July Beginner's Tournament: Same Sex Marriage should be recognized.
This debate will be held for the first round of the July Beginner's Tournament.
Round 1: Acceptance only.
Round 2: Constructive arguments only.
Round 3: Rebuttals only. (Silence on any point implies consent.)
Round 4: Conclusion. (Anything but new arguments.)
Same Sex Marriage should be recognized by society.
Gay (Same sex): Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Marriage: A legal union between two persons that confers certain privileges and entails certain obligations of each person to the other.
Should: Used to express obligation or duty.
Recognize: To acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of.
1. No trolling.
2. No forfeitures.
3. Shared BoP (I must argue that they should be recognized, my opponent must argue that they should not be recognized).
4. Both debaters must assume that marriage itself should not be discontinued.
5. Breaking rules 1 or 2 will result in a complete forfeiture.
I wish the best of luck to my opponent for this debate, Utherpenguin, and to all participants in this tournament.
I thank Con for partaking in this debate.
For this debate, my burden is to prove that my proposal is superior to my opponents. Therefore, my arguments will largely focus on its comparative benefits rather than its independent benefits.
However, this contention has a powerful corollary in favor of my case. If homosexuality is not a choice, then contentions against its acceptance must be pitted against a stronger foundation.
This point will be displayed in three ways.
2. The biology of homosexuals and heterosexuals are different. A separate study (2) displays similarity in the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual women, as well as homosexual women and heterosexual men. From this, it may be inferred that homosexuality is a predisposition rather than a choice.
3. A prediction based on this is faulty. If homosexuality was, indeed, a choice, it would then follow that a sexual preference is a conscious decision. An individual could then simply choose to be straight or homosexual. Because this would be observable if this claim was true, it is the null hypothesis. Therefore, since no proof has been shown either way, it can therefore be concluded that it does not exist (support for this conditional statement shown in premise 3).
What this information proves is that homosexuality is not a mere switch to be turned on and off at an individual’s discretion. It is naturally occurring and rooted in their biology; it is who they are. As such, arguments against homosexuality are, by comparison, lessened, due to the strong foundation of the trait.
C2: Homosexual marriage complies with the no harm principle.
This point will be displayed with the following two premises.
P1: An action should only be rejected by society if it is shown to be harmful.
This is a paraphrase of the “harm principle” by John Stuart Mill*, which should be upheld in a just society. It allows for the maximization of individual freedom by limiting only those actions which breach the freedom of another person. It allows for autonomy to be consistent with order.
From this framework, in order for homosexual marriage to be rejected by society, some flaw must be shown.
P2: Homosexuality has not been shown to produce harm.
Though this statement is a negative claim, its impact is no less than if I claimed it to be impossible, at least in this context. This is because if a society barred all things that have the potential to be harmful, all things must be barred. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, meaning that just because harm is not shown to be possible does not make it impossible for any action. Therefore, a negative impact must be displayed to be considered. In an attempt to avoid poisoning the well, I will wait for my opponent to make his case.
Because homosexual marriage has not been shown to be harmful, it should be allowed by the harm principle.
C3: The alternative has a negative societal impact.
This statement is proven by one single source (4). This study displays a staggering rate of suicides amongst LGBT individuals with households that reject homosexuality, 8.4 times more likely than those without this circumstance. This alone displays a highly negative effect.
Because my case has been shown to positively benefit society in comparison with my opponent’s, the resolution has been affirmed.
I eagerly await my opponent’s response.
As requested by my opponent, no rebuttals in this round, so here are my main arguments:
Premise: Marriage and procreation
Marriage is far more to society than about romantic love. This can be seen in the fact that it is a relationship that requires legal recognition of the state. Therefore marriage is also about the maintaining of a family as well as a legal union. If such is the case, marriage is therefore strongly associated with procreation.
Families are strongly maintained by married relationships, and are to a degree necessary for a financially stable family.
This can be seen in the statistics below (done by heritage.org) on family income in relation to family structure.
<img src= “http://www.heritage.org...;
Therefore, an essential function to marriage is procreation and the establishment of families. (Assertion of this premise is necessary for my following arguments)
1. Children and Biological Parents.
The most common demographic of same-sex couples are lesbian marriages, meaning that there are two mothers as parents. That being said, aside from adoption, the second-most common way of gaining children in same-sex families is through use of in-vitro fertilization.
As a result, this creates a demographic of children whom are completely ignorant of their biological parents. However, unlike in a hetero-sexual family, it would not be possible for the child to live under the belief that their adopted parents are their biological parents. This leaves the child further distant from their parents, giving a negative psychological influence to the child as it would have on foster children or orphans.
Addendum: Negative impact on Children
(This one is more or less and extension of my previous argument)
Children that grow up under Same-sex couples do so with the absence of a father or mother. For example, the absence of a father in a girl’s life can have negative repercussions due to the father’s social and biological influence. A 1999 Harvard study by David Popenoe has shown that the absence of a father in a girl’s life strongly correlates with early puberty and teen pregnancy.
Furthermore, a similar impact can be said if a child were to grow up without a mother (in this case, if a child were to grow up under a male couple) given that mother naturally provides emotional security, such a role cannot be adequately replaced with another father. This can be seen in the graph below:
2. Undermining Procreation and the facilitation of underpopoulation.
As seen in my first premise, marriage is strongly connected to the concept of procreation, and marriage is to a degree necessary in an effective procreation (as argued in the premise). With the normalization of Same-sex marriage, this connection is strongly undermined, and is replaced by another mindset, that being marriage is seen on primarily emotional terms.
The problem with this mentality is that it facilitates a strong anti-natalist mindset. In Western society, this is hugely unhealthy for the sustaining of the population.
Ideally, in order for a population to healthily persist an average fertility rate of two children per family is required, one child to replace the father and another to replace the mother. However that only takes the assumption that every woman intends to bear children, and that every children survives to have more children. So the required fertility rate begins to fluctuate between countries. Here is a graph of the fertility rates of China, India and the United States:
As seen in the graph above, all of the aforementioned countries barely or completely fail to meet the ideal fertility rate.
The normalization of Same-Sex marriage would breed an anti-natalist mentality towards marriage; as a result, it would greatly damage the already low fertility rates of the above mentioned countries, and hence facilitate underpopulation.
I apologize for the abrupt ending, but I must admit to my faults.
I did NOT plan my time well at all, and, therefore, continuing would be an insult founded upon incompetence.
While I still hold my position to be true, (and would be happy to debate my opponent again if he were so inclined, I must concede for now.
I wish the best to my opponent.
I'm definitely up for a rematch debate if you're interested.
I thank Con for being so understanding.
Good luck to all participants in this debate. I look forward to watching the fantastic debates this tournament will facilitate, of which everyone has graciously provided one so far.
I hope I will be able to debate my opponent again someday.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|