The Instigator
Kiki1998
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dmot
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

LGBT RIGHTS: Right or wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Dmot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,543 times Debate No: 42797
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Kiki1998

Pro

People have the right to so many things. Housing, money, work, family etc then why are so many countries denying people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender the basic rights to marriage and adoption.Criminals on death row, are allowed to marry, so why can't good people marry just because of their sexuality. In some countries, people who aren't straight are treated like criminals, down to the point where they are hanged like criminals just because they loved someone. When you look at it scientifically, look at an X-ray of a human skeleton of a straight person. Same for everyone who's straight right? Now look at a skeleton of a person who wasn't straight. Same as the first right? Forget this fairy tale stuff in the bible. It only controls people and makes them feel like they can't be themselves without sin. I love a girl and a boy and I'm not ashamed. At least I can love. I'd rather see a child go to two men or two women who love each other and would love the child and give him or her a happy home. Not a man and a woman who commit domestic abuse on themselves or the child. Surveys say that more domestic violence is between men and women. The day that every country makes same sex marriage legal, will the earth stop spinning? Will it split? Will we all die? NO. We continue life as normal, only people will be happier marrying whom they love. See some common sense and give people their LGBT right!
Dmot

Con

My main contention in this debate is not same-sex marriage is bad but that it is not a rights issue. In other words, you cannot claim "LGBT rights"
The reasons are as follows:
1) Rights involve persons as individuals, not so much groups. Each person in the eyes of the law are considered equal and has the right to do as he or she pleases. Gay people are free to love, have sex, live with whomever, etc. The government simply doesn't give them benefits for such relationships. So it isn't a "rights" issue but a benefits issue.

2) No individual has a right (that is a claim) to an exemption of the legal system, including the tax system, so long as that system is just. Because this is the case, nobody can claim that they have a *right* to the legal benefits of marriage. It is more of a privelage

3) Romantic interest/sexual involvement are NOT grounds for rights. They are not grounds in the extralegal sense in that they are not foundations for a claim to anything (any sort of benefit). Therefore, it is not unjust for the government to not recognize the right there. The government is not obliged in justice to grant benefits to two individuals simply because they are romantically involved or sexually involved in one another. This is what advocates of same-sex marriage are asking for, unless there is another reason that the government is obliged to grant benefits to same-sex couples.


I will also add, this is not an equality issue between gays and straight people. Both are and should be considered equal in the eyes of the law. The question is whether the law ought to consider the same-sex unions the same as hetereosexual unions. Now, it is not discrimination to say one such union is inherently more legally considerable (not better) or at least legally different than the other. It may be an incorrect statement (although I would argue otherwise and will provide reasons in next post if necessary) but it is still not discrimination because there could be at least theoretically a relevant difference between the two types of unions. We already recognize some unions as marriage and not others that everyone agrees on.


Finally, if homosexual activity (not being gay!) is in fact immoral, then it follows that there is no right to have the government promote such a union through marriage benefits. There is no right to do wrong. I am not saying this is the case necessarily, only that if the case for the immorality of same sex activity is made, this conclusion does follow and it is a reasonable argument.

Now I will comment on what you said:



I will post your points in bold and my responses below.

People have the right to so many things


How do you know? Where do these rights come from?

...the basic rights to marriage and adoption


How do you know this is a right? Where does this right come from?

so why can't good people marry just because of their sexuality.

Is that the reason they can't marry? Maybe there is another reason. In fact, I would argue that they CAN marry. They simply chose not to. In other words, a gay man can marry a woman (legally speaking). It is his own choice to not enter into this type of relationship. I am not saying it is his choice to have sexual attraction to another man, only that it is his choice to not marry a woman.



Forget this fairy tale stuff in the bible.

Maybe there are other problems with same-sex marriage other than that it is against the Bible. Is that possible?

I'd rather see a child go to two men or two women who love each other and would love the child and give him or her a happy home. Not a man and a woman who commit domestic abuse on themselves or the child.

Same but that is a false dilemma because that's not really the question of same-sex adoption. The question is whether or not two men and two women are IDEAL for the child. If it is not, how unideal is it? In other words, is it all that harmful?

Surveys say that
Also a recent study has shown that two men and two women are worse for children than a man and a woman.
Debate Round No. 1
Kiki1998

Pro

Kiki1998 forfeited this round.
Dmot

Con

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 2
Kiki1998

Pro

Kiki1998 forfeited this round.
Dmot

Con

Dmot forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kiki1998 3 years ago
Kiki1998
My first time internet debating ok? And I'm just a strong believer in human rights and where I come from, the government still hasn't legalized same sex marriages or recognised them. Sure in 2004 the first laws regarding anti lgbt and hate were passed
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
Oh Kiki, I'm so disappointed in you.
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
(part 2)
Sometimes the only way (in our current system) to achieve a consistent and fair situation for everyone is for a governing body to step in and set a rule. If it weren't for government stepping in under some circumstances, companies would create a lot of unfair practices and would even create dangerous or lethal situations for people just because they can make more money doing so. Companies have tried this many times by using poisonous or unsafe chemicals or food additives that have caused people permanent damage or death. They've also used unsafe building materials in vehicles and planes that have resulted in many peoples deaths. Are you aware that drug companies actually have a figure on what they believe your life is worth? If they can make more than that dollar amount by selling you a dangerous product, then they will do it. (How many commercials have we seen saying,"If you've taken this drug and experienced these problems or if your family member died, then call us and we'll sue!"? It's no accident, but drug companies have made more money then the cost of paying the lawsuits, so they do it anyways. That's how the value of your life is calculated, btw, not because they actually value your life in any way, but because if you die they have to make sure to pay the lawsuits and still make a profit.)

Also, I do believe that a person has a right to receive the same benefits of a family member when they formally become a member of my family through the ties of marriage. Take the stay-at-home wife situation, for example. The wife relies on her husband for all her financial/insurance needs. In turn, she takes care of his children and home that he may not have time for because of work. They share a life and rely on each other to make that life possible. I need my wife and she needs me for our well-being far more than our other person. I think that it is a right for her to be treated as my family member because...she is one! (The most important one.)
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
(part 1)
They limit the people that visit in the hospital situation because there are times where the number of people must be limited for the safety of the ill or injured and to make space so that the staff can do their job. They can't always just let everyone in. I see what your saying about friends, to a degree, but a platonic friend rarely holds the same importance as a spouse. Being a spouse means a lot more than sex. Most people do not choose to share their lives, finances, and homes with someone they just like to have sex with and most people do not find their friends to be quite so important as a spouse either. If you really love your friend that much, maybe you should consider marrying them so that they can have those benefits.

Also, the reason we can't just leave those things up to hospitals and insurance companies is that these companies are businesses. Businesses don't really care about your feelings or needs, but only profit. If we didn't have marriage and insurance companies decided to allow live-in partners as dependents, then there would be no formal title to differentiate live-in partners from friends who just want to pay less for insurance because someone has a good plan through their employer. Through this type of insurance fraud, the cost to certain companies would rise and the cost to insurance would sky rocket and it would be incredibly difficult to correct the situation. In the end, they would have to do away with the policy and I would have to pay insane premiums for my stay-at-home wife because not only could she not be claimed as my dependent, but she could not be covered under my work's group plan, thus forcing her to pay for an individual policy. Also, if you leave it up to insurance companies and hospitals to make these differentiations, then they all would make their own rules and policies making horrible situations for family members who didn't read the fine print because the situation didn't allow for it.
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
I see what you are saying, but each of these benefits can be handled outside of government involvemnet. Insurance is private for instance, let insurance companies worry about that. Anyone should be allowed to visit anyone in the hospital if they are a loved one. The problem is that this shouldn't be a sexuality issue, what if a platonic best friend wanted to visit? So by recognizing only romantic unions as marriage we are practicing inequality by those standards...see? My point is that most benefits do not have to be government related to begin with. Even so, they aren't really rights and therefore it is not as though any individual or group has a right to these benefits- heterosexual or homosexual alike
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
Ok, even if I forget fair treatment, then I still believe that there are plenty of reasons to recognize the union of two people. The reason is because those people become a part of your family and it is essential that the government recognize them as your family because it fulfills certain needs. Like the hospital visiting scenario. There are situations when a person is hospitalized that they only let family in to see the injured. Imagine if you got married to someone and they were about to die and you could not visit them before they passed. What could be more horrible than not being able to say goodbye to the person you love most in this world if you had the chance to do so. Also, it's important in the issues of inheritance when a person dies. If you die unexpectedly and are not married, then your mom or dad or brother, etc. has a legal right to your assets if you did not make a will and they can deny those assets to your spouse if the government does not recognize the marriage. Most young people do not expect to die and therefor do not make a will. That means that my wife could be homeless because I can't currently afford to hire a lawyer for a will if the government didn't recognize our marriage. Also, you can claim your spouse as a dependent for insurance. My wife will soon become a housewife and it would be unreasonable for her not to be able to have insurance under me in the same way any kids I might have could just because the government didn't want to recognize our union. There are many other benefits that are a necessity that I may or may not be able to think of at the moment and therefor the governmental recognition of marriages are very very important. Your spouse essentially becomes your family and is treated as such in all affairs and this is essential, at least to me and my wife as well as many others. But I don't have a special need for any of those benefits over gay people just because I'm heterosexual.
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Well forget fair treatment for a minute, that is working off of the assumption that heterosexual marriages should be recognized by the gvt.

What good reasons are there for the GOVERNMENT to recognize the romantic union of any two people whatsoever? That is what I am saying
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
The benefits of marriage may or may not be the same right as life or a right to work, but it becomes a right when you give it to some and not to others. If the government came to someone and said,"hey, we're gonna give you tax breaks because you have black hair and you have to buy shampoo in order to maintain that hair", then I have an equal right to shampoo even if I have brown hair because I have the same expenses and needs since I am a person who has hair at all! What you are saying makes no sense. We actually do have a right to expect fair treatment from our government or any authoritative force (like my boss, for example). You're right when you say that a right to benefits cannot be expected, except when you decide to give those rights to a particular group and not others when you have no good reason to do so. Gay people are human beings, the same as you, and have the same desires and needs. If they have found someone that they feel that they really love, then why do you believe they have any less of a need than you to visit their loved one in a hospital before they die? Why do you believe they have less of a need to be able to have rights to the finances and property that they built together? Why should they have any less of a need to have a formal commitment and a feeling of stability? It is a rights issue, because fair treatment is something that you have every right to expect from your government. We do have a right to expect that when our government issues a benefit at all, that the determination on whether or not you qualify for those benefits will not be based on something that has nothing to do with the benefits offered. There is nothing that differentiates a straight marriage from a gay marriage that creates any kind of fair reason to deny benefits, so gay people should have a right to them. There is no fair reason to deny gay people marriage at all, so if straight people can marry then gay people do have a *right* to expect fair treatment.
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
The problem with your entire first paragraph is that it rests on two false ideas:
1) That the government is forbidding something (in reality, they are simply not granting a certain benefit)
2) That persons are the ones being deprived (the gvt doesn't say "straight people get these benefits" it says "a man and a woman united in marriage do)

So its inequality among unions not persons. And this isn't a bad thing as some unions by their nature merit more government involvement. But maybe the correct position is that romantic unions don't at all. My only point is that it is not a rights issue.
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
So, let me make sure that I understand. According to con's argument in round 1, if a gay man doesn't receive the same benefits for marrying a man, then it is not an equality issue because he can marry a woman any time he wants to. So, by that same argument, if the government decides to give a tax break to black people who have lighter skin, then that's just fine and totally equal because black people can bleach their skin any time. Or if the government decides to deny women with red hair the ability to see their parents if they are hospitalized, then that's o.k. too because those women can shave their heads any time they please. Or if the government decides that if a person has thin lips, then their marriage can no longer be called a marriage but should instead be called a "crappier and lesser union for ugly thin-lipped scum", then they should totally accept it because they can get a collagen injection any time. I don't know that I can agree with con's version of equality.

And, in addition, even if I did accept that gay people have been proven to be worse parents, why in the heck should I (or anyone else) care? Should we believe that gay couples are running around stealing babies from straight couples and getting away with it? Not very likely. There are MANY orphaned children who are not being adopted by any straight couples! It is FAR better to have those children have a home and a family than to be in foster-care or have no home at all. When we start having a shortage of children to be adopted (as if there were any chance of that in the near future), then I might actually care, but until that happens there is no reason to even consider any study that compares gay and straight parents, because it really doesn't even matter or apply in the least.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
Kiki1998DmotTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro ff. Con gave arguments.