Gay marriage should be legalized
Here are my arguments:
"It is wrong because it's not natural!"
I find this argument very hypocritical due to people, every single day, using some sort of unnatural item or device everyday. Also, over 1000 animals in nature have been shown to be Gay or have Gay relations.
"It's not what God wants!"
Due to the separation of church and state, this argument is 100% useless.
And other points I can bring up when you respond.
I thank my opponent for instigating this topic.
1) It is not natural
I agree with my opponent: this argument is extremely weak and should not be used by opponents of gay marriage. Although I would argue environmental factors have more influence on homosexuality than genetic or hormonal factors , I agree with my opponent and this argument shall not be used in the debate.
2) God’s will
Again, I see this debate as fully secular. So again I agree with my opponent. In fact, John Adams signed the Treat with Tripoli in 1797, and the treaty assured that the United States was not founded upon Christianity. Therefore, this point is moot.
I will note, however, that my opponent has not provided any arguments to the affirmative: that gay marriage should be legalized. Therefore, my opponent needs to bring up arguments as to why gay marriage should be legalized for her to win this debate. As PRO, she has the burden of proof.
Law cannot become separated from the truth; it cannot be separated from nature. If this occurs, law is meaningless. It is merely created at the ruler’s whim. Although historically this was the case, as a free society we must strive to be better. We must strive to have our laws mean something: they have to represent the truth, the meaning of marriage.
There are two views as to what marriage means: the conjugal view and the revisionist view .
Conjugal view: The conjugal view of marriage is that marriage is between one man and one woman. This view has long informed the law which we have today, literature, and other historical writings. It sees marriage as a spiritual and bodily union. Its strength is its comprehensiveness: the love from marriage is to be oriented towards family life and lifelong fidelity. The marital union, in this definition, is meant to be a comprehensive union between one man and one women, for the purpose to promote procreation and responsible child rearing.
Revisionist view: This view has taken our society by storm. It is the reason no-fault divorce laws are in place, and other institutions which are weakening what we now know as ‘marriage’. This view has informed most reforms to marriage which have occurred over the last few decades. It views marriage as simply a loving bond between two people. Marriage is a union with the sole purpose of fulfilling emotional feelings. Nothing more.
What is marriage?
Having provided two definitions, my goal is to demonstrate why the conjugal view is superior to that of the revisionist view. Overall, it is very clear that the conjugal view can withstand basic scrutiny. The revisionist view, however, cannot.
(1) Under a revisionist viewpoint, the government should recognize most unions as marriage
Revisionists only requirement is love. Some type of affection, or even mere emotional fulfillment, is what constitutes marriage. However, this view is simply illogical under the current legal system. Should the state recognize the unions of friends? Should I be recognized because I have a girlfriend? Revisionism does not stand up to basic scrutiny. Say Oscar and Alfred are in a relationship. They want visitation rights, share domestic duties, etc. At this point, we assume they’re sexually intimate. Does this really matter? They could be two friends, who merely want to live together for non-sexual purposes. Under revisionist framework, they would be considered married. However, I assume my opponent will see this as absurd! They’re not married! They merely live together. However, they are fulfilling something emotional (they like each other), and fulfill the same domestic duties as the average married couple.
My opponent must support almost all unions as marriage. Basic relationships, sexual flings, polygamy, bestiality—all of these have some form of ‘love’, although it would be absurd to call them marriages. Unless my opponent is willing to agree to those, the entire argument for gay marriage is simply flawed.
(2) Why does the government care about marriage?
Why is marriage even regulated? This is a question which needs to be answered as best as possible. The government, as it stands in most states, supports marriage for what it is: a comprehensive union between one man and one woman which encourages procreation and responsible child rearing.
So… what does that exactly mean?
What distinguishes marriage from other forms of relationships is that marriage is comprehensive. “Marriage unites people in all their basic dimensions” , as Girgis et al. notes. Marriage involves union of the mind and is also a union of the body. For marriage to truly be marriage, it must include bodily union. Say two people pledge to talk their hearts out. They talk about their life, philosophy, and what occurs around them. Are they married? No. Even if we replaced their pledge with actions—other than sexual intimacy—they would not be married. Why is sex this special act? It should be seen as an action which allows our bodies to touch and interact with another like never before. The sexual organs are oriented towards bringing new life. Sex makes two people one. In coitus, and only in coitus, can humans reproduce. A man and woman are needed: it is the one thing a man or a woman cannot do alone.
I am not saying homosexual sexual actions are immoral because they cannot reproduce. All I am saying is that they are not procreative type unions.
Marriage, under the conjugal definition, is oriented towards the creation of new life. Love is indeed important in a marital relationship, but the fact is, the government does not care about love. It wants to promote procreation. There is an intrinsic link between marriage and procreation: and the government should recognize this and do its best to promote it, for its own self-interest.
Maggie Gallagher argues that “every known human society” recognizes a few similar aspects of marriage, which differentiate that from other forms of love. Societies see marriage as a “sexual union” which forces the man and women to care for “any children the union may produce” .
The government supports marriage because of its intrinsic link to procreation and child rearing. If gay marriage is legalized, this link will degenerate into nothingness—the average person would be unable to discern the law from what marriage actually is. This would harm the institution of marriage, and, therefore, children.
(3) How would it harm children?
As stated, marriage exists because of child rearing and procreation. If this link is severed, fewer children will be raised in homes with mothers and fathers in a married union.
What is the harm of this?
According to the American College of Pediatricians, children need both a mother and father. Children fare best when raised in a home with a mother and father who are married. Children perform better academically, go through developmental stages better, are more sure of their sexual identity, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when raised in these situations. However, if a child is raised without either a mother or father, they fare worse in all of these categories .
Laws educate people: directly and indirectly. They define what society sees as an acceptable action. If marriage is seen merely as a piece of paper symbolizing love, marriage will no longer be seen as an institution meant for children. Out of wedlock birth rates would increase, and the governmental incentives which promote child rearing will disappear. Basic human psyche explains why marriage would be weakened if gay marriage was legalized (and procreation and child rearing, therefore, divorced from marriage) .
Gay marriage is contradictory to what marriage is. The government has no reason to legalize gay marriage, and legalizing gay marriage would harm children.
2. Girgis, Sherif, Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson. “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 34, no. 1 (2010): 246.
3. Girgis, Sherif, Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson. “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” (New York: Encounter books, 2012), 1-2.
4. Ibid., 24.
5. Gallagher, Maggie. “What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law”, Louisiana Law Review 62 (2002): 781.
Don't try to assert things.
I support marriages that are within reason. (I'm not talking about bestiality am I? No. The debate title is called "Gay marriage should be legalized" not "Bestiality should be legal!") And no, the debate is gay MARRIAGE. Not about girlfriends, friends, etc.
Going on: Marriage, defined by Google, is "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." There is a difference between flings and marriage. Marriage means you and your partner are willing to make a legal and personal commitment to the other. It is basically made official the two are married. Flings, basic relationships, etc, are not because it is not approved officially. I have never seen middle school Girlfriends/Boyfriends claim they are married just because there is love involved.
I think with 7 billion people in the world, reproduction is not an issue in the slightest. Legalizing gay marriage will not destroy man/woman relationships. And, just a random fact, determination of Homo/Hetero is determined by the amount of testosterone received while in the womb. Also, children with Gay parents most likely do worse due to the abuse or exclusion due to their parents being gay, because it is not considered "normal" by society. If you are Gay, in a world like this, would you like to announce that your gay? Probably not. The public would most likely hate you for being different. Legalization of Gay Marriage won't reduce marriage to "just a piece of paper" that seems more like a fear tactic to me than an actual argument. I have a friend with gay parents, and he is not messed up, or harmed, in any way. He is doing just fine.
I probably left a lot of stuff out, but please. Continue.
1. What is marriage?
My opponent attempts to write off this argument as irrelevant. For example, attempting to argue my allusions to bestiality and polygamy as irrelevant. However, the debate over gay marriage is a debate over what marriage is and why the government is even involved in marriage. If marriage is only about love, why bar someone’s right to polygamy? In order to justify the pro-gay marriage position, my opponent must define what marriage, by its very nature, is. I have provided two definitions of marriage—one the one I have defended, the other my opponent alludes to throughout the debate. My opponent by wrongly arguing the point is irrelevant is essentially conceding my whole case. Marriage is based on the fact that men and women are complementary. It is an institution designed to support these types of unions. If this is the case, the government then intrudes on marriage policy in order to promote procreation and child rearing. Again, my opponent has failed to refute this simply hypothesis and, therefore, concedes that marriage is intrinsically heterosexual. The references to polygamy are totally relevant, as they prove that this is true, and that gay marriage isn’t really marriage.
Is there a difference between flings in marriage? You say marriage is about love—which I have already shown is NOT logical. In a social situation, we might marry because of love. But the fact is, the government could care less. You then go on to say it is about legal commitment... If marriage is about love, and a man likes two women, then there is no reason he should not be married… Again, what is marriage as an institution? My opponent has failed to prove his point.
Why does the government regulate marriage? If marriage is merely about emotional commitment, then nothing differentiates it from any other relationship. My opponent has failed to refute that basic premise. The point stands.
Anecdotal evidence. The fact is, overall, children in homosexual households fare worse. Using census data in Canada, it has been shown children raised in homosexual households are 65% less likely to graduate from high school . In Canada, gay marriage has been legal since 2005 and homosexuals have had the same legal rights (benefits wise) as heterosexual couples since 1997. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the difference is due to social or economic factors. In fact, homosexuals tend to be more educated and wealthy than heterosexuals . Therefore, if anything, we should expect their children to do better. But this is not the case.
Fun fact, the hormonal hypothesis has been refuted by the vast majority of studies published .
The creation of new life and more children raised in stable homes with a mother and father is in the government’s interest. Overpopulation is not an issue to be worried about. In fact, many experts predict that our population will decrease over our lifetime .
My opponent, as PRO, must provide arguments as to why gay marriage should be legalized. He has failed to do so. Until he does so, he is on the losing side of this debate.
Again, I know I left stuff out. However, about that link you posted "newsfeed.time", that website doesn't seem particularly reliable. It shows up almost no where in my search results, and also posted articles about Bigfoot. 0_o
I will respond to my opponent's points next round, the reason I am passing this round is because I have had a decent amount of schoolwork.
AgainstFor forfeited this round.
My opponent cites a blog in order to "refute" Allen's study, claiming the disparity between children raised in homosexual homes (often married) versus those in heterosexual households are due to differences in age. However, the study did have a section adjusting for age gaps, and the differences still exist. They also claim he is not a social scientist, saying he is an economist. That is a terrible argument: economists study human behavior through statistics and other means. They have to understand human nature in order to accurately conduct their research: how humans react to this, how the react to that, etc. So that argument doesn't even make sense. Further, research showing "no difference" are extremely flawed [1. http://www.sciencedirect.com...].
k vote for me
AgainstFor forfeited this round.
|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:||1||5|