Should Gay marriage be legalized?
Debate Rounds (4)
I can continue giving a long list of arguments of why gay marriage should be entirely legalal and why is it right, and i will, but first i want you the audience to think, who is that that can define the rights upon the state, and why does he think it is not the same a marriage between a man and a woman?, what is there diferent, even church agrees in some terms(thought they are opposiotion to my statement), couples should not have sex before marriage so the love is not confused, when does it state that gay couples don't love?, they love just as heterosexual(me included) do,
they should have the right of marring, simply because we have the right to.
In our times, gay people are not that discriminated, sure, in personal terms we can be even disgusted(we are simply looking them as different), but that doesn't mean we got the right to invade their right as individual, our right starts just in the line where others is not invades of blocked in ANY way, sure we can hate all we want, but we surly cannot apply it to our real society purely and simply because it is ENTIRELY wrong.
what is there left for other people if our right is to decide weather different completely outside people can or cannot marry, have a family, and most important contribute and be contribute by and to society the way we all are rightful to do.
today i invite you to consider gay marriage as a way to give happiness that will not be costly for us at all, by only agreeing with me, because it is gay's people right, just as we have the right for unite in all the legal formalities we are used to take.
ladies and gentleman i leave you now to my opponent, thank you.
Well, because at its very core, it goes against all human history and thought. Humankind were created, or evolved, in order to best continue their species. The very thing that kept our species alive throughout an Ice Age, was our unusual propensity for creating and raising children. Before humankind, there was little-to-no education of young. Sometimes, very basic things were taught, but most of the abilities needed to survive had to be learned the hard way. When Man arrived, they became dominant (relatively) easily, and remained so until now, because our young didn't have to fight to survive, they were taught how to survive by their parents. This is the only reason that we are the dominant species, because our young are the most likely to survive to a childbearing age.
When you look at laws and judgements made in court on crimes, what is the most harshly punished? A crime against an adult, already a fully-functioning member of society, or the same crime, against a child. Obviously, the crime is seen as more horrifying against a child. That is because it IS more horrifying to commit a crime against a child, because deep down, we all know that the most valuable members of the race are the children.
Children are the most valuable things we have in society today, merely from an instinctive point of view. The birth rate is falling, however, and our society has less and less children as time goes by. Why, then, do we think that making it legal to choose a lifestyle that by definition cannot lead to children should be acceptable? It goes against all human nature, all animal instinct, and is actually a problem for society. Here I can quote Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Obviously, if the whole world married a member of the same sex, serious problems would arise. Hence, if it would not be acceptable if all were to do it, why should it be acceptable for some?
To make a few points from your argument:
Prejudice, in certain cases, is based on sound reasoning. For example, if you are doing random searches in a recently occupied town, choosing the news reporter from the same country as the invading troops is a complete waste of time. You cannot just dismiss arguments based on the fact that they contain prejudice. Prejudice is the act of judging someone/something based on superficial characteristics. This will not always be correct, but if it is based on your personal experience, i.e.. if all people you have met called Clive have carried knives, you begin to wonder every time you meet someone called Clive. This type of pattern-recognition is another thing that separates Humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, and should NOT be dismissed as irrational. Sometimes, the patterns are there by chance, but linking the sound of thunder and the sight of lightning to a storm could very well save your life. The same is true of people.
Marriage, or a Civil partnership, is a government-approved bonding between two people, and it suggests that the two people are from then on monogamous. (not necessarily true for all couples, but it is assumed.) The Government is charged with protecting the society it is controlling, and allowing an act that could harm the welfare of the society (cause it to die out) would definitely not be in the best interests of the society in general.
You cannot always follow a middle course, sometimes there is simply no way of both people's beliefs being accepted into society. The same is true here, the species imperative (of the species surviving as a whole)) is more important than the right of belief. The latter must be sacrificed if it would hinder the former.
Fundamentally, Gay Marriage should NOT be sanctioned by the government, because taking the vows of monogamy to a member of the same sex is actively declaring your intent to no longer contribute the most important thing for the society that you are part of. If the Government sanctions this, they sanction harm to the society they are meant to protect. They cannot do so.
Mexico is another good example of increasing population, and as this too, there are many, so this is an argument that we cannot apply because as well as my side of the argument will be hollow to discuss, and will get nowhere near our resolution.
But, let us not discard this argument entirely, and allow me to disprove:
How is forbidding homosexual people from "legally marry" going to increase our procreation of species?, is this going to turn them heterosexual?, it will not, and gay people are not going to marry the opposite sex just because they cannot formalize the union upon the state between the same sex, and we cannot punish what is not forbidden.
Gay marriage legalization will only make people who are attracted by their same sex happier by giving state formalization and benefits to a union, and will leave our society the same in number because the ones that will marry will still be just a few, and will be the ones that are not procreating now.
I do believe my opponent has a great argument, it is really extremist though, and we cannot focus on speculation, because what i bring to you is not subject to "What might happen" but to numbers, and to facts.
Studies in the past months have revealed to us that only 4 percent of the population in the entire wolrd is homosexual of bisexual (and bisexual still procreate so the number goes down even more) so according to numbers that "Obviously, if the whole world married a member of the same sex, serious problems would arise" is not a matter of consequence because even though it is true, if we marry all our same sex we will develop a HUGE problem, we are AS FAR AS WE CAN GET from that situation, it is once again, not applicable.
The only reason why debates are so important is because the arguments and resolution that we use in them are base on research, and eliminates all prejudice on them, so yes, i can dismiss an argument when all it shows is perjudice and fear, instead, i propose we contenders show benefits and balance them with the wrong side, because we are never going to achieve perfection, we can only try to get as near as we can to it.
I am not assuring that arguments containing prejudice are as default wrong, but then, thats why we have to prove that those arguments are not showing us only prejudice, but facts, statements that could make the difference between what we believe in, and what we know.
so, as i have had not received prove that those arguments i call prejudice are full of other things, things that could make the difference, i can still consider them hollow, and of no value to the case, gay marriage is still non of outsiders matter, and because of this it does not affect outsiders in any way.
Thank you for your attention...
The birth rate is falling. In the years in-between, it only increased in one year, and that was 2006-2007, an increase of 0.2%.
China has had to limit their birth rate, because of the poorer families who wanted more children to help in the fields. This is a specific case, in which having more children would cause people to die from starvation, etc...so preventing this doesn't go against the aim of a government. This is not true for most places however, and cannot apply generally.
That was predictable, forbidding them to marry may well not stop most from being monogamous to a same-sex partner. However, it is often the case that during the formative years, if someone who would in later life naturally become homosexual is obviously and repeatedly told it is wrong to do so, then they do not, and live out a large proportion of their lives in a heterosexual identity. The problem with marriage isn't that it guarantees that they won't produce children, it's that the government sanctions them not producing children. This action is sanctioning actual harm to the state/country they are meant to protect, and cannot be allowed. I'm not saying that homosexuals should be 'cured', I'm saying that the government simply cannot sanction such behaviour.
I don't understand how it is necessary to have a marriage ceremony. The only time it makes sense is if you are either religious (in which case you are committing a sin anyway, and must understand that your chosen deity cannot support that), or you wish to have the financial and social advantages that marriage grants. The financial advantages are only there because you are furthering the position of society by marriage, only true if the marriage is heterosexual, and the social advantages are negligible if the marriage is homosexual anyway.
If only one person in the world committed parking violations, or one person in each city, it wouldn't cause any problems. The fact that the potential exists for many people to do so is what makes the government have to define them as illegal. because the more people that do so, the bigger a problem it creates. Once again, I'm not saying we can prevent homosexual monogamy, but the government cannot give its approval, because it cannot sanction harm to it's country/state.
As I have said, prejudice is formed through experience, if one person has an irrational prejudice, that means that almost no-one else feels the same way. The fact that a HUGE proportion of the population believe that homosexuality is wrong by prejudice negates that. There is obviously something that causes them all to have this prejudice, and it requires you to take it seriously. An irrational, unusual prejudice can be dismissed, a widespread prejudice, formed by some solid experience that multiple people have had, needs you to have a serious look, and find out why such a prejudice exists. I cannot tell you why this is so common, but I can say that you cannot sweep it aside until you can prove an argument as to why it is so widespread.
Gay marriage DOES affect outsiders. The human race is a social, gregarious race (most of the time), and relies on the other members of each tribe to protect the welfare of the tribe as a whole. Gay marriage, by placing the 'tribe' under threat, makes it other people's business that these people have chosen to not help the welfare of the species as a whole.
As before, my most important point, yet to be answered, is that the government, charged with the welfare of the group of people they control, cannot sanction actions that directly result in harm for said group in total.
I didn't mention the birth control in china argument to show how is birth in china actually controlled, and my opponent is wrong i two aspects:
A- birth control in China means that the government would maintain you kid (or number of kids allowed) give them several opportunities such as basic and some special education, and the ones that born after that allowed number are going to be maintained by the parents, give in to adoption, or not have a registration as normal birth babies are.
Therefore, China does not regulate birth to help low resources people and their individual economy, but to DECREASE the birth rate and stop to over populate our world (as Chinese people already represent by themselves 20%of the humans living).
B- even if he was write, China controls birth rate because poor people cannot maintain their families (which i just disprove) what the EXAMPLE of Chine is here to show, is that birth rate and over population is increasing.
As for that PREJUDICE definition, i must tell you, audience, that prejudice its completely the opposite of what my opponent define :
Prejudice: An idea created on a base of non-experimental relation with the subject.
Taking this definition i now tell you that if my opponent is able to show me an argument based on "EXPERIENCED PREJUDICE" he will be giving us a contradictorily argument, and for that, it would not be valid.
Because this is not but a potential case (if i hadn't cut it now) i am limiting to discuss only what my opponent told us.
That is exactly what i meant to say in my first round, we cannot debate facts with prejudice, because prejudice is hollow.
If the entire world has prejudice about gay marriage, and thats why we should not accept it, then what is the point of the debate?, debate is a discussion to show benefits or how is an action or goal going to HARM us, which would mean to ERADICATE prejudice about it, because prejudice is prejudice because it is not base in any actual knowledge. We seek the truth in the debate so we can JUDGE a case, and prejudice is just the opposite.
in other to accept my opponents idea of gay marriage affecting society so it is of the matter of us all, i should now in what way does it affects society, as i am proving to you all that gay marriage:
A- will not affect birth rate in anyway, because formalizing the union or not is not going to turn them streight so they will aport the same to the procreation.
B- Human nature is to be sexually atracted to the opposite sex, therefore, not other poeple but the one that is predeterminated to be homosexual will be, it is not a psicological matter or influence one in indirect cases (as scientist have prove that i kid could be deeply affected by a rape, and we will not stop this by not legalizing gay marriage), but a scietific one, so actually, we will be just formalizing what is already a fact.
C-Marriage as an institution has determined rights that would not be forbidden to anyone in society, so to achieve modernization we should be able to expand our rights to everyone in society.
D- Gay people and their relations are known for their promiscuity, and as the only argument i have received with a solid base(because it is actually true) i can turn it all the way around and assure you that by formalizing and making them serious institution and individuals to society this life will end and we will only know as many cases, in proportion of number, of promiscuity in heterosexual people.
That is why now i ask you, how is gay formal union upon the state going to affect heterosexual life in anyway?
leave you once again to my opponent, thank you.
silverdevilboy forfeited this round.
silverdevilboy forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.