The Instigator
JayWhip
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
0000
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gays should be able to marry in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,071 times Debate No: 23797
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

JayWhip

Con

I notice your debate was ended. I am willing to debate you on this topic if you wish.
0000

Pro

Sorry for being late.
I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
JayWhip

Con

Okay great. Before I start, I want to make several things very clear:

1. This debate is not about whether homosexuality is moral or immoral.

2. My argument is NOT that public policy should be based on religious viewpoints regarding homosexuality.

3. Regardless of my position on legally sanctioned homosexual unions, I believe that homosexuals are human beings whom deserve respect and the right to live as they choose.

So, here is the thesis of my argument. Homosexual unions should not be legally sanctioned by the U.S. Government because the state has no vested interest in these unions. There are some important things to recognize before I elaborate on this claim.

One, currently there is nothing unfair about the laws regarding state sanctioned marriages. Every person, regardless or their sexual orientation, has the right to marry one eligible member of the opposite sex. To say homosexuals do not have the right to marry is not accurate. They have exactly the same right to marry as heterosexuals. The difference is that they do not wish to exercise this right. Instead, they want the government to create an additional right which allows them to marry members of the same sex. Seeing as no person, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to marry any individual they wish, it cannot be said that the laws are unfair.

Two, the government does nothing to prevent homosexuals from forming long term monogamous relationships. Homosexuals are perfectly free to engage in sexual relationships with members of the same sex, take the same name as their partners, live together on owned estates, and are even free to hold weddings at institutions that are willing to perform them. Currently what the state does not do is provide legal recognition and tax benefits to citizens who choose to engage in such behavior.

However, most homosexuals argue that they have a fundamental right to such legal recognition. The government is unfairly discriminating against their lifestyles in failing to treat their relationships in the same manner that it treats heterosexual relationships. In terms of definition, I agree that the government does discriminate against homosexuals. However, although this claim has powerful rhetorical appeal, discrimination is not always a negative thing. By definition it is discrimination that we provide separate restrooms for men and women, but there is nothing unusual about this. This sort of discrimination is appropriate. It is discrimination that there are two separate groups for children called boy scouts and girl scouts, but once again, there's nothing unusual about this. Simply put, not all forms of discrimination are parallel to discrimination based on skin color or other arbitrary features.

Also, I do not think heterosexuals have a fundamental right to legal recognition and tax benefits from the government either. The state has chosen to provide such benefits because it has a vested interest in monogamous heterosexual relationships, which is the rearing of the next generation. People get married for many various reasons. However, whatever a person's personal reasons for marrying are, the state's interest in the relationship is the couple's ability to produce children in the best environment possible.

The state does not provide lifelong friends, co-workers, and family members with legal recognition and tax benefits. Why not? Because the state has no vested interest in these relationships. All I am asking is how are homosexual unions any different from the relationships listed above? Is it that the relationship is romantic/sexual in nature? No. The state has no interest in whether or not married heterosexuals are involved romantically. It's interest in their relationship is their natural ability to produce and raise children. Homosexuals do not naturally produce children and numerous studies have shown that all things being equal, they do not possess the same capability for producing stable relationships as heterosexual couples (This is supported by multiple studies including Mary Parke, "Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?" Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief, May 2003, p. 1, and Kristin Anderson Moore et al., "Marriage From a Child's Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?" Child Trends Research Brief, June 2002, p. 1.)

Granted, are some homosexual couples better suited to raise children than say abusive, alcoholic hetereosexual parents? Yes, but this proves only that extreme cases exit. An orphanage may be better suited to raise a child than an abusive father and mother, but we do not therefore conclude that orphanges are therefore equally suited to raise children as are heterosexual couples. Extreme cases do not make good public policy.

I will not address any of the common objections to these claims yet. Instead I will first wait to see what your argument is in favor of state sanctioned homosexual unions.
0000

Pro

0000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JayWhip

Con

JayWhip forfeited this round.
0000

Pro

0000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JayWhip

Con

JayWhip forfeited this round.
0000

Pro

0000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JayWhip

Con

JayWhip forfeited this round.
0000

Pro

0000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by JayWhip 5 years ago
JayWhip
Okay, edited to five rounds.
Posted by 0000 5 years ago
0000
5 rounds
Posted by 0000 5 years ago
0000
Edit to 3 three rounds
No votes have been placed for this debate.