Debate Rounds (3)
With that, I shall allow the opposing side to bring their argument to the table.
To begin with, advocates for gay marriage argue that denying a couple the right to marry any person of their choice regardless of their sexes is immoral since they are denied some of the basic right. This is because when an individual is unable to marry, there are certain rights that they cannot enjoy. Some of these rights, which only the married couples enjoy that include visitation rights when one partner is admitted in hospital, health care, social security and joint tax benefits.
Sullivan asserts that nevertheless, the fight for equal rights does not essentially focus on the access to benefits only, but rather focus on ensuring that gay and lesbian couples proclaim their love and commitment to one another in a similar manner the heterosexual couples always enjoy. Gay marriage supporters believe that allowing same-sex marriages guarantees the couples some legal and economic security. Additionally, when the government encourages same-sex marriage, it is simply strengthening the relationship between couples.
According to Rauch people against gay marriage affirm the act is immoral, and allowing gay marriages is likely to increase the divorce rates. Besides, those opposing same-sex marriage purport that gays and lesbians are likely to taint the long-standing practice within the institution marriage " that is marriage between different genders. A further argument presented by the proponents of gay marriage stems from the belief that the major purpose of marriage is procreation. Gay marriage does not support this belief; therefore, such couples should not marry. Indeed, homosexual couple"s home is not fit to raise children, even if they adopt a child.
In conclusion, it is evident that gay marriage is immoral. However, both proponents and opponents argue to support their stands respectively. Same-sex marriages deny the couples certain basic rights, which the opposite sex marriages enjoy. Gay marriages do not offer a good environment for bringing up children while marriage between different sexes promotes the long-standing belief of the marriage institution " that is, different gender marriages.
Allow me to bring upon the concept of liberty; by which is defined as "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." I bring this definition up due to the fact that, while gay marriage does stir the emotions of those especially of particular homophobic religions (especially those of Islam), there is no direct effect heterosexuals are oppressed by with same-sex marriage. Henceforth, those against same-sex marriage declare it to be "immoral" under their own personal emotions, and not due to ethical concerns.
I am pleased that you have brought up the concept of divorce. The Williams Institute has gathered data by which show only 11% of same-sex couples dissolve their legal relationships each year, which is lower than heterosexual legal relationships by 2%. The very same institute also states that those whom identify as homosexual only make up 3.5% of the United states population. Therefore; it can be reasonably argued that gay marriage would not bring a significant spike in divorce rates.
In terms of Procreation, let the record show that we both agree that homosexuals cannot birth a child together. However, they can certainly adopt; the American Civil Liberties union makes special note of the fact that sexuality does not define one's ability to parent. In fact, if that argument were to be absent of fallacy then the same can be said for heterosexual couples; the SPCC reports that "there has been an increase in overall reporting, and confirmed child abuse cases increased from 679,000 in 2013 to 702,000 in 2014." Can you guess how many of those cases are from heterosexual couples?
With homosexual couples adopting, we could more children going into homes rather than remaining stuck in government institutions.
I will begin listing the cons of Gay Marriage
1. Negative Effects on Children
Same sex marriages are not always the best environment in which to raise a child. While the majority of adults are fully capable of functioning without the utilization of traditional gender roles, a child may require the presence of a mother and a father in order to feel comfortable, safe, and loved. Some kids simply need a father and a mother in order to reach their full potential.
2. Adds to Overburden Divorce System
Being able to get married and celebrate your love in a public forum is wonderful. Getting a divorce is not. When gay couples are allowed to marry, they are now subject to all of the same divorce pitfalls as their straight counterparts. The division of assets, deciding upon child custody, alimony hearings, none of these experiences are fun to go through.
3. Controversy Among Fundamental Beliefs
Those who are opposed to gay marriage are forced to watch as their tax dollars are spent on an idea that they do not fundamentally believe in. While tax dollar utilization can be a tricky topic and it would be close to impossible to ensure that every dollar spent goes towards a worthy cause, this is something that must be considered in any fair discussion.
It is unfortunate that there is such a growing stigma attached to arguing against gay marriage " at least here in the liberal bastion that is Massachusetts. If one is opposed to legalizing gay marriage, it is automatically assumed that the opposition rests on a basis of hate, homophobia, or other such negative motivations. There are, in fact, legitimate, substantive reasons as to why gay marriage should not be legalized.
Opposition to gay marriage has such a negative connotation because advocates have successfully framed the issue as one of equal rights. By this logic, if you oppose gay marriage, you are opposed to equal rights for everyone. They claim that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees them the right to marry whomever they desire, including members of the same sex. To forbid this would, in their minds, be discrimination. But do all people have the right to marry whomever they want already, with the exception of same-sex couples? No; states have laws regulating marriage, forbidding first cousins from marrying, brothers and sisters from marrying, parents and offspring from marrying, and people from marrying animals, inanimate objects, or multiple other individuals.
Why is marriage regulated by the government at all? In fact, not only are there restrictions on certain types of marriages, but there are incentives for heterosexuals (not falling into the categories above) to marry. Why should the government encourage " through tax breaks and other benefits " some types of marriages while banning others? The rationale is that males and females, when married, are more likely to procreate, thus ensuring the continuation of American society. It is certainly to America"s advantage to have citizens, so there exists a compelling state interest justifying government subsidization of heterosexual marriage. The banned types of marriage are similarly rationalized; offspring from family members who marry are significantly more likely to be sterile, thus unable to continue the proliferation of society, or otherwise impaired. It is therefore not in the interest of government to encourage these types of marriages.
It should be obvious, by this point, which category gay marriage falls into. Same-sex couples are unable to procreate, meaning that there is no compelling interest to subsidize their marriages. At this point, many would argue that the happiness of same-sex couples would be enhanced by gay marriage, thus providing a compelling interest. This, in fact, is not the case. The government has already shown through prohibiting certain types of marriage that it does not view enhanced happiness as a compelling enough interest to encourage marriage of any kind. After all, if "enhanced happiness" was a compelling interest, it could be used to justify government subsidization of chocolate, which is proven to increase happiness through the release of certain endorphins. In fact, one could argue that the government should subsidize anything and everything that makes someone happy. Thus, "enhanced happiness" can clearly not be considered a compelling enough interest to justify the recognition and, therefore, subsidization of gay marriage.
While same-sex couples certainly cannot reproduce themselves, artificial insemination for lesbians would be an option. Or it might be argued that the government should subsidize gay marriages to make it easier to adopt. Despite neither arguments of these being good enough reasons to justify legalizing any of the types of banned marriages discussed earlier, it bears discussing. Regarding families where the father is absent, research by University of Canterbury professor Bruce J. Ellis has shown that, "greater exposure to father absence was strongly associated with elevated risk for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy." This is relevant to the debate around same-sex marriage because, in lesbian couples, any daughter would certainly be growing up apart from their biological father, thus increasing the risk of these unfortunate effects.
Further evidence on the importance of having both a mother and father is provided by Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby, who points out that "mothers, on average, may have somewhat stronger parental "instincts" when it comes to responding to young infants." In male gay couples, this is by definition not the case. An increasing body of evidence shows that it is indeed more advantageous for children to grow up having both a mother and a father. Once again, we cannot put the "enhanced happiness" that same-sex couples would get from raising a child above the well-being of that child.
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a question of whether or not there exists a compelling enough interest for the government to subsidize and encourage gay marriage. As same-sex couples cannot procreate and, in fact, have the potential to harm any children they might raise, it is certainly in the interest of the federal government to maintain the stance it presented in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 2 states "the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
I will proceed to dispute your "cons" of Gay Marriage in the same order you have presented.
1. With personal experience, I can say this is false. I was raised by my mother and stepmother; and though they were not romantically or sexually engaged both still did a very well job in making me feel comfortable, safe, and loved... Especially while I was suffering from an very, very abusive father! And to be frank, for someone my age I am very successful. I again point to the statistic, where the SPCC reports an increase in child abuse cases, which was from 679,000 in 2013 to 702,000 in 2014. With this in mind, within the United States do homosexuals only make up 3.5% of the total population; therefore, it can be concluded that in terms of child abuse cases it is, in fact, heterosexual couples that make up the majority of them.
2. Those burdens are not for you, or anyone whom supports liberty, to decide whether one is to suffer from or not. If a homosexual couple decides to marry, they will know that if things turn south they will have to endure the same burdens heterosexual couples do. And, again, homosexuals in the United States only make up 3.5% of the population, and are only 11% likely to divorce. "Overburden" to the system is a huge overstatement.
3. Again, if you are somebody whom supports liberty than it doesn't matter what other people do so long as it affects you. Taxes are payed by everyone, regardless if you are homosexual or not. I would not see any fallacy in your argument if the homosexuals were exempt from such taxes - which I assure you they are not.
Marriage is regulated by the government because it is a legal title that two people have amongst each other. Both people become the other's medical proxy, get added to the other's insurance... There are so many government functions involved in marriage; hence there isn't any reason why people, especially those EXTERIOR to the relationship, should have any legal say in OTHER PEOPLE's relationship.
If you are arguing that Gays cannot marry because they cannot procreate, how about the heterosexual couples that are sterile? Certainly, they cannot produce offspring - so then they shouldn't marry, right? And, additionally, just because you are married does not entirely mean you have to have a kid. There are many, many couples out there (both gay and straight) whom do not want children, so should they just divorce then?
Gay marriage becomes an civil rights issue when it comes down to people forcing their religious or "moral" beliefs on others. It is no different than the topic of abortion; people are against OTHERS having it, despite it not affecting them, because it hurts their feelings. If I were married to another man, my relationship is not any contextual difference than a heterosexual marriage; I still have to pay for my wedding, taxes, housing, utilities, etc. Again, it doesn't affect you. You may argue that you have to pay taxes on it, but again so does everyone else; and homosexuals, again, represent only 3.5% of the population. With that, I have very high doubts you will suffer economically because of gay marriage.
Also, so you know; DOMA was overturned in a 5-4 decision in 2013.
I am not trying to change your idea NOR insult you and your parents. However I am just trying to demonstrate my idea and show my POV
What basic fact about homosexuality do you, your parents, your local evangelical priest, and your science teacher most likely agree about? Try this one: Homosexuals don"t reproduce. This verity is beyond obvious: Try as they may, two men or two women together cannot have babies. It is the self-evidence of that statement that I would like to deconstruct here.
The argument dates from antiquity and has constituted one of the cornerstones of Western sexual morals that sees homosexuality as "against nature." The idea appeared in Classical Greece, most clearly in late Platonic writings; Greco-Roman moralists largely endorsed it; it triumphed with the rise to power of Christianity. Modern philosophers were equally puzzled by this revolting anomaly in human behavior. And until today the scientific community has operated with the same basic certainty in the background: Homosexuality is intrinsically sterile. Because homosexuals don"t "spread their genes" and should have therefore been eliminated during the evolutionary process, they constitute an evolutionary anomaly. More recently however, historians, anthropologists, and sociologists have revealed a far more complex reality.
Anthropological data are astonishingly consistent: For the most part, homosexual relationships have been perfectly compatible with the reproductive duty. This was true across the board in antiquity, from Greece to Japan and from Australia to Central America, in the Islamic world, and probably any civilization prior to European colonization. Transgender homosexuals, who were attributed or granted the right to adopt the opposite or a third gender, were the only exceptions to this rule. The Native Indian two-spirit, the Indian hijra, and the Hawaiian māh$3;s were all exempted from the reproductive duty... yet their male partners weren"t. As for lesbians, they were almost universally coerced into marrying. As a result, lesbian relationships remained mostly invisible throughout history. In Christian Europe, sodomites were forced to hide from the public eye. Unless they opted for priesthood, they too married and procreated. Remember that Oscar Wilde had two sons.
In the end, the concept of the "barren homosexual" only applies to recent generations. After WWII and particularly since the sexual revolution in the 1970s, a new " modern " type of homosexual relationships, which no longer demanded a difference in status between partners (whether age, gender, or class), became the new relational standard. One of gay identity"s novelties is to champion an exclusive interest in same-sex partners. Yet, only three decades later, gays are now fighting for their right to marry and the recognition of their families. Gay couples have employed various strategies to have children on their own, such as artificial insemination and the hiring of a surrogate mother. Left to them, many homosexuals today would create parental relationships outside of their romantic and/or marital bond to a same-sex partner. By and large anthropological and historical data, including the most recent ones, confirm that homosexuals procreate. But our inquiry is not over yet.
Most languages use the same word " sex " to design two largely unrelated activities: On the one hand, the process of procreating by virtue of combining the genetic pools of two individuals (whether human, plant, or bacteria), and on the other hand, a collection of behaviors aimed at providing pleasure and occasionally an orgasm. Sex for pleasure, unlike reproductive sex, is only observed among complex mammals. And unquestionably human beings have mastered it.
Both processes " reproductive sex and sex for pleasure - -use the sexual organs, however sex for pleasure involves many other body parts in addition to the genitals, as you hopefully already know. The idea that homosexual sex precludes reproduction goes hand-in-hand with the idea that heterosexual sex is "always" about the possibility of procreation. Both statements are equally unfounded. Indeed in humans, heterosexual sex for pleasure, distinct from reproductive sex, is only marginally procreative. Do the math in your head and try to estimate how much of it actually leads to conception. Subtract all sexual acts that do not involve vaginal penetration plus ejaculation (I"ll let you make your own list). Then subtract all occurrences when the woman is not fertile ...
A few occurrences of reproductive sex in one individual"s life suffice to ensure proper reproduction. As it happens, the human species is designed such that sex for pleasure and reproductive sex are disconnected: The human female is sexually receptive all the time (not only during estrus) and sends no visual or odorant signal to help males know that she"s fertile (a characteristic that humans share with bonobos). Efficient procreation ensues automatically from abundant sex-for-pleasure, as a "byproduct" if you will. By the way, don"t you think that the female orgasm " another biological mystery " makes much more sense now also?
Yet, everything that I"ve mentioned above is dwarfed by another evolutionary conundrum in the human species: menopause. Forget about the tiny fraction of homosexuals that exhibit zero interest in procreating; most women passed the age of 50 " about 20 to 25 percent of the female population " cannot reproduce. And they still have sex (for pleasure).
I am certainly not the first one to notice those inconsistencies. Why has our culture been so outraged by homosexual behavior? Why has it been viewed as a threat to reproduction while the opposite is actually true? Why has menopause never been viewed as "unnatural"? From a pro-homosexual perspective, the response to this issue has commonly been that people are either ignorant or ill-intentioned. But again, this is not what we observe. The list of brilliant thinkers " whether philosopher, theologian, or scientist, who have criticized and more often than not condemned homosexual behavior throughout history " demonstrates how much homophobia is not a matter of ignorance or malevolence (even though ignorance and malevolence can and have patently amplified it).
candals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.
Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.
However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported:"It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!"
Kee MacFarlane, et al., writing in Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment report:"The large majority of sexual perpetrators appear to be males (Herman and Hirschman, 1981; Lindholm and Willey, 1983)."
A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: "In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male."
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.