Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states
Debate Rounds (3)
Lets talk about kids. If same-sex marriage were legal, imagine how many children would be adopted and taken out of the foster systems. Let's say one woman has a biological child and have a partner (who's also a woman). If they live in a state where same sex marriage isn't legal, if the biological mother were to pass away, her partner wouldn't have the right to the child. That's putting ANOTHER child into the foster system.
We also need to think about the fact that gay and lesbians are people who should have the right to be married to each other.
I could not finish a previous debate with these same arguments, so I will go with them here as well
Firstly,I would like to remind everyone that this debate is not about legalising Homosexuality,I am not against this.I am personally against any kind of discrimination, and find the hatred against homosexuals shown in societies very disturbing.In India(my country), it is illegal to even be a homosexual, and this is something that I am very much against.Nevertheless, This debate is about whether the government should provide the SAME legal support it provides to hetero-sexual relationships.For this, we must not only see the origins of the concept of marriage, but must also fully understand the motivation for giving this personal and private relationship a legal status, and the reason why the government has a right to poke it's nose in the private affairs of it's citizens.
Origins of Monogamous Marriage
I would like to show the reasons why a monogamous marriage was instituted in the first place.One of the the earliest recorded arguments for monogamous marriage (not marriage alone) are recorded in the Indian epic the Mahabharatha, where a Sage Svetaketu institutes monogamous marriage after seeing another brahman 'cathing his mother's hand'.He decrees it is the birthright of every child to know who his biological parents are, and hence decides that only one man should be with one woman for ever for the sake of their CHILDREN.
While we have DNA testing etc in the modern world today making his reason seem ridiculous, this story illustrates that since the beginning, marriage as a social institution was a wilful self-sacrifice taken up for the BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN.
Love was a strong motivation of people to enter into marriage, but the institution itself was a way in which the present generation sacrificed their animal instincts to ensure that the off-spring that resulted from their sexual relationships would know who their parents were and would be better cared for and provided for.
Also,at the heart of the civil union debate lies the more important question: Why should the State interfere in Love at all?
I completely agree with Pro that the Government should not interfere with the private affairs and relationships of grown adults who are fully capable of deciding their partners.In that case, why should the government interfere at all?why should it waste millions of dollars and burden its judicial system to settle love disputes?Why should it recommend marriage counseling for couples who obviously don't love each other anymore?Forget the Government,What right does anyone have to interfere between two lovers?
When it is seen from this angle, the answer becomes clear.The government does all these things to promote the arrival of new citizens.It bears all the burdens that are necessary, because it is in the interest of the state to ensure that these future citizens have a stable environment to grow.The Divorce laws are also made to ensure that even though the parents may split due to irreconcilable reasons, the children are not abandoned,and are provided for atleast materially by both parents.
There many other types of Heterosexual relationships(friendship,Dating, Live-In relationship etc) but these too are not given Legal status, as the couples are not interested in having children.Thus, the state does not interfere in these things and leaves this relationship alone.
But what about Infertile couples?
Infertile couples, Aged Couples etc. are still capable of producing children in principle.Laws are made keeping the principles in mind, and marriage is defined and given legal protection as an institution between a man and a woman keeping the majority of the cases, and the principle in mind.A man and a woman can always in principle produce offspring.
For example, we can declare in principle that an apple as fit for eating,however,if worms are present in some apples, we cannot say that apples itself are unfit for eating.
Likewise,Even if it is coincidentally impossible for an individual couple to procreate, it is still a union between two people, who are still, in principle, capable of procreation. By contrast, homosexual couples are not only coincidentally incapable of procreation, but incapable of procreation in principle itself.
Most religions see sexual activity that is incapable of procreation as an impediment to spiritual progress and encourage celibacy(Jainism, Taoism,Certain brances of Hinduism and Christianity).In Roman Catholicism, even the use of contraceptives among married couples is prohibited for this very same reason.
So if married couples are prohibited from sex that does not result in procreation, it is not discrimination against homosexuals as their marriage can never result in children.In contrast, it would be discrimination if homosexuals are given a free pass to their sexual activity, while heterosexual couples are not.
Almost all religions hold the Sexual act as something sacred, that enables us, as human beings to take part in the creation of God.It would not amount to discrimination if a union that is incapable of this creation is not celebrated in the same fashion.
If others wish to hold homosexuality as sacred, they cannot enforce this belief on others.
Public celebration and adoption can still be allowed.
I am merely against giving legal protection to Homosexual relationships.However this does not mean that Homosexuals cannot live together,adopt children or even hold a public celebration to mark their 'moving in' together, or to make a commitment.
Existing Adoption laws can be altered to ensure that homoosexuals are not discriminated against while they choose to adopt childeren.Single heterosexuals can adopt children as well so this is not exactly a problem.
I am totally for the relaxation of rules of adoption that would enable a homosexual partner to gain possession of the child if one partner dies.
But all of this can be done without changing an ancient definition of marriage, that was one of the earliest attempts at civilising human sexual relationships.
In conclusion, 4 major points can be seen:
1.The principle of marriage was instituted to encourage procreation and to ensure that the progeny have a stable environment to grow in.
2.The handling of divorce cases puts a burden on the government, and can even be seen as an intrusion of privacy.Yet this is allowed solely for reason 1.
3.The sex act is revered in all religions because it allows for new creation.Not holding Homosexuality with the same respect does not amount to discrimination.
4.Homosexuals can still hold public celebrations, be faithful, adopt etc. but marriage need not be redefined to include them.
I wish my oponent all the best for an excellent rebuttal.
laney4381 forfeited this round.
laney4381 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar were tied, no sources were cited on either side so that's a tie too. Pro did not bother with any arguments in other rounds so I gave conduct to Con. Con was just right and all around more thorough so I gave Con argument points. Con wins
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.