Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.
Debate Rounds (5)
This round is for acceptance only.
Contention 1: The legalization of gay marriage aids to society.
For the following reasons, legalization of gay marriage has been beneficial to society, meaning that it has aided people at some level. The legalization of gay marriage has aided to society in the following ways:
Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community.
The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: " Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases.
Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.
The following evidence of economy after the passage of legalization of same-sex marriage shows us that the legalization is a great supplement to commerce because of the increase of demand for products.
Contention 2: Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.
Aside from the aids to society, however, gay marriage at some level better establishes equality. This idea is supported by the following points:
Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.
The equality within the promotion of same-sex marriage in society lies within the balance of interests of all members of society at a moral level, including the homosexual portions of society. This is a scenario similar to the idea against the legalization of interracial marriage, where two people from two groups of people couldn't acquire a legal marriage based merely on the fact that they were members of that social group and nothing else, which is the pinnacle of what embodies prejudice and discrimination in society. The status against same-sex marriage is similar in this manner.
Sub 2b: Civil unions are not a good alternative.
Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.
Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <" target="blank">http://www.businesspundit.com.........;.
Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://userwww.service.emory.edu.........;.
Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://www.policyarchive.org.........;.
It is common knowledge that most religions in the world do not support a homosexual marriage. In fact, 53% of people do not support homosexual marriage (1). Legally allowing homosexual marriage is offensive to religious organizations and anyone who does not support homosexual marriage which is a larger part of the population.
Contention 2. Legalizing homosexual marriage weakens the definition and respect for marriage.
Currently, within the United States, there is a 50% divorce rate (2) this already weakens the definition and respect for marriage. A law allowing gay marriage would speed this deterioration by increasing the number of "non-serious" marriages, friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution within the United States and is deteriorating. A law allowing homosexual marriage would only speed this deterioration.
Contention 3. This will further weaken traditional family values essential to society.
Society is strong if there is a strong core family unit. In the United States this core family unit of a man, women, and children has sustained the United States through two world wars, the Great Depression, and terrorist attacks. Society begins to break down when this family unit breaks down, such as in the United States. Introducing a new "form" of family would would only complicate and deteriorate society.
Contention 4. This provides a slippery slope in the legality of marriage.
The question asked here is what comes next? Tradition dictates that a marriage is between a man and a women, biologically this makes perfect sense as only a man and women can procreate. Gay rights activists claim that gay marriage should be legalized because it hurts nobody but, this can start a chain reaction which destroys the institution of marriage. You see their logic can be applied anywhere. Why can't someone marry their dog? It doesn't hurt anyone. Or why not their parents or brother/sister? It doesn't hurt anyone. This may seem absurd and obviously a significant portion of the United States would not support it but, that does not matter. All that is needed is a single judge to rule it correct and then apply the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Just look at the ruling California judges made about the Pledge of Allegiance (3). It does not matter what the public believes in this case.
Contention 5. The gay lifestyle should not be encouraged because studies show it leads to lower life expectancy.
Studies show that homosexuals have, on average, life expectancies 20 years lower then the rest of the population. In 1997 and 2005, two separate studies confirmed this hypothesis. Respectively the groups conducting the studies were published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and Psycological Reports respectively (4).
I thank my opponent for making a response. I'm just going to go through my opponent's contentions one-by-one in this round.
Rebuttal 1: My opponent does not what is the significance of pleasing members of religious groups by adhering to their dogma, and the argument that he makes verges on an ad Populum fallacy: most religions and people do not support homosexual marriage, so thus, it shouldn't be done. He makes the direct assumption that just because a majority doesn't support it (which is questionable as far as his statistic is concerned not only because in America, 53% of people actually support gay marriage, assuming that my opponent is talking about America), that automatically means that the decision not to support it is right. In the past, a majority supported slavery. In the past, a majority supported Japanese internment. None of these actions were correct, regardless if a majority supported these actions. Why should a majority be the arbiter for what should be done?
Rebuttal 2: My opponent only explains an event that will occur coming out of legalizing gay marriage, but he has absolutely no evidence, empirical or theoritical, to show us that this is a solid statement. Where has allowing gay marriage increased the number of "non-serious" marriages (whatever that is)? Furthermore, my opponent doesn't explain why marrying for practicality (saving on taxes and whatnot) is a bad thing. This has been something done throughout the course of history in American society and others, whether it was poor women marrying rich men in order to make better lives for themselves or women marrying other men so that they could have the support to have kids. This hasn't weakened the strength of our nation nor our society, as far as I'm concerned, unless my opponent wants to say otherwise.
Rebuttal 3: Only a "what," but no "how" in this contention. How will gay marriage weaken traditional family values (whatever those are, if my opponent could answer that)? How will it complicate and deteriorate society? Has it happened in any other countries (10 in total) that have allowed gay marriage? Why will this happen? Why are these "traditional values" important in any way, shape, or form?
Rebuttal 4: This may seem like a crazy question, but honestly, how people marrying dogs and inanimate objects hurt society? My opponent makes the argument legalization will beyond a shadow of a doubt lead to these such marriages, and not only does he admit that few in America support it, but (1) He doesn't explain the probability that this will happen using evidence nor shows that his has happened anywhere and (2) He doesn't explain why these marriages are bad for society in any way, under the benefit of the doubt that these marriage have this absolutely high probability of occuring to the point that these marriages will definately occur after legalization of gay marriage.
Rebuttal 5: I will agree that there are negative statistics in the gay community, and as I have explained in my first Contention, it's exactly the action of not accepting homosexuals and not accepting their state, condition, decision (whatever my opponent wants to call it) of being attracted to members of the same sex is what drives the negative statistics in this community. Homophobia is the enemy, not homosexuals themselves. Tolerance and acceptance of this community must be something driven by the law as well, and as long as these laws promote the idea that two men or two women being attracted to one another is wrong, it can only drive these negative statistics upward. The judges can check out my evidence from the first contention to see more.
Pro's first contention is as follows "The legalization of gay marriage aids society." Now, Pro provided no definition of what society is so I will provide one. Society is as follows: a group of people related to each other through persistent relations all sharing the same geographical territory. Society is made up of both homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, and the smallest minority a-sexual people. His first sub-point shows how gay marriage helps the homosexual people but, does not address how it would help society as a whole because it does not address how it helps the heterosexual, bi-sexual, and asexual people. Even with that aside. His CDC quotation uses "may" many times which suggests it could be correct or it could no be correct. Since the CDC has provided no definitive proof that their assertions are valid your conclusions based upon this are invalid. Also, you provided no citation, in the form of a link or published document, back to the CDC so nobody knows where it came from. Your only definitive numbers are from the Emroy University study and even those are not definitive as their correlation comes from numbers and they have not proven that there is without a doubt a direct relationship between AIDs rates and intolerance. For example, the same year that piracy decreases, pencil sales in the US increase does that mean there is a correlation between pencil sales and piracy? of course not. Now your second sub-point provides that same-sex marriage is beneficial to commerce. There is no increase for demand of products as a couple living together, who is not married, is still going to have the same basic needs and wants as a couple who is married. They still are going to buy the same goods whether or not they are married or not married (food, water, basic utilities, television, etc.)
(Just saying you need to check your sources links, not everyone has the time to go article hunting. If you don't fix the links I'm going to declare your facts invalid.)
Pros second contention is as follows: the Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality. Since pro never defined in what sense this equality is present I will provide this definition. In this sense, pro must prove that homosexual marriages will both be seen as equal in society and legally or there is no true equality. In theory, your first sub-point sounds great, in practice, not so much. As I previously stated, major religious organizations frown upon homosexual relationships. As such, members of these organizations and the organizations themselves will see these marriages as sinful marriages and invalid according to their doctrines. Since religion is a major part of societal interactions many people will place marriage into a "hierarchy" system putting homosexual marriage in a lower societal class then heterosexual marriage. Is this equal? I think not. Homosexual marriages are in a lower class then heterosexual marriages but, legally, they still would receive the same rights. There is still no equality so marriage would not be socially equal, Civil Unions are not legally equal. Therefore,t he better choice which is neither marriage, nor Civil Union.
Furthermore, no where has my opponent explained why a homosexual couple must be married because there are other alternatives such as revising the definition of a civil union giving them the same rights as in a marriage. This solves every problem.
Pros two contentions collapse because homosexual marriage does not aid society nor does it establish equality.
Now that I have refuted pro's arguments I will back up my own, space permitting.
C1. My opponent has obscured the what I truly mean. My argument is that since neither religious organizations, which the majority of the population are part of, nor a clear majority of the people support legalizing homosexual marriage. It would be offensive to legalize it. Furthermore, Pros criticism of my source is unwarranted as it is a credible source and it does show that only 45% of the population supports homosexual marriage and that the rest are divided between civil unions and no support. Pro has no sources to back up the "53%." In the past a majority of the population did not support slavery. The Democratic South supported slavery while the Republican North, as a whole, did not approve of slavery. The North had more people therefore, a larger percentage of people were against slavery. As for the large support of Japanese internment if it was so popular why did J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI, the first lady. Furthermore, the Supreme Court declared in Yasui v. United States (1943), Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), ex parte Endo (1944), and Korematsu v. United States (1944) that is was legal to detain minority groups if that is the warring country. The US was at war with Japan, the Japanese were interned. So legally was the detention correct, yes. The majority should be the arbiter for what should be done because it is the majority that is most affected by a law passed not the minority.
C2. My contention states that homosexual marriage weakens the definition of marriage. Not society. If the only reason that the couple is getting married in the first place is out of love. Why do they need to be married? You can love someone and not marry them. So there must be another reason. Money. Marriage for practicality is nothing more than marriage for money. Marriage was instituted in the world for a man and a women who loved each other are bound together forever. The entire premise of this contention is based upon me arguing that marriage for money weakens society. I am not arguing that in my second contention I argue that it weakens the institution of marriage.
C3. A traditional family is one with a mother, a father, and children. It is difficult to teach societal gender roles to children when there are two fathers. Furthermore, there not really two fathers as there has to be a woman somewhere to bear the child. This confusion can lead to the break down of society. As to why it happened in other countries well the public supported it that is why. Family values are the nuclear family is essential ethnic and moral unit of society. It's importance is obvious. Since the end of WW2, the world has seen a decline in this regard.
C4. Two things, first, if someone married their dog it is a mockery of marriage and it also kind of sets a bad example for children saying it is alright to have inter-species marriage or species to non-species marriage. The probability of this happening is irrelevant. I am claiming that it could happen in the future.
C5. First of all, this negative statistic which shows that a homosexual lifestyle lowers life expectancy whether or not there was negativity towards homosexual people. My opponent has not shown that a homosexual couples life expectancy will increase if gay marriage is instituted, I have shown it will decrease. Should the government support something which is bad for people?
ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate