Gay marriage should be illegal
Debate Rounds (4)
Pro should present their arguments in round 1 and waive the final round.
Note: don't argue from removal of marriage as a government institution, because then it essentially becomes "privatized marriage," which is still legalized gay marriage and will prove a reason to vote Con.
There are two unique benefits to legalizing same-sex marriage.
First, same-sex couples that are married have significantly less psychological harm than those that aren't and attributes the cause to the recognition of them as an equal part of society. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
Second, it's a proven fact that people who get married have more weddings. Weddings are seen as an acknowledgement of marriage, and such ceremonies are rarely held among unmarried people (people without legally recognized marriage). As such, legalizing gay marriage - by increasing the number of marriages - creates a boost to the economy, since it creates more jobs in the wedding industry, increases government revenue by sales taxes and increases consumption. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
To reduce psychological harm and increase economic benefit, vote Con.
First of all, ignorant one, "should" is the language of morality, not economics. Second, while there is a school of moral thought that thinks morality is economics, no one seriously embraces it anymore for it assumes omniscience when no man possesses such. Third, sodomites are not innocent, but are guilty of the moral crime of sodomy. Fifthly, they should be executed because God, who is omniscient, says so.
Turning now to your silly claims, I am glad to see you admit sodomites have psychological problems, even if they are "married". Your idea may (or may not minimize) those problems, but executing sodomites eliminates that problem entirely. As true as it is that dead men tell no tales, it is truer that dead mean suffer no problems.
Second, if you wish to argue based on the economic benefit, I assure you executing sodomites has a much greater economic benefit than holding weddings for them. Just think of all the people necessary to execute a sodomite, from lawyers; to judges; to clerks; to prison guards, staff, wardens; to those who build the death chambers; to those who make the stones to use in the actual execution, to those who make and sell the poster board and crayons for those who desire justice to protest, the economic impact is huge. The average wedding is a mere $20k. The average execution is over a million dollars.
To eliminate psychological harm and really increase economic benefit, execute sodomites.
Second, I didn't say homosexuals are suffering from some "mental illness" and that's a gross misrepresentation. I'm saying people - in *general* - face psychological distress if they face severe social stigmatization, and doing that to same-sex couples qualifies as a harm.
Third, Pro drops that killing innocents qualifies as a "harm." Execution is a weird plan that results in net harm; in fact, it even causes psychological damage to the executioner [http://www.njadp.org...]. Pro's sole justification for execution is that "they are guilty of the moral crime of sodomy." Pro doesn't warrant this at all, because (a) marriage doesn't imply sex, and (b) Pro fails to prove that this is a "moral crime." Pro also fails to prove that God supports this execution.
Finally, turn Pro's economic argument. The $20k spent on a wedding is *positive* because it boosts businesses, increases consumption and increases revenue. The costs spent on capital punishment is a negative cost, since it is a loss of *government* revenue.
Yes, you said :married" sodomites would suffer less psychological harm than "unmarried" sodomites, which is to say all sodomites are psychologically messed up. This is, of course, very true. Executing them eliminates this problem.
Finally, economic spending does concern itself with subjective notions of positive and negative. Rather, it understands tht every dollar spend in an economy is an economic boost to the economy. Indeed, his analsysis is silly. For while a wedding may benefit those who perform it, it is a negative to those who pay for it. The same is true for executing sodomites. While the state may suffer lose, those who are paid because of the execution are benefitted. In terms of economic benefits, marrying sodomites cannot hold a candle to executing them.
Pro argues that executing homosexuals eliminates the problem of psychological distress, but completely drops the argument that executing them is one such harm in itself -- so the plan itself is its biggest harm. Pro also drops that executioners suffer from psychological distress.
Finally, the economic argument is nonsense, and here's why. The money spent by the people on a wedding is often used for their own benefit - they enjoy the wedding, and they *own* the money, so they have the right to spend it the way they want. In contrast, the government doesn't own its money -- it is owned by the people, of the people and for the people. The role of the state is to benefit its people, and so that's the only purpose for which the money should be used. And there are other ways to get employment, et cetera without the actually *significant* harm of executing people.
And I never argued that executing sodomites is harmful, for justice is always good. Rather, I showed why this fool's solution to minimize sodomite suffering by allowing them to '"marry" is inferior to eliminating their suffering by execution.
Finally, I showed that the economic benefit from executing sodomites is orders of magnitude higher than letting them marry. This fool responds by making up some nonsense about where the dollars come from, but that is not relevant to the question of economic benefit.
Given that not only is he wrong in an absolute sense, his owe arguments show that executing sodomites is better than marrying them. He loses.
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.