LGBT RIGHTS: Right or wrong?
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
Kiki1998 forfeited this round.
Kiki1998 forfeited this round.
Dmot forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: pro ff. Con gave arguments.
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.