Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

My stance on gay marriage- shred it to bits

Toobu
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 1:51:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm giving a speech on why gay marriage should be recognized in a conservative christian speech and debate league next year. Tough crowd. The speech is below- please tell me why I'm wrong.

"" I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
These words were written by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.

Why was Jefferson so adamant about the separation of the church and state? The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state. Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in America since the founding of the republic. Indeed, James Madison, the father of the United States Constitution, once observed that [QUOTE] "the [religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."[UNQUOTE]
Americans are still among the most religious people in the world. Yet the government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding religious institutions or religious beliefs. By maintaining the wall separating church and state, we can guarantee the continued vitality of religion in American life.

Now, I like to think that everyone is on the same page about the separation of the church and the state, so I can"t persuade anyone of it, per se. What I do intend to persuade you of is that gay marriage should be legally recognized in the United States. First, I want to make it very clear what I am actually advocating.

I am not advocating homosexuality in and of itself, and I clearly recognize that the Bible says it is wrong. Currently, in states where gay marriage is not legal, gay marriage is not actually illegal. Gays can get married in every state- they can have a wedding ceremony and have a stable, long-term, romantic relationship. What"s wrong is that? This marriage is not recognized by the state. This nonrecognition policy denies homosexual couples thirty-three rights and privileges that straight couples would get in their situation purely based on sexual orientation.

I could go on, but I"ll spare you any more boring details. Just know that this is only about
twenty five percent of benefits that gay couples are denied based purely on their sexual
orientation, as heterosexual couples in their position would receive these benefits. It is
my stance that while homosexuality is morally wrong, the state should abolish its
nonrecognition policy of gay marriage. One thing I want to make very clear: freedom of religion
goes both ways. Churches should not be required to marry gay couples, instead they may be
married by the Justice of the Peace if a willing church cannot be found.

Now that it"s clear what I"m actually advocating, I will present my three arguments in favor of
gay marriage, and finish up by refuting all secular arguments against gay marriage.

My first argument is that of no harm caused. As I have already pointed out, gays can
already marry, it just isn"t recognized by the government. Because of this, recognizing gay
marriage won"t actually do anything bad. My arguments for gay marriage are qualitative
in nature, and hinge on constitutionality and the elimination of discrimination, whereas
arguments against gay marriage are quantitative in nature and talk about the weakening
of society, and thus won"t actually come about because of the recognition of gay marriage.

My second argument is that of constitutionality. The defiinition of discrimination is treating two people differently in the same situation. Since a straight couple in the same situation as a gay couple is treated differently than the gay couple, the nonrecognition of gay marriage is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

My final argument is an appeal to democracy. I researched over 20 public opinion polls dating from 2012, to January 2015, and found that anywhere from 56% to 67% of the total population support gay marriage. While America is not a true democracy, it is a representative republic. The theory is that the law of the land reflects the will of the majority. While gay marriage is illegal, this is not upheld and is a violation of the fundamental ideals the United States was founded on.

Keeping these points in mind, let"s talk about the five main objections people have to gay marriage, and why they are all invalid.

First, I want to refute any arguments having to do with the wellbeing of children.

I have three responses to all child-centric arguments: First, child-centric concerns cannot apply to all cases of same-sex marriage, as there is no guarantee a gay couple will decide to have kids. To deny the right of marriage to all homosexuals, even those who do not intend to raise children, on this rationale is unfair, discriminatory, and illogical.
Second, these are not inherent problems with recognizing gay marriage. Why? Because unmarried gay couples can, according to US law, adopt children. What does this mean? This is not a unique argument against recognizing gay marriage, as gays will have kids regardless of if they can marry.
Third, bad parenting should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There are plenty of straight couples who are neglectful, abusive, and straight-up bad parents. We don"t ban marriage because of that, instead we deal with it on a case by case basis, as we should with gay marriages.

Moving right along, the second augment I wish to refute deals with gender roles in marriage.
This argument states that straight relationships are inherently stronger than gay relationships, and thus gay marriage should not be legally recognized.
While it may be true that straight relationships are stronger on average, this is an invalid argument against gay marriage, for three reasons. First, some statistics says that yes, marriages often work in certain ways when traditional gender roles are followed. What it fails to prove is that this is a reason to legislate against gay marriage. It is non unique, since gays can already get unofficially married and adopt children.
Further, the non recognition of gay marriage does not cause homosexuals to suddenly turn into heterosexuals and start traditional families. What this means is that we gain nothing from not recognizing gay marriage. Just because one structure may be optimal, we cannot disallow other structures.
Finally, we do not legislate against nontraditional heterosexual families, so to do so exclusively for homosexuals is blatant discrimination and logically inconsistent.

Similarly, third argument I will be refuting is that the purpose of marriage is procreation. This argument claims that the sole aim of marriage is procreation, and reasons that because homosexual marriages do not bear children they should be disallowed. I believe this is incorrect for two reasons:
First, since gays feel no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, disallowing gay marriage won"t make them go have children with the opposite gender, so legislating against gay marriage on this premise makes very little sense.
Second, this thesis is blatant discrimination with no logical consistency. We let both old people and infertile people get married. We also don"t force married couples to have kids. Legislating against gay marriage because gay marriages will not bear children is blatant discrimin
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 4:11:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Pretty much on the money, but how would you respond to this?

God blesses those nations which make the right moral choices and punishes those that don't. IE: Sadom and Gomorrah.

Fortunately, most of our founding fathers of this nation did not have that radical Christian philosophy, otherwise we would be a completely different country. Group punishment from God for group behaviors is well documented in the old testament.
Toobu
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 5:10:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 4:11:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
Pretty much on the money, but how would you respond to this?


God blesses those nations which make the right moral choices and punishes those that don't. IE: Sadom and Gomorrah.

Fortunately, most of our founding fathers of this nation did not have that radical Christian philosophy, otherwise we would be a completely different country. Group punishment from God for group behaviors is well documented in the old testament.

We'll have to take it. It is a violation of the first amendment to legislate religious morals.
(The new testament kinda overturns that argument, but I'd stick with the violation of freedom of religion response.) It looks like the character limit cut off my speech. Oops. The rest is below.

Second, this thesis is blatant discrimination with no logical consistency. We let both old people and infertile people get married. We also don"t force married couples to have kids. Legislating against gay marriage because gay marriages will not bear children is blatant discrimination and a barely disguised double standard.

Now let"s consider the fourth fourth argument I wish to address- that of the slippery slope.
Slippery slopes arguments suggest that legalizing gay marriage will serve as a "gateway" for the legalization of marriage involving animals, siblings, or children. Facts are useful in this regard: of the fifteen countries and 37 U.S. states that have legalized same-sex marriage, none of them has subsequently legalized marriage involving animals, children, or siblings.

Finally, the fifth argument I wish to refute is that of traditional marriage, or that marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, The Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practiced. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.

To sum up my argumentation, what we know at the end of my speech is this:
It is constitutionally illegitimate to pass legislation based on religious morality
Even if marriage is not a civil right, nonrecognition of gay marriage is still discrimination.
It is a violation of democracy, and therefore of the principles america was founded on, to disallow gay marriage.
Gays can already essentially get married and adopt children. Recognizing gay marriage does not increase the quantity homosexual relationships.
- Recognizing gay marriage does not actually have any tangible detrimental effects on society

Therefore, we are left with one conclusion: To recognize gay marriage is to uphold the constitution, to uphold democracy, to uphold freedom of religion, and to uphold the separation of the church and state, whereas to not recognize gay marriage is to violate the constitution, to discriminate, to violate democracy, to violate freedom of religion, to disrespect the separation of the church and state, and to violate the very principles America was founded upon- democracy, equality, and liberty. Thank you for your time.
Spectre2
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 9:01:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Omg. youve become brainwashed by liberals too. Gay Marriage is a farce. It is nothing more than a emotional ploy by the liberals. Gay Marriage will do nothing for this country. Its not a right either. Marriage was always in the church's power not the government. legalizing gay marriage will do nothing. People will marry each other to get free benefits. And america's sanity dies as they allow sodomites to be recognized and rape each other and everyone around them. And once Gay Adoption is legalized, gays will just sodomize their kids. Dont believe me? Look at all the cases of forced gay rape. There are literally thousands of them
Toobu
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 9:48:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 9:01:02 PM, Spectre2 wrote:
Omg. youve become brainwashed by liberals too. Gay Marriage is a farce. It is nothing more than a emotional ploy by the liberals. Gay Marriage will do nothing for this country. Its not a right either. Marriage was always in the church's power not the government. legalizing gay marriage will do nothing. People will marry each other to get free benefits. And america's sanity dies as they allow sodomites to be recognized and rape each other and everyone around them. And once Gay Adoption is legalized, gays will just sodomize their kids. Dont believe me? Look at all the cases of forced gay rape. There are literally thousands of them

Hoo hoo, this is gonna be fun.

"Gay marriage will do nothing for this country" as I have demonstrated, the nonrecognition policy of gay marriage doesn't do anything either. Essentially you have presented a statement that is true whether or not gay marriage is recognized, thus it has no bearing on this debate.

"It is not a right either" According to international law passed unanimously by the UN, it IS a right. But I never argued that.

"People will marry eachother to get free benefits."
This argument is nothing but bigotry. It assumes that straight marriage is fine, therefore heterosexuals don't marry for free benefits. However, you say gays will. What does this mean? Logically, it means gays are inherently less honest, more devious, and generally worse people than straights. There is no emperical evidence supporting it, and is simply a failed attempt to rationalize the institution of religion in policy.

"And america's sanity dies as they allow sodomites to be recognized and rape each other and everyone around them. "

Your ability to rape someone opporates completely independently of whether or not your marriage is recognized. This is just failed logic. As for the first part of that scentence, America went insane a long, long time ago.

"Marriage was always in the church's power not the government."

Your point is? In the status quo, the Justice of the Peace can marry people. Recognizing gay marriage doesn't change that- and I'm not advocating forcing churches to marry gays.

"And once Gay Adoption is legalized, gays will just sodomize their kids."

Gay adoption is already completely legal. this is irrelevant.

"Look at all the cases of forced gay rape. There are literally thousands of them"

...As opposed to concensual rape? Anyways, look at all the cases of forced straight rape! Literally millions!

I think it's ironic that you claim to follow Christian morals, yet you start your post by taking the Lord's name in vain. By the way, is english your first language? If not, I understand, but if it is, get some english classes.

F you can actually make good arguments, I'd love to hear them.
Spectre2
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 9:53:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 9:48:02 PM, Toobu wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:01:02 PM, Spectre2 wrote:
Omg. youve become brainwashed by liberals too. Gay Marriage is a farce. It is nothing more than a emotional ploy by the liberals. Gay Marriage will do nothing for this country. Its not a right either. Marriage was always in the church's power not the government. legalizing gay marriage will do nothing. People will marry each other to get free benefits. And america's sanity dies as they allow sodomites to be recognized and rape each other and everyone around them. And once Gay Adoption is legalized, gays will just sodomize their kids. Dont believe me? Look at all the cases of forced gay rape. There are literally thousands of them

Hoo hoo, this is gonna be fun.

"Gay marriage will do nothing for this country" as I have demonstrated, the nonrecognition policy of gay marriage doesn't do anything either. Essentially you have presented a statement that is true whether or not gay marriage is recognized, thus it has no bearing on this debate.

"It is not a right either" According to international law passed unanimously by the UN, it IS a right. But I never argued that.

"People will marry eachother to get free benefits."
This argument is nothing but bigotry. It assumes that straight marriage is fine, therefore heterosexuals don't marry for free benefits. However, you say gays will. What does this mean? Logically, it means gays are inherently less honest, more devious, and generally worse people than straights. There is no emperical evidence supporting it, and is simply a failed attempt to rationalize the institution of religion in policy.

"And america's sanity dies as they allow sodomites to be recognized and rape each other and everyone around them. "

Your ability to rape someone opporates completely independently of whether or not your marriage is recognized. This is just failed logic. As for the first part of that scentence, America went insane a long, long time ago.

"Marriage was always in the church's power not the government."

Your point is? In the status quo, the Justice of the Peace can marry people. Recognizing gay marriage doesn't change that- and I'm not advocating forcing churches to marry gays.

"And once Gay Adoption is legalized, gays will just sodomize their kids."

Gay adoption is already completely legal. this is irrelevant.

"Look at all the cases of forced gay rape. There are literally thousands of them"

...As opposed to concensual rape? Anyways, look at all the cases of forced straight rape! Literally millions!

I think it's ironic that you claim to follow Christian morals, yet you start your post by taking the Lord's name in vain. By the way, is english your first language? If not, I understand, but if it is, get some english classes.

F you can actually make good arguments, I'd love to hear them.

I'm not christian. I am atheist. I'm very surprised any true christian would support gay marriage. Your bible even says gays are an abomination.
Toobu
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 10:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 9:53:26 PM, Spectre2 wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:48:02 PM, Toobu wrote:
At 3/18/2015 9:01:02 PM, Spectre2 wrote:
Omg. youve become brainwashed by liberals too. Gay Marriage is a farce. It is nothing more than a emotional ploy by the liberals. Gay Marriage will do nothing for this country. Its not a right either. Marriage was always in the church's power not the government. legalizing gay marriage will do nothing. People will marry each other to get free benefits. And america's sanity dies as they allow sodomites to be recognized and rape each other and everyone around them. And once Gay Adoption is legalized, gays will just sodomize their kids. Dont believe me? Look at all the cases of forced gay rape. There are literally thousands of them

Hoo hoo, this is gonna be fun.

"Gay marriage will do nothing for this country" as I have demonstrated, the nonrecognition policy of gay marriage doesn't do anything either. Essentially you have presented a statement that is true whether or not gay marriage is recognized, thus it has no bearing on this debate.

"It is not a right either" According to international law passed unanimously by the UN, it IS a right. But I never argued that.

"People will marry eachother to get free benefits."
This argument is nothing but bigotry. It assumes that straight marriage is fine, therefore heterosexuals don't marry for free benefits. However, you say gays will. What does this mean? Logically, it means gays are inherently less honest, more devious, and generally worse people than straights. There is no emperical evidence supporting it, and is simply a failed attempt to rationalize the institution of religion in policy.

"And america's sanity dies as they allow sodomites to be recognized and rape each other and everyone around them. "

Your ability to rape someone opporates completely independently of whether or not your marriage is recognized. This is just failed logic. As for the first part of that scentence, America went insane a long, long time ago.

"Marriage was always in the church's power not the government."

Your point is? In the status quo, the Justice of the Peace can marry people. Recognizing gay marriage doesn't change that- and I'm not advocating forcing churches to marry gays.

"And once Gay Adoption is legalized, gays will just sodomize their kids."

Gay adoption is already completely legal. this is irrelevant.

"Look at all the cases of forced gay rape. There are literally thousands of them"

...As opposed to concensual rape? Anyways, look at all the cases of forced straight rape! Literally millions!

I think it's ironic that you claim to follow Christian morals, yet you start your post by taking the Lord's name in vain. By the way, is english your first language? If not, I understand, but if it is, get some english classes.

F you can actually make good arguments, I'd love to hear them.

I'm not christian. I am atheist. I'm very surprised any true christian would support gay marriage. Your bible even says gays are an abomination.

Oh, my apologies. You referenced morality, so I assumed. Anyways, while I believe homosexual acts are morally wrong, I also recognize that under our constitutional government, homosexuals should be allowed to marry. My primary Christian moral justification is that the sin is the homosexual romantic relationship. Marriage is simply the officiation of the relationship, and thus is not morally wrong. Even if it were morally wrong, however, gay marriage should still be recognized.

Ya actually gonna refute my post, or what?
Toobu
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 10:05:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is there a way to edit posts?? Anyways, I'd like to completely distance myself from the "Christians" that go around with god hates f*gs signs and the like. Christian literally means Christ-like. Christ taught love- enemy love, sinner love, lots of love. Not that bullcrap.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 10:30:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 1:51:48 PM, Toobu wrote:
Why was Jefferson so adamant about the separation of the church and state? The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Change American democracy to American government. It's a technical error, but they'll be looking for any purchase for criticism.

I am not advocating homosexuality in and of itself, and I clearly recognize that the Bible says it is wrong. Currently, in states where gay marriage is not legal, gay marriage is not actually illegal. Gays can get married in every state- they can have a wedding ceremony and have a stable, long-term, romantic relationship. What"s wrong is that? This marriage is not recognized by the state. This nonrecognition policy denies homosexual couples thirty-three rights and privileges that straight couples would get in their situation purely based on sexual orientation.

I could go on, but I"ll spare you any more boring details. Just know that this is only about
twenty five percent of benefits that gay couples are denied based purely on their sexual
orientation, as heterosexual couples in their position would receive these benefits. It is
my stance that while homosexuality is morally wrong, the state should abolish its
nonrecognition policy of gay marriage. One thing I want to make very clear: freedom of religion
goes both ways. Churches should not be required to marry gay couples, instead they may be
married by the Justice of the Peace if a willing church cannot be found.


Now that it"s clear what I"m actually advocating, I will present my three arguments in favor of
gay marriage, and finish up by refuting all secular arguments against gay marriage.


My first argument is that of no harm caused. As I have already pointed out, gays can
already marry, it just isn"t recognized by the government. Because of this, recognizing gay
marriage won"t actually do anything bad. My arguments for gay marriage are qualitative
in nature, and hinge on constitutionality and the elimination of discrimination, whereas
arguments against gay marriage are quantitative in nature and talk about the weakening
of society, and thus won"t actually come about because of the recognition of gay marriage.

My second argument is that of constitutionality. The defiinition of discrimination is treating two people differently in the same situation. Since a straight couple in the same situation as a gay couple is treated differently than the gay couple, the nonrecognition of gay marriage is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

Redo this. Discrimination is not unconstitutional, people are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the Fourteenth Amendment. Restructure your argument around that, or you may be taken to task for Constitutional illiteracy, which would severely damage your entire case.

My final argument is an appeal to democracy. I researched over 20 public opinion polls dating from 2012, to January 2015, and found that anywhere from 56% to 67% of the total population support gay marriage. While America is not a true democracy, it is a representative republic. The theory is that the law of the land reflects the will of the majority. While gay marriage is illegal, this is not upheld and is a violation of the fundamental ideals the United States was founded on.

I would mention this somewhere, but don't put so much emphasis on it. Democracy of this sort was heavily disparaged by the founding fathers, and a law's legitimacy never rests on its popularity.

Keeping these points in mind, let"s talk about the five main objections people have to gay marriage, and why they are all invalid.

First, I want to refute any arguments having to do with the wellbeing of children.

I have three responses to all child-centric arguments: First, child-centric concerns cannot apply to all cases of same-sex marriage, as there is no guarantee a gay couple will decide to have kids. To deny the right of marriage to all homosexuals, even those who do not intend to raise children, on this rationale is unfair, discriminatory, and illogical.
Second, these are not inherent problems with recognizing gay marriage. Why? Because unmarried gay couples can, according to US law, adopt children. What does this mean? This is not a unique argument against recognizing gay marriage, as gays will have kids regardless of if they can marry.
Third, bad parenting should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There are plenty of straight couples who are neglectful, abusive, and straight-up bad parents. We don"t ban marriage because of that, instead we deal with it on a case by case basis, as we should with gay marriages.


Moving right along, the second augment I wish to refute deals with gender roles in marriage.
This argument states that straight relationships are inherently stronger than gay relationships, and thus gay marriage should not be legally recognized.
While it may be true that straight relationships are stronger on average, this is an invalid argument against gay marriage, for three reasons. First, some statistics says that yes, marriages often work in certain ways when traditional gender roles are followed. What it fails to prove is that this is a reason to legislate against gay marriage. It is non unique, since gays can already get unofficially married and adopt children.
Further, the non recognition of gay marriage does not cause homosexuals to suddenly turn into heterosexuals and start traditional families. What this means is that we gain nothing from not recognizing gay marriage. Just because one structure may be optimal, we cannot disallow other structures.

Mention the harm done to women who married closeted gay men. Your speech as been very well-reasoned, but a bit robotic. Open some wounds here, throw a sob story out there. The audience my not be overly sympathetic towards gay people, but a heartbroken heterosexual mother is someone whom they can sympathize with.

Finally, we do not legislate against nontraditional heterosexual families, so to do so exclusively for homosexuals is blatant discrimination and logically inconsistent.

Similarly, third argument I will be refuting is that the purpose of marriage is procreation. This argument claims that the sole aim of marriage is procreation, and reasons that because homosexual marriages do not bear children they should be disallowed. I believe this is incorrect for two reasons:
First, since gays feel no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, disallowing gay marriage won"t make them go have children with the opposite gender, so legislating against gay marriage on this premise makes very little sense.
Second, this thesis is blatant discrimination with no logical consistency. We let both old people and infertile people get married. We also don"t force married couples to have kids. Legislating against gay marriage because gay marriages will not bear children is blatant discrimination.

Get rid of 'discrimination'. Your audience has been desensitized to that word, and won't respond well to it. Instead, use 'blatantly inconsistent'.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 10:37:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"" I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
These words were written by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.

Bad quote to introduce because it doesn't fit with the rest of your speech.

Why was Jefferson so adamant about the separation of the church and state?

Gay marriage is not a freedom of religion issue. Bad argument.

In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty,

Religious liberty is not absolute.

Americans are still among the most religious people in the world.

False. Go to Nigeria, or any country in the middle east.

This marriage is not recognized by the state. This nonrecognition policy denies homosexual couples thirty-three rights and privileges that straight couples would get in their situation purely based on sexual orientation.

inconsistent with your earlier freedom of religion point. If you want freedom of religion, that applies to both gay and straight people... not just the straight people who think that the state should not recognize gay marriage. very poor argument.

goes both ways. Churches should not be required to marry gay couples, instead they may be married by the Justice of the Peace if a willing church cannot be found.

Recognition of gay rights does not imply that churches will be forced to marry gay people. This is an absolute falsehood. Churches will be, whether gay marriage is recognized by the state or not, free not to marry gay people.

My first argument is that of no harm caused. As I have already pointed out, gays can
already marry, it just isn"t recognized by the government. Because of this, recognizing gay marriage won"t actually do anything bad. My arguments for gay marriage are qualitative

Unequal treatment under the law implies a harm. This is a very bad argument.

My second argument is that of constitutionality. The defiinition of discrimination is treating two people differently in the same situation. Since a straight couple in the same situation as a gay couple is treated differently than the gay couple, the nonrecognition of gay marriage is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

This is probably the least persuasively reasoned argument you've put forward. Gay marriage is not unconstitutional, and there is NO conceivable argument that exists to articulate that point in a rational way.

My final argument is an appeal to democracy.

Equal treatment under the law does not depend on majority's approval. Very bad argument.

I'm tired of doing this...

Scrap the thing and start over.
Tsar of DDO
Toobu
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 10:50:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To the above two posters-

I appriciate the criticism. I'll definitely make some changes, and respond to your points, but that will come tomorrow- I'm rather tired right now.

YYW, I don't intend to scrap it- most of the things you brought up are rather simple fixes. As for my opening, I know the vast majority of my audience will look at it as a religious issue and as a moral issue. I want to eliminate that aspect of the debate first, because I'm not changing anyones mind on that in a 10 minute speech.
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:18:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 9:01:02 PM, Spectre2 wrote:
Omg. youve become brainwashed by liberals too. Gay Marriage is a farce. It is nothing more than a emotional ploy by the liberals. Gay Marriage will do nothing for this country. Its not a right either. Marriage was always in the church's power not the government. legalizing gay marriage will do nothing. People will marry each other to get free benefits. And america's sanity dies as they allow sodomites to be recognized and rape each other and everyone around them. And once Gay Adoption is legalized, gays will just sodomize their kids. Dont believe me? Look at all the cases of forced gay rape. There are literally thousands of them

you funny, "and rape each other and everyone around them. " If you were a good entrepreneur you could take advantage of that and sell chastity butt plugs and make millions. Although, I suspect you are the one truly sticking it others by getting up into their business where you don't belong.
genesis01
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 2:37:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Gay marriage isn't right, even outside the bible. Gays shouldn't be able to adopt either because the children would suffer from having filthy homosexual parents.