Debate Rounds (5)
This debate should remain controlled and civil.
Reasons to allow gay marriage:
1. Adoption: A common argument against gay marriage has been procreation. Somehow marriage is a gift to those who add to the already grotesque population crisis. Over population could easily be the foundation for most of our societal woes and should be recognized in this light. That being said, providing benefits and support for same sex adoption while allowing the tradition of marriage can benefit us as a whole. It can also be a small solution towards population control end maybe even provide a secure loving home for a child who may otherwise be left in the system.
2. Progression: One aspect to this you may not be familiar with is the international reputation and overall opinion of this "great" country we live in. How does the rest of the world view us? My concern is that we should reflect on our actions and truly decide if we are worthy of the title. Our history is paved with atrocity and discrimination. It is a stain on our past and we have progressed too far to allow the same bully tactics that shame our nation! It is clear that my opponent must explain the difference between gay rights and the rights of women and African Americans. How is this not about civil rights? Isn't this a blatant disruption of the freedom for minorities?
3. Authority: Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? To me that was as much of a story about teaching children the dangers of lying as it is proving the importance of discretion with authority! Right now signs point to this being the case with gay marriage. One of my favorite sayings is "pick your battles"; Is this really a wolf worth crying about? If not should I take you seriously at all? That is the dangers of micro managing a country and If you are deciding on laws and regulations it should always be quality over quantity.
The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the 1974 case Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses."  The Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."  The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
4. Sanctity of Marriage: Many claim the "sanctity of marriage" would be tarnished by the admittance of homosexuals. I would like to counter that by saying it would in fact be tarnished by not allowing them to marry. I don't see marriage as an exclusive social club. It is a tradition of strengthening the bonds between two people who love each other. When I got married I did not care about the politics. I cared about my wife. It is a tradition of love not exclusivity! If people are only getting married because they can (drunk in Vegas, green card, pregnancy wedding), while two people who love each other cannot. That would degrade the nature of the ritual and could bring up whether or not marriage should be severely limited for everyone.
5. Empathy: I wont throw out the word homophobic because I know that's like saying Nazi to people who blindly follow a religion however I'm going to have to let you tell me what empathy means to you.
Empathy: The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner
6. Economical: It is statistically proven that allowing gay marriage benefits and stimulates the economy. Cutting Government spending in some areas and while boosting tax revenue and state economies. Studies have shown that it could even have a positive affect on the deficit. Also lets not forget the obvious benefit to the wedding industry. Seems like a win, win, win, win.
7. Freedom of Religion: You made it clear that you were not using the bible to help win this debate. In order for you to understand my position you need to understand, I am not Christian nor do I look to the bible for answers in my life. I do however think it is important for both of us to find out; Does Christianity/Religion have a big part in this topic? I honestly can't think of any other reason (besides homophobia)
There exists no such thing as "same-sex" marriage. Although marriage licenses are being issued by some state governments to homosexual couples, there are in reality no homosexual marriages"never were, are not now, never will be. Marriage is an institution ordained by God in Genesis: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh," and reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6. All societies throughout recorded history have publicly recognized the institution of marriage as a sexually complementary public institution. The government's obligation is merely to recognize legally what marriage actually is. The government has no business creating an entirely new and destructive institution and then attaching to it the name of marriage.
What is Marriage?
Marriage is a "socially approved intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are"and are understood by the society to be"emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents." ---David Blankenhorn (homosexual activist). Marriage is not solely or centrally about love. It is centrally concerned with children and their connection to their biological parents. The state has no interest or investment in whether couples love each other. If marriage were solely or even centrally about love and had no connection to children, the state would have no interest in or business being
involved with marriage.
* Adopted children are not being raised by their biological parents and yet society recognizes those families, so why not legally recognize families led by homosexuals? Adoption historically understood, was not the ideal context for children, but rather a benevolent way for society to accommodate the failures or tragedies in life that leave some children without the nurturance of their biological families. We as a society should not sanction the deliberate creation of children who will not be raised by either their mothers or fathers and same-sex adoption always denies children at least a mother or father. How is that a good thing?
* Society allows marriages for couples who are infertile or who choose to remain childless, so why not permit homosexual marriages that cannot produce children? The government sanctions the type of relationship that has the capacity to produce children. The government is not interested in compelling procreation, but rather in supporting the type of relationship that procreates.
What are the current requirements for government-sanctioned marriage? Except in the states in which activist judges have overruled the will of the people, the current requirements for government-approved marriages include the following:
" Numbers of partners"marriage is limited to two partners, therefore no polygamous marriages.
" Consanguinity"partners cannot be closely related by blood, therefore no incestuous marriages.
" Minimum age"partners must be of major age, therefore no pedophiliac marriages.
" Sexual complementarity"partners must be of opposite sexes, therefore no homosexual marriages.
What are the justifications for these requirements or criteria? Society has concluded that the requirements regarding numbers of partners, consanguinity, minimum age, and sexual complementarity best serve the needs of children and therefore best serve the needs of society.
Why is the state involved in sanctioning marriage? The state is involved in marriage for two inter-related reasons: 1. The state wants to encourage, support, and sustain that institution which best serves the needs of children. 2. The state is concerned about what institution best serves the needs of children because that which best serves the needs of children, best serves the needs of a healthy society.
Is access to marriage a civil right? No, access to marriage is not a civil right. Our civil rights are very specific rights that are accorded to individuals because of their status as humans. These rights are based on universal characteristics, not on feelings, desires, "orientations," or volitional conduct. Our civil rights are the following: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of press; freedom of assembly; the right to vote; the right to life; right to have fire arms; freedom from involuntary servitude; the right to equality in public places; the right to due process of law; the right to equal protection under the law. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. The government can legitimately define an institution and limit its
membership in accordance with that definition.
Do current marital requirements violate civil rights? Current marital requirements do not violate civil rights. Every individual who fulfills the requirements or conditions that society has deemed essential to the institution of marriage has equal access to marriage. What homosexuals are actually demanding is that they be permitted to redefine marriage"to eliminate one of the conditions that society views as central to marriage: sexual complementarity. Similarly, polyamorous people who love more than one person cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion of numbers of partners. And incestuous couples cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion regarding close blood kinship. And those who believe they are in love with minors cannot eliminate the criterion of minimum age. None of these groups of people are being denied their civil rights even though they cannot get married. They are being prevented from unilaterally redefining marriage which is a public institution that affects the civic good.
Is the sexual complementarity requirement equivalent to anti-miscegenation laws (i.e. Are laws that ban "same-sex marriage" equivalent to laws that banned interracial marriage?) Laws that permit only heterosexual marriages are not equivalent to laws that banned interracial marriage because "sexual orientation" is not equivalent to race. Laws banning interracial marriages were based on the erroneous belief that whites and blacks are by nature different, when, in fact, whites and blacks are not by nature different. Laws that permit only heterosexual marriages are based on the true belief that men and women are by nature different. Therefore, it is not only permissible, but essential that laws that regulate marriage take into account the very real differences between men and women. Thomas Sowell explains that
"The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior."
A black man who wants to marry a white woman is seeking to do the same action that a white man who wants to marry a white woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits an interracial marriage is wrong because it is based on who the person is, not on what he seeks to do. But, if a man wants to marry a man, he is seeking to do an entirely different action from that which a man who wants to marry a woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits homosexual marriage is legitimate because it is based not on who the person is but rather on what he seeks to do. Any man may engage in the act of marrying a woman (if she is of age and not closely related by blood).
I have one more part I wanted to cover but I'm running low on space so I'll stop here. Thank you.
Finalfan forfeited this round.
1. Adoption: The scientific fact is that children's health is endangered if they are adopted into households in which the
adults"as a direct consequence of their homosexual behavior"experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, life-threatening disease, and premature death by up to 20 years. "The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write the editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders""including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports: "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices. Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women." (Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999.) The Institute reports that "significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. ... Nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday." Is it healthy for children to be adopted by adults whose lifestyle is characterized by promiscuity and the medical
hazards of multiple sex partners? A homosexual news magazine columnist in Detroit last month [February 2002] wrote regarding his partner: "This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and
game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships. ... A study I once read suggested that nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers" [emphasis added]. The Centers for Disease Control warns that men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases." This isn't all of the information so if anyone is interested, they can continue reading here: http://science.jburroughs.org...
2. Progression: Is it progressive to destroy a pillar that society itself is built upon? I do agree that one's image is important but one's image shouldn't come at the expense of pushing for something that will harm society in a major way. Once again, homosexuals are not denied the institution of marriage. The reason they do not want to follow the rules of the institution is because the rules do not suit their homosexual behavior. This is not a civil rights issue, but a behavioral issue.
3. Authority: Why is the state involved in sanctioning marriage? The state is involved in marriage for two inter-related reasons: 1. The state wants to encourage, support, and sustain that institution which best serves the needs of children. 2. The state is concerned about what institution best serves the needs of children because that which best serves the needs of children, best serves the needs of a healthy society. Is access to marriage a civil right? No, access to marriage is not a civil right. Our civil rights are very specific rights that are accorded to individuals because of their status as humans. These rights are based on universal characteristics, not on feelings, desires, "orientations," or volitional conduct. Our civil rights are the following: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of press; freedom of assembly; the right to vote; the right to life; right to have fire arms; freedom from involuntary servitude; the right to equality in public places; the right to due process of law; the right to equal protection under the law. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. The government can legitimately define an institution and limit its membership in accordance with that definition. Do current marital requirements violate civil rights? Current marital requirements do not violate civil rights. Every individual who fulfills the requirements or conditions that society has deemed essential to the institution of marriage has equal access to marriage. What homosexuals are actually demanding is that they be permitted to redefine marriage"to eliminate one of the conditions that society views as central to marriage: sexual complementarity. Similarly, polyamorous people who love more than one person cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion of numbers of partners. And incestuous couples cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion regarding close blood kinship. And those who believe they are in love with minors cannot eliminate the criterion of minimum age. None of these groups of people are being denied their civil rights even though they cannot get married. They are being prevented from unilaterally redefining marriage which is a public institution that affects the civic good.
4. Sanctity of Marriage: Throughout history marriage has always been viewed as the joining of men and women. Why? Because society benefits when men and women get together and bring forth off-spring. Since homosexual unions never have that option, their unions cannot be called or seen as marriage. It is fair to give equal things equal value but it is unfair to give two unequal things the same value while calling them the same....in this case, equating unprofitable homosexual unions with profitable heterosexual unions.
5. Empathy: We can be empathetic towards something, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what we are empathetic towards is correct for us or society as a whole.
6. Economical: Although same-sex unions will pour money into the economy, the effects will not last. Just look at the places where same-sex marriage has been issued for more than a decade. Those place are still not doing to good financially. If homosexuals make up 2% of the American population, how is their money going to help stimulate the economy? Also, why not encourage more heterosexuals to get married if marriage money is going to help the economy? Heterosexuals make up a much more larger part of the population.
7. Freedom of Religion: Same sex unions will stiffen freedom of religion. All one must do is do an internet search of the cases brought against religious people and their businesses on behalf of homosexuals in places where same-sex marriage has been legalized. In ever place where same-sex marriage is the law of the land, any religion that teaches against such thing is automatically deemed wrong, not because that religion has been proven wrong, simply because the law now says so. Also, no government or culture is philosophically/religion neutral. That means someone's world views are going to win the government and culture and if the homosexual view wins, religious freedom that doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda automatically takes a back seat and in a way that is using the law and not debate to silence the opposition. You are now wrong simply because the law says so? No debate(s) regarding the matter? How is that fair in a so called free republic?
Finalfan forfeited this round.
Before I begin let me say that I'm sure that the vast majority of homosexuals are not horrible people and that is not what this debate is about. Homosexuals are not being denied the institution of marriage. The problem is that the institution doesn't approve of homosexual behavior and just because an institution will not tolerate your behavior doesn't mean you're outright being denied access to said institution and it's benefits. The institution is not saying that people who experience homosexual desires cannot get married at all. The institution is simply saying that there is a criteria that must be followed because this criteria is what benefits all of society.
Answering Objections: Executive Summary
1. Don"t put discrimination in the Constitution! a. Too late"it"s already there. In fact, all laws discriminate! But it"s discrimination against behaviors not persons; and it"s with cause, not arbitrary. For example: i. The First Amendment discriminates against Muslims establishing a religion (a behavior), but it does not discriminate against Muslims as persons. ii. The 13th Amendment discriminates against businessmen taking slaves (a behavior), but not businessmen as persons.
b. Likewise, our marriage laws discriminate against the behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, adulterers, and the incestuous among us, but they do not discriminate against them as persons. c. Laws must protect citizens from harmful behaviors regardless of why people commit those behaviors.
2. But homosexuals are a minority class like blacks. a. Homosexuals are not a class of people, and neither are heterosexuals. We are males and females, not homosexuals or heterosexuals. Why classify people by sexual desires? b. You will find many former homosexuals. You will never find a former African-American. c. Committing homosexual acts is not the same as skin color or gender. Homosexual behavior is harmful; skin color or gender is not. And sexual behavior is always chosen (even if the desires are not). d. This issue is not about discriminating against people but against the potentially harmful behaviors of people. And all laws discriminate against behavior (see #1 above)
3. But homosexuals were born that way! a. The source of homosexual desires has not been determined. But even if there is a genetic component (although one wonders how it is passed on), those desires do not excuse behavior. b. An orientation toward homosexuality doesn't make the behavior morally right anymore than an orientation toward violence makes gay bashing morally right. c. We were all born with an orientation toward bad behavior. And desires, whatever their
source, do not excuse behavior. Should adults act on every desire they have? Of course not. In fact, the principled restraint of destructive desires is called CIVILIZATION!
4. Weren"t you born a heterosexual? a. No, I was born a male. b. My sexual behavior is chosen just like yours.
5. Opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing inter-racial marriage! a. No, ethnicity is irrelevant to coupling; gender is essential. (There"s only one race-- the human race-- but there are two genders.) b. Opposition to interracial (inter-ethnic) marriage is without merit. Men and women are designed for one another, so interethnic couplings are helpful. But homosexual couplings go against the natural design and are therefore harmful.
6. What about equal rights? a. Homosexuals already have them. Everyone has the same right to form relationships, but
no one has a right to have their relationships endorsed by the state. b. Everyone has the same right to marry the opposite sex; homosexuals don"t like their choices and thus want special rights. c. If we grant special rights for homosexuals, on what grounds can we deny special rights for consenting adults who desire other socially destructive or unhealthy relationships such as polygamy or incest?
7. It's unfair discrimination to prevent same-sex marriage. a. No one is being treated unfairly because everyone is playing by the same rules: we all have the same right to marry the opposite sex. b. It is not unfair to define who does and doesn't qualify as a spouse. When the state refuses to recognize a marriage between a father and daughter, it is not discriminating
unfairly. It is wisely protecting society by choosing not to sanction an unhealthy and socially destructive relationship. For the same reasons the state should not recognize homosexual relationships. c. Marriage, by design, is between an unrelated man and woman. The state should simply recognize the natural design of marriage; it should not re-define marriage.
8. It"s bigotry to prevent same-sex marriage! a. No, it"s sound judgment based on the evidence that same-sex marriage would be harmful, while traditional marriage is healthy and helpful. b. This argument, like others, presupposes a moral standard. (Homosexual activists acknowledge that bigotry violates the Moral Law" why don"t they admit the same with
regard to homosexual behavior?)
9. Why allow traditional marriage but prevent same-sex marriage? a. Because traditional marriage is our national immune system. It protects us from disease and social costs. When our marriages are strong, our society is strong. When our
marriages are weak, we all suffer. b. Traditional marriage: i. Improves health and lengthens the life span of the man and the woman. ii. Protects women from uncommitted men. iii. Lowers welfare costs to society. iv. Lowers the crime rate (marriage civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits). v. Procreates and encourages an adequate replacement birth rate c. Children from traditional marriage homes are: i. Seven times less likely to live in poverty ii. Six times less likely to commit suicide iii. Less than half as likely to commit crime iv. Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock v. Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood vi. Do better academically and socially d. Children from fatherless homes account for: i. 60% of America's rapists ii. 63% of America"s youth suicides iii. 70% of America"s long-term prison inmates iv. 70% of America"s reform school attendees v. 71% of America"s teenage pregnancies vi. 71% of America"s high school dropouts vii. 72% of America"s adolescent murderers viii. 85% of America"s youth prisoners ix. 85% of America"s youth with behavioral disorders x. 90% of America"s runaways e. Same-sex marriage would not benefit, but hurt traditional marriage and society.
10. How could allowing same-sex marriage possibly hurt marriage and society? There is no neutrality on moral issues. By legalizing same-sex marriage, the state would be approving of them and therefore encouraging them. Laws help change attitudes and encourage good (or bad) behavior. In other words, the law is a great teacher. Many people believe that whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. Same-sex marriage will: a. Trivialize the importance of marriage, leading to increased Illegitimacy and social costs. i. Elevating homosexual unions to the level of heterosexual marriage would further downgrade the perceived importance of marriage in our culture. Marriage will be seen as just about coupling rather than procreation. ii. This is the case in Norway where same-sex marriage has been in place since the
early nineties. Illegitimacy is exploding partly because people no longer connect marriage to childbearing (see # 14 below).
iii. Illegitimacy hurts everyone via increased crime and social welfare costs (not to mention the direct harm to children who are denied either a Mom or a Dad). b. Lead to higher medical and health insurance costs. i. We would likely see an increase in homosexual behavior following the endorsement of same-sex marriage like we saw a sharp rise in abortion following Roe v. Wade. ii.
There's more (6 more points I wanted to make and point 10 is not finished) but I'm pressed for space so I'll stop here.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.