful in deciding whether or not to get married. Death and Taxes Marriage creates a legal framework for dealing with issues that result from death, whether regarding property, parental rights or taxes. To create these effects as an unmarried couple, significant time and expenses will have to be spent establishing a similar relationship by contract. Even then, some things can't be recreated through contract, such as freedom from inheritance and gift taxes. Another issue to keep in mind is the host of property-transfer taxes that by default don't apply to married couples, but do apply to unmarried couples. It can make moving assets around in a cost efficient way very difficult for unmarried couples. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that DOMA's provision limiting federal benefits (such as surviving spouse Social Security claims) to married heterosexual couples is unconstitutional. Government Benefits This is one of the largest reasons to get married, because the government provides a lot of benefits exclusively to married couples. A small sample of these benefits include Social Security benefits, health care benefits, nursing home care, and unpaid leave from your job to care for family members. Federal benefits should generally be available to legally married same-sex couples in light of the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act. However, state benefits may only be available in states that allow same-sex marriage. Immigration Typically, legal marriage is the most reliable way to become a citizen in the U.S. Since certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act were overturned in 2013, the federal government now recognizes the validity of same-sex marriages. This may open avenues in the immigration arena previously unavailable to legally married same-sex couples. Legal Cons: Formalities Marriage, for all of its pros and cons, requires that certain formalities be performed, which may or may not be what you want. Unmarried couples can get together, and break up, without all the formalities (and court hearings) required for married couples. Dividing Your Property One of the effects of marriage's joint property status is that if you divorce, regardless of who is at fault, both partners are often entitled to half of the propertyaccumulated during the marriage, depending on whether the divorce occurs in a community property state. Note that this also applies to liability for debts. As a result, many former couples become embroiled in costly legal battles over the division of assets in divorce. For unmarried couples, on the other hand, each partner typically leaves with whatever they

accumulated and responsibility for debts in their name. However, married couples have a right to seek alimony, whereas unmarried couples may have to account for this in a pre-marriage agreement. Decide What Is Best For You and Your Partner Given all of the above issues and factors, spend some serious time with your partner considering samesex marriage legal pros and cons. If immigration status isn't an issue, you plan on raising kids, and you're ok with taking on the other partner's debts, then getting married may make sense. On the other hand, if immigration status is an issue, you don't necessarily want to be burdened with the other person's debts, or institutional marriage just isn't for you, then it may not be right for you. One final consideration involves the constant state of flux on the laws covering same-sex marriage. The lists of which states support it, which have a marriage-like option available, and which states have rejected same-sex marriage is constantly changing. For instance, in California, same-sex marriage was first required by state courts, then overturned by popular vote, and then again re-established via federal court rulings. If you have decided to get married, waiting too long may cost you that option. Finally, always consider consulting a lawyer who is familiar with same-sex marriage and similar laws in your state.

Based on my analysis with the topic at hand as well as my own personal proclivity with this subject, I am obliged to affirm the resolution and state that same-sex marriage ought be legalized in the United States. Before, continuing, I must make observations on the topic at hand, and the main definition for this debate is the following:

Ought: [a term] used to indicate duty or correctness; used to give or ask advice

With this clear distinction on the resolution's text, it is obvious the arbiter toward the analysis of the debate at hand: the correctness or duty of the United States whether it be moral or practical. With considerations that the United States is a parameter in this resolution, we must also make judgement based on the Constitution and the governmental style described and established therein and upheld by the government.

Now, to my contentions:

Contention 1: Legalization of SSM benefits society It is both morally and practically correct to make improvement to society through the utilization of moral methods, and by legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States, we would be doing exactly what the government is required by society and make

improvements on it as such. The main improvement to society lies within the betterment of the population with regard to homosexuals and heterosexuals in relation to homosexuals as well as economically.

Sub 1a: Acceptance of same-sex marriagereduces negative statistics in the homosexual population, homophobia, and other negative acts as a result of homophobia. The affirmative understands the conditions at which homosexuals are subjected under when it comes to the question of health in the gay community. The rates of HIV and AIDS as well as alcohol and drug abuse in the gay community have been known to have been larger than the amount in the heterosexual counterpart of the society. By reducing these numbers, we would be in a way benefitting the community, and thus showing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be correct. The following evidence shows that the high statistics in the gay community are strongly connected with homophobia/rejection of homosexuals and that same-sex marriage aids to the improvement of the gay community.

"HIV, AIDS, and Young Gay Men"-- Avert;http://www.avert.org......# "The development of support networks for families plays an important role in increasing acceptance. Feeling accepted and supported as a young gay man is very important in terms of self-acceptance and self-esteem. Having high self-esteem among young gay men has been shown to have a positive impact on confidence about negotiating sexual relationships and practising safer sex. Permissive laws which equalise the rights of gay men with others in the population can help normalise sexual differences and restrictive laws can be widened to make sure that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is treated as are other forms of discrimination." "Tolerance and HIV"--Francis and Mialon, 2009 (Emory University, Department of Economics)--http://userwww.service.emory.edu...... "We empirically investigate the effect of tolerance for gays on the spread of HIV in the Unitedv States. Using a state-level panel dataset spanning the mid-1970s to the mid-

1990s, we find that tolerance is negatively associated with the HIV rate. We then investigate the causal mechanisms potentially underlying this relationship. We find evidence consistent with the theory that tolerance for homosexuals causes low-risk men to enter the pool of homosexual partners, as well as causes sexually active men to substitute away from underground, anonymous, and risky behaviors, both of which lower the HIV rate." "Gay Teens Turning to Drugs and Alcohol."-- Teen Drug Abuse, 2011 http://www.teendrug-abuse.org...... "A study by Dr. Michael P. Marshal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center revealed that LGBT teens are 190 percent more likely to use drugs and alcohol than are heterosexual teens, and that the usage rate is even higher among certain subgroups... Marshal, whose team analyzed data that had been collected during 18 studies between 1994 and 2006, attributed the spike in drug and alcohol use among LGBT teens to the considerable societal pressures faced by the members of this demographic group. Homophobia, discrimination and victimization are largely what are responsible for these substance use disparities in young gay people, Marshal said in a March 25, 2008 press release that was posted on the Addiction website. History shows that when marginalized groups are oppressed and do not have equal opportunities and equal rights, they suffer. Our results show that gay youth are clearly no exception."

Sub 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage is economically beneficial Alongside the betterment of the homosexual counterpart of society is the betterment of the economic status of the society as a whole, meaning that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be beneficial to the community as a whole.

"The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget"-Sears and Badgett, 2008--University of California(http://www3.law.ucla.edu......) "This analysis estimates the impact of the California Supreme Courts recent decision to extend marriage to same-sex couples on state and local government revenues in

California. Using the best data available, we estimate that allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in approximately $63.8 million in revenue over the next three years."

"The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in Vermont."-Ramos, Badgett, and Sears, 2009--University of California (http://www3.law.ucla.edu......)

Contention 2: Legalization of SSM is moral because it provides justice and community benefit As I have explained in my previous contention, we must also benefit the community in a moral fashion, and morality must be judged as well in order to show the correctness in the government legalizing it as such. In this contention, I will prove that the legalization of same-sex marriage is moral. The main source of the morality for same-sex marriage lies in the fact that not only does it benefit the community, but also provides justice.

Sub 2a: Legalization is better than civil unions Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals in the American society because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage. Sub 2b: Supreme Courts have ruled that SSM denial is unconstitutional Supreme Courts across the country have made evaluations over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage and the denial thereof, and the most recent rulings show that Supreme Courts rule that the denial of SSM is unconstitutional, and thus, the establishment of SSM would uphold constitutionality. Court rulings upholding SSM are the following:

Perry v. Schwarzenneger (California 2008) Baehr v. Miike (Hawaii 1993)

Varnum v. Brien (Iowa 2009)

Contention 3: Majority opinion now supports SSM. In addition to the obligation to uphold the country, we must uphold the governmental style of the United States: a democracy dedicated to the people. A democracy must uphold what is both moral/practical and most supported by people in order to be valid to be upheld by the government. The following recent polls show that the new majority of people support SSM.

http://www.gallup.com......

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com......

http://www.pollingreport.com......
Report this Argument

Con

Legalized marriage is unjust and certainly not economically beneficial. It is a significant contributor to our byzantine tax structure where it inevitably injects bureaucratic regulations into the calculations made by people in their relationship decisions, and often discriminates against single people, it reduces pressure to have a fair system for hospital visitation and the like (which should be basable on lists made before an injury, not merely blood or marriage), and there is no particular need for having the legal ramifications categorized separately from any other type of contract.

If we assume as the studies do that tolerance for gays decreases their likelihood of spreading AIDs, this is no reason to favor the expansion of the institution of marriage

when the result can be just as easily achieved by blanket derecognition of marriage by the law.

Your source (which is a broken link) on the "economic benefits" of expansion of legal marriage is false extrapolation, it speaks primarily of tourism from other states to those states that recognize it in the hopes that the home state will be therebound. There is no such money coming in from other states when same-sex marriage is equally legal throughout the United States as your resolution advocates, and hence no economic benefit happening throughout the United States. The mere fact of purchasing wedding related goods does not significantly impact overall economic health, as money that would be spent on wedding related goods is presently spent on other goods-- certainly not enough added motive power to outweigh the drain of a byzantine tax structure on the economy.

Being "Better than civil unions" is not a recommendation, "civil unions" is no more valid an institution for the government to grant special recognition to than marriage.

Appeals to majority opinion or a court are flatly fallacious (Ad populum and ad authoritatem respectively).
Report this Argument

Pro

I'd like thank my opponent for his response to me, and I apologize in advance for any broken links that have come up in my case structure. In my rebuttal, I will make explanations and elaborations of the evidence that I have provided as well as provide any additional information that may be required in the defense of my case. Now, to my opponent's rebuttal and case: My opponent starts his address on my case with my first contention with a statement that tolerance alone will be enough to reduce the AIDS rates among homosexuals, but when

we look at the high amounts of AIDS rates among homosexuals in the United States so far despite all of the movements in modern America to spread tolerance, the AIDS rates continue to be high. The viewers may ask for an explanation in all of this, and this is elaborated in my study from Emory University provided in Subpoint 1a: In the study conducted, Mialon and Francis had made an analysis between the 1970s and 1990s. During this time period, while a rise in tolerance decreased HIV rates among the people by 1 case per 100,000 while bans in gay marriage boosted HIV rates by 4 per 100,000. My point here is further shown from the following statement from the actual report: "According to estimates, the incidence of HIV in the US decreased considerably during the 1990s, as attitudes towards gays liberalized. Nevertheless, HIV incidence remains high.There are an estimated 1.2 million people living with HIV/AIDS today, and 40,000 new infections per year in the 33 states with confidential name-based reporting (CDC, 2005; Glynn and Rhodes, 2005)." What this proves in totality is that tolerance, while it is beneficial and should be promoted, is not enough to aid to the reduction of HIV rates. The study also shows exactly how gay marriage affects HIV rates, which is why they came to the conclusion that a constitutional ban on gay marriage would also increase the rates by 4 per 100,000 cases in the United States. Furthermore, in my argument, I stated that we must evaluate this case through the correctness of the action suggested today, and when gay marriage is allowing for the reduction of HIV rates and bettering society, it is correct and thus, permissible to be legalized and fully suggested as well. From there, he makes an argument against my economic benefits resolution in my statement where he draws a comparison to tourism as being the sole reason as to why there was an increase to the amount of money in the economic systems of the states. Although, yes, tourism has something to do with the amount of net revenue generated by the states themselves, the evidence that I have posted in my subpoint 1b not only points to tourism, but the generation of new economic activity in order to fuel business and stimulate the economy. Take for example the state of California in the study by the UCLA in their previous acceptance of same-sex marriage, where the report stated: "Spending by resident same-sex couples on their weddings, and by out-of-state

couples on tourism and their weddings, will boost Californias economy by over $683.6 million in direct spending over the next three years." Massachusetts in their adoption of same-sex marriage was projected to have over $100 million in revenue by the UCLA up until the government brought forth a 1913 statute that made out-of-state gays not applicable to marriage there. Another report also states that same-sex marriage nationwide could generate 2 billion dollars for the economy. Bottom line: gay marriage creates commerce...and tourism, thus stimulating the economy. The arguments against Contentions 2 and 3 are quite easy to knock down. My opponent's argument against Subpoint 2a wasn't even an argument. It said nothing about civil unions not being less or more than marriage. I'll reiterate my point that the mere existence of civil unions specifies a move for society toward recognizing same-sex couples, but it is not enough because it does not provide the same benefits, thus being unequal. My opponent doesn't really argue against it, so you can definately extend it across the flow. Then, we move to my opponent's final two arguments against the entirety of my Contention 3 and Subpoint 2b. By calling my contention 3 a logical fallacy via Ad populum is actually a logical fallacy of its own (strawman) considering that I was in no way arguing that same-sex marriage is good because the majority of the people support it. I clearly stated in my case that a decision has to be moral/practical and supported by the majority in order to uphold the governmental structure of what is a democracy (as I have stated as one of my parameters should be considered in this debate, which my opponent did not argue). I had to prove that gay marriage is moral/practical before we take it to the majority opinion, and based on what the judges see in this rebuttal and from what I argued in my original case, I have clearly shown that same-sex marriage is moral and practical, and with this validated, we can now look toward the majority opinion, which agrees that same-sex marriage ought be legalized. And finally, there is his argument against my subpoint 2b, but my opponent has no grounds to argue against this subpoint because of his no response to my parameter that we must look toward the American Constitution, which clearly states that the Supreme

Court is the interpreter of the Constitution and we must follow it as such. Thus, my opponent cannot knock this subpoint down. Now, we move on to his case. I'd like to ask for the evidence he has in support of his arguments to be placed in the next round for cross-examination and rebuttals as well.
Report this Argument

Con

It was your study that declared tolerance reduces AIDS rates, if you deem "tolerance alone" has gone as far as you can go, this rebuts your study, it does not support your position.

As the link to your study is broken the claim that it shows "Exactly how gay marriage" affects it cannot be rationally analyzed, and it is unlikely it considered any other marriage-equal solutions including abolition of lawful marriage.

" "Spending by resident same-sex couples on their weddings, and by out-of-state couples on tourism and their weddings, will boost Californias economy by over $683.6 million in direct spending over the next three years." " As I said earlier, the non-tourist money is merely substitution-- it would otherwise be spent on something else. It is the problem of the seen and the unseen, spending on a particular category may APPEAR to grow the economy, but only because one does not see what else they would have spent it on. The economy is about production, not spending, at its fundament. It doesn't matter if there is a buyer of widgets unless there is a seller.

I didn't have to say anything about civil unions being more or less than marriage, as I did not advocate civil unions as an alternative, your argument regarding them has no impact whatsoever unless I do so. " I clearly stated in my case that a decision has to be moral/practical and supported by the

majority in order to uphold the governmental structure of what is a democracy" This only matters if we assume upholding a democracy is a good thing. The assumption without further argument is EXACTLY the ad populum fallacy, you have not rebutted my claim of ad populum but rather supported it.

Notably, the Constitution is not democratic, but republican-- it explicitly attempts to limit the extent of democracy as much as it can manage.

"I have clearly shown that same-sex marriage is moral and practical," False, you have only shown that marriage equality is. You have done nothing to distinguish the legalization of SSM from my proposed alternative of delegalization of all marriage, which results in just as much marriage equality.

"as I have stated as one of my parameters should be considered in this debate," Please quote the exact place where you stated "Do not take this debate unless you are a democrat" or the equivalent.

"And finally, there is his argument against my subpoint 2b, but my opponent has no grounds to argue against this subpoint because of his no response to my parameter that we must look toward the American Constitution, which clearly states that the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution" "Looking towards" the Constution and agreeing with it are two different things. Your parameter only specifies the former. It is no one's fault but yours if your parameters did not bar as much as you thought they would. Furthermore, THE Supreme Court has never ruled on same sex marriage, it is various STATE Supreme Courts which you cited, which are completely irrelevant to the Constitution of the United States.

My arguments are logical, not empirical, you seem to expect me to have some sort of source for them. This is flatly unnecessary. You ought have evaluated them as they stand

in this past round. Do you need a citation for the claim that SSM is just or unjust? No. You need an argument. The act of citing something in regards to a moral argument is fallacious.
Report this Argument

Pro

Yes, my study shows us that tolerance shows to reduce AIDS rates among the homosexual population, but there's a distinction between tolerance alone and acceptance of homosexuals. Tolerance is simply sucking your teeth and trying to get along with homosexuals whereas acceptance is some kind of acknowledgement that there really isn't anything wrong with homosexuality, and while tolerance is a great thing and helps our society a lot, it's not as effective as acceptance, as you can clearly see from my study from Emory University. Tolerance is great, but acceptance, including gay marriage, is better as far as the statistics are concerned. So, my contention about the gay marriage health effect still stands as far as I'm concerned. Before talking about the economy, let's talk about my opponent's argument on civil unions. What my opponent argues is that he doesn't even need to talk about civil unions because he doesn't support that as an alternative. However, as far as civil unions in this arguments are concerned, it's not about who supports them and who doesn't. What really matters is that they are acknowledged by the country in some way. It doesn't matter whether my opponent doesn't support them, considering that I support them as well and here I am arguing against them and the fact that the country in some way is providing an alternative, but the said alternative is not as good as the marriage itself. Therefore, we must talk about it in this debate regardless: because it exists. A republic, by the way, is a type of democracy: a representative democracy. Yes, it doesn't extend to the people as much as a direct democracy would, but the main idealism is still more or less the same: "by the people, for the people." In fact, the Constitution has been changed throughout the course of time to better accomodate that standard, whether it

was to provide more rights for blacks and women to allowing elections for senators in order to put a people's voice. Therefore, it's a tacit obligation for the government to look at the society's perspective on when it comes to a social matter. As I said earlier in my argument, we must look at the duty and the correctness of the action, and based on what I've proven to my judges in my case, not only would it be correct to uphold democracy in this sense because we are upholding something good, but the government would also be fufilling its obligation to the people. Then, we move on to the economic benefits. An economy is not only dependent on production. It's dependent on commerce in totality, and when we increase the amount of same-sex marriages, we're generating more commerce. Sure, if it's not spent on tourism or the marriage itself, it would be spent on something else, but the question is: how much would be spent on something else? We can also acknowledge that they would be spending on something else AND make spending for same-sex marriages, which would only supplement my case. In addition, this is a report made from a university-level analysis, and not to condescend my opponent or anything, but it's the university professor's word against his, and my opponent hasn't posted any evidence contrasting my economics case. So my economics case still stands. As for the evidence that I asked for in his debate, it was more to try to clarify his position considering that we never really put forth a cross-examination, so I guess I should do so in order to make more clarifications: 1.) You stated that same sex marriage is a contributor to the tax structure and puts more regulations. Are you saying that gay marriage is unfair because it raises taxes? If so, how much would it raise it by? 2.) What exactly do you mean when you stated that it reduces pressure for fair hospital visits? How does gay marriage do that? Do you have any reports explaining that or evidence explaining that and how significant it is?
Report this Argument

Con

Expansion of lawful marriage is not a moral sanction, it does not constitute generalized acceptance but rather legal subsidy. Hence, acceptance is irrelevant.

The entire point of debate is to convince others to support or oppose a thing. If it doesn't matter that I am opposed to civil unions because they are "acknowledged by the country in some way," then it logically follows that it doesn't matter that you support gay marriage because it is not thusly acknowledged. QED, take back that line of reasoning or nothing you have said in this debate matters.

As for "because it exists--" giraffes exist too, that doesn't mean we have to discuss them here.

"A republic, by the way, is a type of democracy: a representative democracy. Yes, it doesn't extend to the people as much as a direct democracy would," There is no such thing as "the people." Yet democracy is phrased as an absolute-- if something does not "Extend" to this nonexistent being or the actual beings for which that construct stands in in conversation, then it is not a democracy.

There is and can be no "representation" of the people.

"In fact, the Constitution has been changed throughout the course of time to better accomodate that standard, whether it was to provide more rights for blacks and women to allowing elections for senators in order to put a people's voice. Therefore, it's a tacit obligation for the government to look at the society's perspective on when it comes to a social matter. " This argument simply does not follow. Past behavior does not create an obligation unless it is a contract. The US government has interned Japanese in concentration camps in the past, this does not mean it is obligated to do so now, yet applying the line of reasoning

you have applied here would mean it was.

" Then, we move on to the economic benefits. An economy is not only dependent on production. It's dependent on commerce in totality, and when we increase the amount of same-sex marriages, we're generating more commerce. " No, we are substituting commerce for commerce.

"how much would be spent on something else?" Exactly as much as their production would bear-- the same amount. The only things they can do with their production are spend it, or invest it, itself a form of spending, and one that leads to more spending in the long run.

"We can also acknowledge that they would be spending on something else AND make spending for same-sex marriages," We cannot simultaneously acknowledge substitution and a net increase on spending from spending on same-sex marriages in a world where marriage has no legal effects.

(Notably, if marriage has no legal effects, anyone can still spend money on a wedding for social reasons).

"In addition, this is a report made from a university-level analysis, and not to condescend my opponent or anything, but it's the university professor's word against his, and my opponent hasn't posted any evidence contrasting my economics case" This is the ad authoritatem fallacy quite plain. I have posted as evidence a principle of economics which you have not adequately disputed.

Furthermore, if you would like the word of authorities as evidence despite the fallacy of

doing so, have a look at Jean-Baptiste Say's law, or Bastiat's parable of the broken window, for corroboration of my position on the economic utility of mere spending. Either author has more gravitas than a random "university professor."

"1.) You stated that same sex marriage is a contributor to the tax structure and puts more regulations. Are you saying that gay marriage is unfair because it raises taxes? If so, how much would it raise it by?" I am not a tax lawyer, and circumstances vary-- for some couples filing jointly can be a negative, but married people can file jointly or separately so properly advised, the only ones who file jointly will benefit. According to this, those beneficiaries average about $1100 a year per couple. http://ntj.tax.org... It would be unjust for a single penny to be taken from singles (and ineligible marriages) to subsidize eligible marriages.

"

2.) What exactly do you mean when you stated that it reduces pressure for fair hospital visits? How does gay marriage do that? Do you have any reports explaining that or evidence explaining that and how significant it is?

" It does not take any "reports" to notice that the only significant discourse on reforming hospital visitation law is primarily motivated by (and will frequently mention) desire for gay couples to be allowed to visit one another. If gay marriage is recognized, all that discourse goes away, gay couples join the system, and anyone else with problems with the system is left out in the cold.

By contrast, if heterosexual marriage is derecognized, people have to craft a system not

based on marriage, which will pretty much inevitably have to allow people to write who they want allowed to visit somewhere before they get ill (any system more stringent, in the absence of a heuristic like legal marriage, would exclude so many people that outcry would be inevitable).

Report this Argument

Pro

Well, seeing how the main arguments against one another have been made, let's wrap this debate up. As you can see, I have efficiently maintained my position on my subpoint 1a about the correlation between gay marriage and the betterment of the society. The only finishing argument that my opponent makes against the matter is that the acceptance of gay marriage would not equal acceptance, which isn't totally true considering that a social legislation truly does speak in some way, and the acknowledgement of same sex shows us that the government acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual and allows marriage between them as such. With that said, even if gay marriage legislation does not equal acceptance, my opponent does not argue the information provided for the said argument, and because he cannot completely knock down this subpoint, it doesn't knock down my first contention, which in turn does not knock down my second contention either because I acknowledged therein that one of the reasons why gay marriage was moral was because it aids to society in some way. So, because he didn't knock down that subpoint, my first and second contentions are still

sustained. "If it doesn't matter that I am opposed to civil unions because they are "acknowledged by the country in some way," then it logically follows that it doesn't matter that you support gay marriage because it is not thusly acknowledged." This logic really doesn't make sense. When I meant acknowledged, I meant acknowledged as legal, and because the condition exists that the country in some way acknowledges same-sex couples under the law, it is a moral obligation to make things equal. That is where civil unions come into the equation: because they are upheld in the country in some way, but still don't provide equal benefits of a traditional marriage. Yes, it exists, and it is relevant to the discussion because it discusses the affairs of gays, so this argument my opponent tries to make about the giraffe is totally irrelevant. Bottom line: the condition exists that gays are acknowledged by the government in some way through civil unions, and the fact that civil unions do not provide equal benefits but marriage does shows us that to present a sense of equality, we must legalize same-sex marriage. When it comes to the argument about democracy, there indeed IS such as thing as the people, as in the people who live in the country as a whole. The people of the country elect their representatives in order to stand for their collective ideals, thus showing to us that the people truly do have a voice and should be listened to as such. At least, that is what a democracy, direct or indirect, would ask of us. Therefore, the people's word have to be taken into account in this debate. The main problem with my opponent's argument against my economics argument is that it's all so unfounded other than the economic theories that were put in place with his own. When it comes to making an analysis on sociology and economics and other such kinds of professional fields, we need a credible analysis from a stronger source in order to a credible argument for or against the said topic. Besides, I can argue that Say's Law, as he

quoted in his rebuttal, actually supports my case because gay marriage does not spend alone on one product, as Say's Law describes. The photography, the flowery, the clothing, the rental spaces, and many other things associated with wedddings. With gay marriage in the equation, businesses would have more competition and would increase demand for their supply. Thus, his evidence actually supports mine. As for his second piece of evidence, he would have to prove of the unintended consequences, which can actually be shown to be positive and is more of a theory than an actual law. Then, we move on to his argument. When it comes to the argument about the tax structure, it shows to be more of a fallacy against the tax structure rather than gay marriage itself. To apply his words, the increase to the taxes would be more of an unintended consequence because at the end of the day, that's the structure's fault, not gay marriage's. It is clear because based on my opponent's description, this is something that occurs with all marriage, not just the same-sex ones, and it means that same-sex couples would likely be to be subjected under this conditions as well. If taxes do rise, blame the tax structure, not gay marriage just because we want to level the playing field. The same goes for his second argument. In essence, he's blaming one thing for the fault of another, and it just means, if this is truly something that is unfair and inefficient, that we need to make changes to that rather than abolish same-sex marriage. To put it quite simply against his argument, it's not gay marriage's fault. So with this said, judges, please vote pro.
Report this Argument

Con

Legislation speaks on the position of the government. The same preaching will be heard in churches, the same rejection rate of those coming out by their families, regardless of the position of the government

If X does not equal Y, and Y is what you need for Z, Z is knocked down when X is.

". When I meant acknowledged, I meant acknowledged as legal, and because the condition exists that the country in some way acknowledges same-sex couples under the law, it is a moral obligation to make things equal. " This simply doesn't follow. The granting of a present subsidy is no cause for obligation to grant a future, greater one.

"the fact that civil unions do not provide equal benefits but marriage does"

Equality and subsidies cannot both exist, you're still discriminating against single people either way, expanding the favored class just makes it harsher on the rest. The only proposed state of marriage law favoring equality is the one I have proposed-- abolition.

"When it comes to the argument about democracy, there indeed IS such as thing as the people," When it comes to reality, there isn't, hence your idea of democracy can never be concretized in reality. In reality there are only individuals-- we are both people, but we cannot be a "The people," and we cannot both rule, as we disagree.

" as in the people who live in the country as a whole." This sense is precisely the problem. There is no "whole" consisting of people living in the country.

"The people of the country elect their representatives" Only the majority does that, sorry (elect means choose, remember, and the minority's say holds not the least sway, thus, they do not choose).

"in order to stand for their collective ideals," There are no collective ideals, there are only ideals that someone disagrees about.

"At least, that is what a democracy, direct or indirect, would ask of us." Well, such a request cannot be granted. Therefore, worry about the things that can be granted, not democracy.

"The main problem with my opponent's argument against my economics argument is that it's all so unfounded other than the economic theories that were put in place with his own. When it comes to making an analysis on sociology and economics and other such kinds of professional fields, we need a credible analysis from a stronger source in order to a credible argument for or against the said topic." This is an argument from authority, straight up and undiluted.

"Besides, I can argue that Say's Law, as he quoted in his rebuttal, actually supports my case because gay marriage does not spend alone on one product, as Say's Law describes. The photography, the flowery, the clothing, the rental spaces, and many other things associated with wedddings." You don't seem to know what Say's Law is because that sentence was completely irrelevant, and Say's Law has no requirement of only applying to "Scenarios where one product is in question," such a requirement would mean it applied to nothing.. Say's Law is that, in general, production makes its own demand. As weddings are not production, they are irrelevant according to Say's law-- if flowers are cheap enough you will buy them for your girlfriend over time instead of spiking purchases on a wedding day, but you will purchase about the same amount (Or some florists will switch professions and then something you want even more will become cheap enough!).

"With gay marriage in the equation, businesses would have more competition and would increase demand for their supply. Thus, his evidence actually supports mine."

The only thing that makes demand according to Say's law is suppliers. When you qualify that suppliers do market research, it makes perfect sense. Gay unmarried people are just as productive as gay married people (Perhaps more-- they'll never have divorce-related frictional costs!) hence they will seek the same overall standard of living-- all purchases that would be wedding-related are substituted with something else.

"As for his second piece of evidence, he would have to prove of the unintended consequences, which can actually be shown to be positive and is more of a theory than an actual law." The unintended consequences (I assume you're referring to Bastiat's Window) here, which one should assume always exist, are, obviously, that spending is merely shifted from other goods and perhaps in time, not increased (as it can't be increased, there's no increase in production).

" Then, we move on to his argument. When it comes to the argument about the tax structure, it shows to be more of a fallacy against the tax structure rather than gay marriage itself. " When declaring a fallacy, you have to name it, or you are assumed to be merely venting frustration. Perhaps you meant "argument?"

"To apply his words, the increase to the taxes would be more of an unintended consequence because at the end of the day, that's the structure's fault, not gay marriage's. " Legal recognition of marriage consists entirely of the production of these "unintended" consequences-- subsidies from single people to married people. And what of it? You just say prove unintended consequences, here you go.

"In essence, he's blaming one thing for the fault of another, and it just means, if this is truly something that is unfair and inefficient, that we need to make changes to that rather than abolish same-sex marriage." Abolishing same-sex (and different-sex) marriage as far as legal recognition goes is the only way to make changes to that, furthermore, if changes are made to that, legal recognition of marriage no longer has a purpose. You wanna profess your love publicly, you can have a wedding without a certificiate you know, the only reason to get a certificate is for the subsidies.

" It is clear because based on my opponent's description, this is something that occurs with all marriage, not just the same-sex ones," Yes, and IF YOU'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION, the alternative policy proposal I have is to abolish legal recognition of marriage. As you clearly acknowledge the problem, and you offer no solution for it aside from mine, and your original resolution stands in contradiction to that solution-- well, that's pretty much a concession of defeat right there.