Same-Sex marriage should remain illegal.
-2 week Voting Period
-72 hours to argue
-8,000 char. minimum
-NO LINKS OF ANY KIND
-No new arguments in Round 4
-First round is acceptance
-Second round is opening arguments
-Third round is rebuttals
-Fourth round is conclusions, summaries, etc.
I accept the debate. My resolution as Pro is defending and supporting the claim that Same-Sex marriage should remain illegal.
I assume that you meant 8000 characters maximum, since using all 8000 characters during rounds is unreasonable. However, I am ready to comply if needed.
Same-Sex marriage: Marriage between two members of the same gender
Homosexuals: those who are attracted to the same sex
Heterosexuals: those who are attracted to the opposite sex )
You are correct in your assumption, I wasn't able to edit the debate. Also, I would like to change the statement I made about links. They may not be used as your argument, but you may provide your sources. For example, you cannot link to a document and give no further argument, but you may cite the document and provide a link to it. With that, let's begin.
1. The opinions of a certain group of people should not decide the fate of homosexuals.
There is a large amount of the gay & lesbian community that would ask, "If we can't marry, we should illegalize mixed gender marriage!" Would it be reasonable to illegalize heterosexual marriage because of this group of people's opinion? A poll taken this year by ABC News/Washington Post even suggests that this herd of people that do not approve this type of marriage holds only 34% of America's population. A minority should not hold such power in our government.
( Poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com... )
2. Not allowing Same-Sex marriage goes against the responsibilities of an American citizen.
The Official Website of the Department of Homeland Security has a list of basic rights and responsibilities of an American citizen. Among these is "Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others." By banning same-sex marriage, we are not doing so for homosexuals.
I don't mind the changes to the rules. Admittedly, I have jumped at the debate since I wanted to join it before someone else does. Thus, Con was unlikely to have enough time to revise or edit the debate. So no conduct points should be taken for this reason.
Allow me to slightly rephrase the definitions:
I believe that the definitions are both sound and reasonable.
1- Lack of equality
By that, I mean between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
Defining heterosexuality as a mere sexual conduct between members of the opposite sex would be suppressing a fundamental truth about being human. Human beings (with the exception of those with medical conditions like hermaphrodite) are either males or females with their respective sexual organs. Any sexual desire or feeling is rooted in that heterosexual design. Therefore, heterosexuality is also an objective physical reality.
For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals must have their own comparable psychology or gender.
Thus, members of a sexual orientation are individuals, who are immutably biologically heterosexual, who prefer to engage in a particular sexual activity.
If you are talking in the context of orientation, then sure, perhaps they are equal. However, so are pedophiles and every single sexual orientation you can think of. Abstract thoughts have no significance to other people unless they are turned into actions. Subjective states of mind are potentially subject to change, and they do not necessarily represent a person's behavior. Thus, it is meaningless and illogical to judge from the context of orientation rather than behavior.
Is there a biological reason for desires and orientation? Possibly. Is it mainly nature or nurture? We don't know. I could argue that there is no concrete and solid evidence over the hypothesis that homosexuals are "born this way", however the issue is irrelevant. Unless a severe mental illness is involved, people are responsible for their conscious actions regardless of desire; a murderer or a pedophile cannot use biology as a justification for their behavior. Participating in sex, like homosexuality, is a conscious and voluntary behavior unless rape is involved.
This point does not attack the morality of homosexuality. However, it demonstrates that homosexuality is not inherently equal to heterosexuality, thus there is no logical basis behind legalizing homosexual marriage because heterosexual marriage is legalized.
2- Legalizing homosexual marriage is irrational
Many reasons can be attributed for the existence of marriage in history, like preserving family name and power, managing inheritance and property, forging alliances, and so forth. In the context of this argument, I shall only be talking about marriage legally.
Marriage is not simply a private contract between two people where these two individuals declare their undying love. The contract is recognized and protected by the state which also provides benefits.
As public law involving citizens and the government, benefits are given as an encouragement. However, this implies that the government should encourage people to engage in homosexual relationships or something relating to it.
Homosexual marriage is not logical since it does not provide any favourable social function what so ever for the government to recognize it, reward it, and support it. Thus, effectively wasting tax money.
Sexual relationship are a private act. Neither the government or the people regulate consensual acts that does not directly harm the individuals or society. And since homosexual behavior is just that at best, the government have no reason to recognize or support it. However, I believe it is not disputable that heterosexual relationships are required for societies to sustain, or provide healthy and productive citizens and tax payers for society and the government.
Note that marriage is not needed for adoption as a single parent can do it. Homosexual couples have no unique positive social impact that is exclusive to them. Thus, homosexual marriage is simply needlessly and wastefully rewarding a private cultural behavior with no real social impact.
Also, love is irrelevant to the law, it simply does not care about it. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you. People are free to love their friends, families, and partners in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check-box that says "In love" in any official document. Historically, love was rarely if ever, a significant reason for marriage
Although not really a main point, homosexuals generally use higher risk sexual behaviors, Consequently, this resulted in increase of STD rates.
Monopolization of HIV infection diagnosis in 2011 is an other indication. Male-to-male sexual contact (78.2%), Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use (3.6%)
Alongside accounting for 75% of syphilis diagnosis in 2012. (related to the first cdc source)
This is alarming considering that the adult population of the LGBT community in the united states is estimated to be about 3.5% of the total population.
This (medical risk) doesn't necessarily provide a justification to advocate against homosexuality per se. However, it provide valid grounds for the government to at least NOT endorse homosexuality. There is a difference between encouraging something and allowing it.
All in all, with lack of social advantages and weighting disadvantages, the government and society have no need to support homosexual marriage.
oceanbreezeniall forfeited this round.
It appears Con hasn't logged in a while (4 days by the time he forfeited). They may have been some circumstances that shifted priority, but anyway I shall provide a simple refutation.
The opinions of a certain group of people should not decide the fate of homosexuals.
The demand of the large amount of the G&L community assumes homosexual marriage is equal to or the same as mixed gender marriage. If Pro believed that to be true, there wouldn't be a debate in the first place.
That is an argumentum ad populum, an "Appeal to popularity", otherwise known as the Bandwagon fallacy. We might as well use this to commend slavery and racial discrimination when the majority supported it. My opponent does not prove a valid argument, otherwise the LGBT community wouldn't have any right to gain any support in the first place.
Not allowing Same-Sex marriage goes against the responsibilities of an American citizen.
In other words, the freedom of speech. Per that, by default stating that racial segregation should be implemented does not get any legal punishment (Unless it is within freedom of speech exceptions like inciting violence, lying in court, copyright violation, etc..). However, that doesn't mean racial segeration is legal.
Being able to give opinions is a basic private right, however marriage is a public and social issue which taxes are involved.
oceanbreezeniall forfeited this round.
My opponent did not provide logical basis for why a nation shoul legalize same-sex marriage. Furthermore, argument for my side were provided, in which said arguments demonstrated that homosexuality is simply a private behavior with no rational reason to legalize it.
|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||7|