Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Legalized?

Homosexual Matrimony

Greetings, in my opinion, same-sex marriage ought not to be recognized legally; however, homosexual individuals should have the opportunity to establish a committed partnership that grants them the same privileges as heterosexual married couples. The term 'marriage' is deeply rooted in religious doctrine and should remain sacred within religious contexts. To illustrate, imagine if I were to establish an animal welfare organization and instead of identifying myself as the founder, I referred to myself as the 'pope', and my organization gained worldwide recognition. This would undoubtedly provoke an uproar from the Catholic community, as the title 'pope' is sacred to Catholicism. I trust my analogy is clear. Therefore, instead of using the term 'marriage', the term 'partnership' (or another equivalent) should be adopted. If the LGBTQ+ community were to embrace this, I believe almost everyone would be supportive. Marriage is a religious tradition that must be preserved as such. If you don't mind me asking, for the sake of argument, may I know if you identify as gay?

>>Marriage is not an institution of the state, it is an institution of the Church. That is not true. Are you saying that Atheists cannot marry because they are not religious? Marriage is not exclusively Christian. Other people of other religions can marry, and if marriage was an institution of the Church, you would be saying that all of those people are actually not married, even though the government recognizes that they are. >>The Church has religious freedom, and the State cannot force it to perform marriages for homosexuals for that very reason. Not all marriages are conducted by the Church. You do not have to have a Christian marriage to become married. >>Homosexuals simply cannot have religious marriages because homosexuality is against the values of the institution that will perform those marriages. Again, not all marriages have to be through the Church. >>Civil Unions were created to provide homosexuals with rights similar to those given to married, heterosexual couples. If the homosexuals find the rights given to them by civil unions are inadequate then change civil unions; don't change marriage. If civil unions are basically the same as marriages, which they are not, then why can't we let homosexuals marry? Civil unions do not always give homosexuals the same rights as a marriage does. You are making a 'separate but equal' argument, and history has told us that 'separate' is never 'equal.' Therefore, we should not separate between homosexuals and hetrosexuals. >>One could also argue that homosexual couples do not contribute as much as heterosexual couples due to the impossibility to create offspring essential to maintain the US population. With modern technology, it is in fact possible to create offspring. (Sperm donors, etc.) Also, our country is already vastly overpopulated as is, and I don't see how this is such a bad idea. If the couple does not want a child, whose choice is that? Not all hetrosexual couples have children, yet we let them marry. There are people in the USA without the ability to have children, yet they are allowed to marry. The only people in the USA who do not have the freedom to marry whom they want are homosexuals. You have not answered any of my arguments, so I have nothing left to say. Thank you

Con argues: "Civil unions are really just the current example of when blacks had the right to school in the US, but a separate school."Rebuttal: Comparing the civil union debate to black America's struggle is a poor, unbalanced argument. Despite the 19th amendment right for black Americans to vote, political oppression, violence and protest where used to intimidate the black community from registering. During the 1960s, only 5% of the black south was registered to vote. "Separate but equal" was a white-made agenda for the oppression and suppression of the black race. [1]Gay Americans and supporters of the Gay movement do not face the same oppression at the voting booths as black Americans. The gay rights movement is saturated with registered voters. The truth is, they simply lack the majority. The fact remains, 38 States voted to adopt DOMA (Federal Defense of Marriage act) and protect the institution of marriage from changing. This was a democratic voting process which resoundingly spoke against the inclusion of a broader definition of marriage. Con argues: Why should my rights be taken away just because of my sexual preference? Rebuttal: I'd like to answer with a question. What percentage of weddings take place in a Church? Roughly 80%. [3] This indicates that marriage is largely considered a rite, not a right. Con argues: You don't lose rights based on your preference of what drink you like better: milk or juice.Rebuttal: You may choose what you eat and drink. The majority of Homosexual claim their orientation is not a choice. You may continue your milk argument if you wish. I don't see how a diet compares to "living life with someone". Con stated: Civil unions are just a way states are using to get homosexuals to leave marriage alone. Religion is where the definition of "between man and woman" came from. The first amendment clearly states "separation of church and state." Rebuttal: Exactly. The state should leave marriage alone, since it came from the church. Jolly good point. Con stated: Marriage is a right. The majority is taking away the rights of the minority which is unconstitutional.Rebuttal: In order to be married, you need to have a wedding. The dictionary defines "wedding" as: wed·ding    /ˈwɛdɪŋ/ Show Spelled[wed-ing] Show IPA - noun 1. the act or ceremony of marrying; marriage; nuptials. 2. the anniversary of a marriage, or its celebration: They invited guests to their silver wedding. 3. the act or an instance of blending or joining, especially opposite or contrasting elements: a perfect wedding of conservatism and liberalism. 4. Business Slang . a merger. As per the definition, a wedding is a ceremony designed to join opposites. That makes it both 'religious' and 'heterosexual'. The state may have no legal part in this. The real breach of civil liberty is that the Government is involved in the issuance of marriage certificates.Next round Argument: Civil Union is gaining popularity. Around the world, heterosexual and homosexual couples are looking to civil union as the better option. The source is quoted as stating: "Some are divorced and disenchanted with marriage; others are young couples ideologically opposed to marriage, but eager to lighten their tax burdens. Many are lovers not quite ready for old-fashioned matrimony." [4]http://core-online.org... [1]http://www.stateline.org... [2] http://www.soundvision.com... [3]http://www.nytimes.com... [4]

~~Rebuttals~~ R1a: While the homosexual community is suffering do too intolerance, this does not mean we should make marriage (which is key in every society) suffer instead. Marriage is not a right, rather a tool to make organized procreation so that society can continue to function. Homosexuality does not offer society anything of value and therefore, should not be encouraged by institutionalizing gay marriages. Also, for the last several thousand years the meaning of marriage has been one man and one woman. Any other arrangement would contradicts its basic definition. One effect will be that sexual fidelity will be detached from the commitment of marriage. A well know proponent of gay marriage by the name of Andrew Sullivan agrees with this by saying: "Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds' It will also pave the way for other perversion marriage to be looked upon as normal, such as polymory (group marriage), Pedophilia, and Polygamy. This would destroy the institution of marriage, and would destroy the family which is the life line of our society. R1b: To the contrary of my opponent, gay marriage would actually hurt the economy. As GOP Chairman Michael Steele has said: Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for. So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money. The legalization of gay marriage would actually hurt small businesses. If The Gays get their way, every male employee who is still single will jump at the chance to marry their best friend or roommate. There will be an overnight increase in health care costs associated with dependent spouses. Never you mind that a civilized society is supposed to support committed relationships and that money spent on health care or other benefits will be returned through a healthier population and increased employee output. R2a: I would like to point out about equality, this is about special privileges. Gay people are just as bound by the law as straight people. A gay person can marry a person of a different gender as can a straight person. The analogy that my opponent gives is irrelevant. Unlike interracial marriages, gay marriage has little to offer society. Interracial marriages offer children which can be used to further society, while gay marriage would promote the gay lifestyle and pave the way for more gay people, and would hurt marriage and the economy like I just stated in my last two rebuttals. R2b: My opponent's point now is irrelevant since my arguments are against any type of homosexual union. ~~My Case~~ C1: The State has no compelling reason to legalize it. I will begin my case by stating that homosexual marriage is not as valuable as heterosexual marriages. The main point of marriage is to sanction procreative type acts. Since homosexual acts are not procreative in type then they do not even qualify as marriages. Let it be made clear that marriage is center around procreative acts in TYPE, so any rebuttals concerning infertile people will be irrelevant. On that note I will now state the following syllogism: P1: Heterosexual marriages are a dispensable means in which human life can come into this world, therefore it has the greatest special social value (because it supplies the first condition for society). P2: The dispensable means by which human life can come into this world is in itself of special value. P3: Everything that has special social value deserves to be sanctioned. P4: Civil ordinances which recognize homosexual marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual marriages. P5: To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust C: Therefore, homosexual marriage is unjust. Heterosexual marriage provides a base under which future citizens can be raised and produced due to the fact that heterosexual union (The joining of a sperm and egg) is possible under this type of relationship. It is for these reason why the government supplies economic and legal benefits to married couples, because it is recognized that these notions are crucial in order for society to be maintained. Therefore, it is just to give heterosexual marriages special recognition because it provides the most valuable contribution to society. Homosexual marriages do not deserve special recognition because it does not provide the foundation for society itself. If my first contention true then it paves the way for my second contention. C2: If legalized homosexual marriage would decrease the value of marriage. P1: Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. P2: Gay marriage will further weaken heterosexual marriage. C: Gay marriage is unjust. As I stated in my last contention, heterosexual marriage is centered on the fact that it is procreative. However, if gay marriage is legalized then it will weaken this very important institution. Now already fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. If gay marriage is legalized people will start to marry only for economic reasons, which will have disastrous consequences for the preservation of our society since gay marriage is not pro creative. C3: Slippery Slope If homosexual marriage is legalized then we will be basically separating marriage from procreation. This will cause a slippery slope that will lead to other sexually abnormal things. There would be no limits to what marriage actually can be. For example, why not let a guy marry his dog, or let a father marry is kid, or let a person who loves himself marry himself? Marriage has more to do with love, it has the greatest impact on society because it provides society's building blocks. I will now await my opponent's response. Vote Con. . http://www.christianitytoday.com... . http://www.giantgayrepellentumbrella.com... . http://wisdomandfollyblog.com... . http://askville.amazon.com...

By two people marrying one another, whether straight or gay, it does not take away from the idea of marriage. Marriage is a celebration of the uniting of two people that are in love. We should not discriminate based on one's sexual orientation. Yes, I see where these drastic cases of people wanting to marry within their family or to animals may come about. However, these cases are very unlikely and the likelihood of them coming up isn't high. Yes, the idea of creating a law that defines marriage may have to be put into place. However, it's wrong to say that two people who are deeply in love and have been together for years should not be together. First off, people in gay relationships according to studies, stay together just as long if not more than straight couples. However, compared to straight couples, they are not treated as if they have any rights as their partner. If one of the persons in a homosexual relationship is in the hospital and needs medical attention, their partner isn't allowed to make any decisions for them despite that they have been together for ten years, for example. If they are in critical care, they can't even go upstairs to see them because they aren't family members. That is absolutely absurd! That is heart wrenching to these people because they are given no respect or recognition of being in a long-term stable relationship. This also applies to them when it comes to receiving their social security and pensions. It is highly unfair because they completely deserve it and it's unfair for them. Second, gay couples take away from a traditional pro-creative couple or family because many gay couples have adopted children and the children have grown up to be great individuals and not necessarily turn out to be homosexual themselves. It should not matter that they cannot procreate a child themselves physically. It is wrong to say that just because traditional families in the past were a certain way and that we should keep it the same. Our world is constantly evolving and I see no reason why gay marriage should not be universally allowed and accepted as a new traditional type of family as well. My opponent makes very valid points to validate their case. However, he attacks the issue in a manner that is more against gay marriage because of their lack of being able to produce their own offspring and marriage is a legal joining of two people, however, who are we to say that it must be between a man and a woman? Procreation does not have to only take place in a marriage. In society, many couples procreate out of wedlock. If gay marriage is legalized, it will in no way slow down the progression of our country economically.

The time to argue will last for 72 hours, and we will have 8,000 characters for our argument. The first round will be for acceptance/introductions and the following 3 rounds will be the debate. Definitions: gay marriage noun ï¿½The legal marriage between homosexual couples. legalize verb ï¿½To make legal, to permit under law. Either by decriminalizing something that had been illegal or by specifically permitting. If you would like to change anything about the format of the debate (rounds,voting period, etc.) just tell me, and I will be glad to meet your demands.

My opponent has done nothing but state that homosexuality goes against the religious institute of marriage, however two people can be married by religion without the government involved. This debate is over the legalization of secular marriage as a dignifying institute of the government. The legal institute has no relation to religion. The very proving fact is that atheists can marry. Legalizing homosexual marriage would not force priests to conduct said marriages if they so disagreed with them. This right is exercised between Jew and Non-Jew couples fairly often.

I will restate my opinion: Polygamy should be illegal and same-sex marriage should be legal. Here is my argument: Polygamy Polygamy is the practice of a man marrying multiple wives or a woman marrying multiple men. I will now inform you why I am opposed to this practice: Polygamy shows a man's or woman's desire for sex and greed for pleasure. Love is meant to be between two individuals, not multiple ones. Love is a matter between two, not five or ten or fifteen. I am not a Christian, but I share a common belief with most theists: Polygamy is wrong. A man marrying multiple wives was normal a great many centuries ago. However, in this modern age, one of logic and justice, polygamy is not to be tolerated. Polygamy is not only a moral issue, but it is also a health issue. Having multiple wives promotes the spreading of STDs. Polygamy encourages an increase in sexual acts, such as sexual assault, prostitution, pornography, etc. Same-sex marriage I understand that homosexual relationships, interactions, and marriages are an issue that most Christians are opposed to. However, there is no logical reason why same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry each other. I am aware that the Bible doesn't speak positively of same-sex marriage, but that is no excuse to deny individuals their fundamental right to love whoever they wish and to interact with the person they love. Same-sex marriage also encourages a change in overpopulation. If every human were heterosexual and had a child, that would automatically create billions of children. But, with homosexual people included, there are less children produced. Before you make a child, why not adopt a child in need? Why not adopt a child who is suffering? Many theists argue that homosexuals cannot care for a child. That is completely untrue. There is no difference between the parenting capabilities of a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple. The Truth You are better than this. We are better than this. Humanity needs to cease listening to a voice that isn't real. Humanity must start listening to fact and logic. Just because "God" says so or just because a two thousand year-old book states it, does that automatically make it all true? I am a proud Atheist. I am independent of lies and I will not listen to tales of God and Jesus. I will only believe FACTS, which Christians and all other theists surely lack.

Continuing the previous format: "I think that, largely, we are going to travel in circles with this debate if neither of us offer up substantial new points. Thus, this is what I am going to try to do. " We are going in circles because you are avoiding the points I have made in the previous rounds, and now only in the last round have decided to address them. "Rather [/i], Civil Unions and homosexual marriage should be given the same status as marriage possesses. " Giving Civil Unions the same status as "traditional marriage" requires convincing everyone, including religious extremists, that homosexuals should be accepted within society, something that is rather impossible at this this point. It is much easier to simply take away the legal benefits of a discriminatory system instead of providing an alternative, non-discriminatory system. "I seem to note that extensive legal processes have been performed by the law in regards to homosexuality and civil unions. " They have not been given "due process" because many of them have no legal standing to sue for their rights. As it currently works, the only way for you to sue in our legal system is for you to have had a "right" taken away from you. If you never had that right in the first place, then you can't legally sue for it, unless it is on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Even then the Supreme Court has so far refused to hear any of the cases presented to it, instead relying on the prior precedence. So your point here is rather misguided - they have not been given "due process", and even if they had, that does not exempt laws from being declared unconstitutional or illegal. "As the Jurisdiction lies within the state, each state can thus rule upon its own decision as regarding the Constitution. " This is ridiculously incorrect. Anyone who has ever taken a US history or Political Science course will agree with me. One state cannot debate the Constitutionality of the First Amendment, and then decide not to enforce it. You are clearly misinformed about the nature of our legal system, and I would suggest you avoid making these statements for the sake of your own argument. "And, thus, as such, they are not impeding the the legal rights of civil unions according to the 14th. " As long as they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, they are violating the 14th Amendment, regardless of "due process" or not. "Due process" simply guarantees them the right to a trial by jury within a reasonable time frame - it says nothing about the Constitutionality of the law. "And, no substantial legislation has recently been passed in which to prevent the union of homosexuals or like parties. " Just because this is the worst contrived argument you have written, I'm going to simply list states that directly refute your claim by defining "marriage as between a man and a woman", whether through DOMA or State Constitutional amendments,; or both: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. As you can see, your just wrong on this point. Furthermore, "recently" passed has no bearing on my argument. An unconstitutional law passed 500 years ago is still unconstitutional. "Thus, advances are being made, but more importantly, the 14th amendment is NOT being defied or broken in any way. " If full rights are not given equally and immediately, the 14th is being violated. It is not a "halfsies" sort of thing. Again, your ignorance of the law is destroying your own argument. "The limit of rights that result do not suddenly appear as a surprise. " I'm glad you now agree with my argument. As their "rights" are being limited - something expressly and explicitly prohibited by the 14th Amendment - marriage laws are unconstitutional. You just effectively conceded this debate, and I again urge the audience to vote Pro if not just for this statement. "Each person fully realizes what s/he is doing and that there are certain consequences (such as the lack of rights as compared to those granted to heterosexuals). " Their realizing of a lack of rights does not make those lack of rights either morally or legally acceptable. The 14th Amendment does not allow us to ignore inequalities because people know they exist. This is a ridiculous argument that I'm surprised even you decided to pursue. " "Marriage itself is a 'holy union' between couples" Exactly. It should have no legal or economic aspect to it. Even suggesting that degrades the 'sanctity' of marriage more so than arguing that homosexuals should be allowed to be "married" in the same manner as religious people. It seems you've simply given up in this debate. "Of course, the public opinion against homosexuals is often highly discriminatory, of which case they aren't 'lording' their 'elite' status but rather expressing disgust over the immoral actions of another. " I'm quoting this just so the audience can read it again. Furthermore, I'm so disappointed in this argument I'm not going to acknowledge it's lack of validity. "Prostitution is distinctly similar to the 'engagement period', except more short term and for a certain degree of money. " In other words, they're nothing alike. Nice argument. "living with an opposite sex before marriage does oppose traditional family values" No, it opposes your values. Do not be so arrogant to claim that it opposes my traditional values. "Just because parents wish to teach their children family values, they live in the stone age? Quite biased, that. " Again, you using hyperbole out of context is a rather shallow tactic. I never stated anywhere in my argument I was against parents teaching their children values. I said people that lived in the 14th and 15th Centuries held the view that living with the opposite sex was a sin, which is quite coincidently the same values you seem to hold. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: I had hoped this debate would be about the constitutionality of marriage laws, but instead my opponent chose to ignore this aspect of my debate and in its place he offered some of the worst refutations I have ever seen. Furthermore, he refuted not a single one of my points, and in this last round, he even decided to admit that my contention and resolution were valid - while simultaneously still trying to argue I was wrong.

Pro says: The problem with Con's opening argument is tht if marriage were only about love, then it's inexplicable why we should not allow most types of marriage? For example, incestuous marriage should be allowed, as should polyamorous (multiple spouse) marriages. Plus, if love is all that is required for marriage, then we should allow anyone to marry for the legal benefits, even people who aren't romantically attracted to each other, which would negate the reason those benefits exist in the first place: to encourage marriages that reproduce children to enter the work force. I say: It is a logical fallacy to compare a loving same sex marriage to incest marriage, child marriage, or polygamy. The slippery slope fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... to be specific. The same fallacy was committing when when women were permittied to vote in the USA. It was said that animals would vote next. This did not happen. I do not support incest because of the medical problems, and cultural conditioning that cause incest to be a negative. Child marriage is not okay because children are not ready in any way for marriage or childbearing. I will leave polygamy for another debate. Same sex marriage does not equal incest, zoophilia, pedophilia, or any other perversion: http://www.gaychristian101.com... or bestiality: http://www.gaychristian101.com... . Pro says: Let's respond to her critique of my two premises. It's true that my argument, at first blush, appears to exclude those who can't reproduce. But what we need to keep in mind is that male-female sexual unions are the type of sexual unions in which reproducton can take place. So even if a man and/or woman is sterile, they should still be allowed to marry because they are still a procreative-type union. Plus, male-female unions that can't reproduce can't reproduce due to some kind of anomaly that prevents it, whereas homosexual unions cannot reproduce by the very nature of the union. Advances in technology can help repair, in some instances (and perhaps more in the future), the anomaly that prevents conception in fertile couples. So this doesn't create second-class citizens. This does not claim that those who can't reproduce should be denied marriage. This is saying that only certain marriages should be recognized as such, those that create a stable environment in which to sire and raise children to be productive members of society. In the case of couples who are unwilling to have children, I, personally, don't see any reason why they should be getting married. It certainly doesn't require a marriage certificate to declare your love to the world, and if a couple is marrying for the benefits, then they are marrying for the wrong reason. Con's responses to my argument have no succeeded in undermining it, and Con's positive argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage has been shown to be an incorrect basis for marriage. I say: I will address as many arguments as possible. I am not wanting to run out of space. Ahem: Pro's claim is that their argument does not exclude nonchildbearing persons. I say: This is untrue. You are excluding gays who cannot bear children without IVF (in vitro fertilization). If you wish to discriminate against law abiding citizens for who they love, be honest. Pro's claim 2: The appeal to nature argument: you are on a computer. That in itself is against original nature. Your relationship with your computewr cannot produce children with any reproductive technology whatsoever, so should computers be banned? You failed to address those who are able but unwilling to bear children. Parenthood should be a free choice, not a requirement. Both men and women have the right to choose not to be parents. I myself am getting sterilizied as a free choice for personal reasons. Answer this: are opposite sex couples that choose not to have biological children in the wrong? Pro says: Con's responses to my argument have no succeeded in undermining it, and Con's positive argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage has been shown to be an incorrect basis for marriage. I say: you have committed the fallacy fallacy: just because you disagree with my argument does not make it a fallacy. My reference: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... . As always, no hard feelings, this is a passionate subject, and I look forward to finishing our debate. As salaam u alikum (peace be upon you in Arabic).

Observation: To win this debate all I have to do is prove that there is a country/society that should not legalize gay marriage. Due to the fact that the resolution states everywhere proving any country/society would negate the resolution, as my opponent accepts. C1: Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values related to procreation. To truly understand what marriage is, we have to consider the state's interest for it is the most potent factor when we determine if same-sex marriage should be legalized or not. Marriage is not a recognition of love and compassion. Marriage entails love and compassion however the underlying principle of marriage is procreation. If marriage was simply a recognition of love and compassion why would the state have any reason to recognise marriage? The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation. [1] To allow same-sex marriage, or SSM as we will refer to it throughout this debate will defeat the very purpose of marriage, to recognize procreation. As I stated earlier the purpose is to maintain the sanctity of society. That is, marriage is fundamentally about children and the civilization of society both now and for the future. My opponent must provide a sufficient reason for the state to recognize SSM. Just because the homosexual population may be relatively large in the U. S. , doesn't meant that the state should recognize marriage. This means that the state should grant rights to the relationship between two homosexuals, not grant marriage. In other words, I am advocating for "separate, but equal". This can be practiced through civil unions. Thus the state's interest in marriage is for procreation and the state has no apparent reason to grant marriage, to homosexual couples. C2: Due to the fact that this debate about all countries, the governments of countries have no reason to grant marriage to such a minority. My opponent must provide a compelling reason for granting SSM in EVERY country, as I clearly stated in the first round. That means, that if I can find one country that shouldn't recognize SSM, I have won the debate. Many countries do not have large homosexual population. For instance a survey in the United Kingdom found that only 1% of Britons were gay or lesbian. [2] Also, in a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had a homosexual experience sometime in their life. [3] The point is, many countries are at an extreme deprivation when it comes to homosexual populations. Thus they have no reason to recognize marriage for them. There is no evidence in many countries that homosexual marriage is wanted. In fact some countries consider homosexuality an abomination, such as Angola, Ethiopia, Iran Tunisia, and Trinidad and Tobago. [4] The reason for this differs from religious beliefs to pure bias. I am not advocating that this is correct by any means, but that certain countries have no obligation whatsoever to grant marriage due to lack of population and lack of aspiration. Thus there are several countries that have no reason to recognise marriage, and my opponent must provide reasons as to why they should. C3: There are apparent health risks that come with homosexual behavior. This doesn't mean necessarily that homosexuality is bad, but that for a government to encourage homosexual behavior would hurt the sanctity of a society. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. [5] In more recent years, the U. S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25. [6] One might argue that these statistics are outdated, however as of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men. [7] As we can see there are several potent health risks that come with homosexual behavior. The reason for this is promiscuity. If my opponent would like I can provide more, but for the sake I debate I will end the statistics here. The point is, if every country recognizes gay marriage, these numbers might go up due to the fact that homosexuality is illegal in countries. To argue that the number will not go up is fallacious. When one advocates the practice of something, especially globally, numbers will go up. Thus, countries who encourage homosexual practice will cause an increase in health risks and will negatively impact humanity. Conclusion:The state's interest in recognizing marriage is procreation. To allow SSM would destroy the purpose of marriage. Marriage would no longer be solely based on procreation, but rather love and compassion. If marriage based off of love and compassion, what interest does the state have? Also, many countries have an minuscule homosexual population. In many countries homosexuality is an abomination and is illegal. There is no apparent reason for every country to recognize SSM. Finally, there are several potent health risks that come with homosexuality, which SSM encourages. For these reasons the resolution has been negated and I wait to hear my opponent's rebuttal. Thanks. Sources:1. . http://www.avemarialaw.edu...;2. . http://en.wikipedia.org.........3. Sundet, J. M. , et al. Prevalence of risk-prone sexual behaviour in the general population of Norway. In: Global Impact of AIDS, edited by Alan F. Fleming et al. (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1988), 53–604. . http://www.publicagenda.org.........5. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978. 6. "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999). 7. "Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www. cdc. gov/hiv/stats. htm. (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS. )


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Legalized?

Intermediate's Debate Competition Round 1: Legal/Civil Protection for LGBT Unions

At the core of the civil union debate lies a pivotal question: should the state have the authority to govern love? Historically, love and marriage were not inherently intertwined. Marriage was primarily a strategic alliance between families for financial, political, and social gains. Women were often seen as property, exchanged for status or wealth. Legitimacy was bestowed upon the offspring of such unions concerning their social or financial inheritance. Marriage served as a stabilizing social institution, endorsed, licensed, and subsidized by the state. Love was a personal matter of the heart, and while affectionate marriages were admired, love was not a prerequisite. Since sexual attraction played a minor role in marriage considerations, homosexuals were not barred from the institution of marriage.

The feminist movement and the expansion of civil rights transformed the nature of marriage over the past century. Women have gained citizenship, property rights, divorce rights, the right of consent, and often superior child custody rights. Marriage has evolved into a partnership of equals, united by mutual sexual attraction, committed to a long-term companionship with flexible roles in labor, wealth contribution, and child-rearing. The state recognized the public benefits of this evolution, including a larger labor pool, increased household wealth, and improved health and well-being within marriages. Consequently, the state continued to recognize and subsidize marriage as an institution of love.

However, this new definition of marriage inadvertently excluded homosexuals, who are now viewed as outsiders in the institution. LGBT individuals who marry opposite-sex partners are considered dishonest, and their marriages are seen as inauthentic. Homosexuality can even serve as grounds for divorce. Despite traditionalist arguments, the definition of marriage has indeed changed over the past century, excluding this segment of society. The state has found itself in the position of defining which sexual attractions to endorse and which to exclude.

In response, over the past 25 years, some states have extended the franchise to include homosexuals, whether through marriage or civil unions. State recognition of LGBT relationships offers significant public benefits, including religious freedom, egalitarian benefits, health benefits, family values, economic benefits, civil benefits, and enhanced international reputation.

Religious Freedom: Many religious expressions view the union of love as a religious sacrament. In a secular state, no specific religious view should be given preference in defining marriage. Some religions may not support same-sex bonds, while others do. The most equitable approach is to remove religion from family law within a secular context.

Egalitarian

Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003: "One common response [pro gay marriage argument] is to point out the deficiencies of marriage. The issue is not, however, whether all or most opposite-sex couples attain the ideals of marriage in relation to fulfilling the needs of the children they produce. Neither is the issue whether marriage is a perfect institution — it is not. It is, rather, whether we should work from a basic presumption that children need a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents. I believe they do. The issue is, also, whether society would be worse off without the aspirational ideals established by traditional marriage. I believe it would be."

Gay marriage is a fundamental, equal right

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "how, exactly, does the freedom of a gay couple to marry weaken a straight couple's commitment to the same institution? The obvious answer is that since homosexuals are inherently depraved and immoral [according to opponents], allowing them to marry would inevitably spoil, even defame, the institution of marriage. It would wreck the marital neighborhood, so to speak, and fewer people would want to live there. Part of the attraction of marriage for some heterosexual males, the argument goes, is that it confers status. One of the ways it does this is by distinguishing such males from despised homosexuals. If you remove that social status, you further weaken an already beleaguered institution. [...] This argument is rarely made explicitly, but I think it exists in the minds of many who supported the DOMA."

"High Cost of Tampering with Marriage – Kids Hit Hardest." Alliance Defense Fund on OpposingViews.com: "according to David Blankenhorn's book, The Future of Marriage, evidence suggests that when states adopt same-sex “marriage,” opposite-sex couples are more likely to decide that there is no need to get married prior to having children (cause and effect is an open question, but the correlation is definite). An increase in single parenthood and family dissolution as a secondary effect of devaluing marriage will be devastating to children and will generate significant additional costs to taxpayers."

Definition of marriage can and should evolve to include gays

Gay marriage does not harm heterosexual marriages

Ted Olson. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Newsweek. January 12, 2010: "Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any."

"Civil Unions Are Not Enough. Six Key Reasons Why." Lambda Legal: "3. A civil union has to be explained and does not get the same respect as a marriage"]: "Only the word married conveys the universally understood meaning applicable to the lifetime commitment many couples make. Marriage has a meaning unmatched by any other word. Regardless of whether civil unions and marriage offer the same benefits and obligations on paper, when the government relegates same-sex couples to civil unions rather than marriage, it forces them to explain the difference at work, at school, in hospitals and elsewhere. Those couples lose the respect and dignity that they deserve for their commitment to be responsible for each other."

Marriage is not special simply because two people love each other. Otherwise, two unmarried persons who love each other would have a relationship that is equally celebrated by friends, family, and society. Marriage is special because it is the relationship in which people enter when they plan on bringing new life into the world.

If a man wants to marry into a citizen of a MEDC he does find the spouse. However when there is one person willing to do this then there would be more "costumers" to this fraud. Rather than having many felons all over the country the criminal scope will be narrowed down to only a few, making it easier for the state to take action and lesser people forced into this. Thus, all the native problems will actually be decreased by the more suspicious felons. We believe that illegal polygamy will be of more damage to the children's and the mothers' mental development than legal one. With no legal registration under the law the women in polygamy are more vulnerable to abuse. Because there are no state law for these illegal wives and children, they are scared and ashamed of contacting lawful institutions when they are abused. Since polygamy is illegal they are under constant pressure of hiding their relationships with the men and therefore seize to make it public by contacting the police. For the children, when they are raised to hide their true identity and origins they build a psychological burden which is more capable of causing disturbed mental development rather than inequality of sexes. When the father sneaks to meet his second wife and the children born between them, the children are incapable of building a father figure, a male resemblance at all. These cause far more extreme problems than when divorce occurs. When a polygamous marriage takes place both parties have to go through the circumstances of any marriage. This marriage will have to approved by all the wives if a man wants have another wife (in the case of a polygyny). Thus, having been through broader and deeper consideration the marriage will be less likely to end up in a divorce. Also if the father dies the illegal wife and children are legally under no condition of receiving possessions. Therefore the state should make polygamy legal to improve the conditions of illegal wives and children.


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Legalized?

Same-sex marriage should be recognized as legal in every nation across the globe. This topic often sparks heated discussions, but what is there truly to debate? What aspect of same-sex marriage could be considered harmful or detrimental? We live in a society that upholds freedom of religion and personal liberties. Consider the legalization of substances like marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol, each of which can have serious negative consequences. Smoking, for instance, not only harms the smoker but also affects those around them. In contrast, what adverse effects does same-sex marriage have? None at all. The only impact it has is on those who might feel uncomfortable. If someone is worried about their religious beliefs being violated, observing a happy same-sex couple does not constitute sin. What is the rationale for outlawing same-sex marriage? What possible negative impacts could it have? None that can be justified.

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "how, exactly, does the freedom of a gay couple to marry weaken a straight couple's commitment to the same institution? The obvious answer is that since homosexuals are inherently depraved and immoral [according to opponents], allowing them to marry would inevitably spoil, even defame, the institution of marriage. It would wreck the marital neighborhood, so to speak, and fewer people would want to live there. Part of the attraction of marriage for some heterosexual males, the argument goes, is that it confers status. One of the ways it does this is by distinguishing such males from despised homosexuals. If you remove that social status, you further weaken an already beleaguered institution. [...] This argument is rarely made explicitly, but I think it exists in the minds of many who supported the DOMA."

Susan M. Shell. "The liberal case against gay marriage." Public Interest. Summer 2004: "marriage, in all the diversity of its forms, draws on a model of partnership rooted in human generation. [...] Gay relations bear a less direct relation to the generative act in its full psychological and cultural complexity than relations between heterosexual partners, even when age, individual preference, or medical anomaly impede fertility. Gay relations have a plasticity of form, an independence from natural generation, for which they are sometimes praised, but which, in any case, also differentiates them from their heterosexual counterparts." In other words, male-female partnerships, categorically, hold the potential for procreation. It is true that there are exceptions, such as infertile couples, but these are exceptions. Gays, conversely, cannot, as a category, reproduce together. This makes them ineligible for marriage, while still making it acceptable for infertile male-female marriages to exist, as they are consistent with the rule.

Oppositions point seems to be that in a polygamous relationship the wives suffer more and that the children will be confused. But this argument is very one sided just as the oppositions view on this whole debate is. They have based their whole idea that only polygyny is possible and that polyandry is not possible and further they have yet to talk about why they still support polygamy in the private of the homes but believe that the state should not be involved when the wives and children suffer as they say. Because the state could help society in all ways. Firstly, on the point of raising children, opposition believes that a monogamous, straight relationship is the ideal background, because they equally represent both sexes. But if we realise what world we live in today, this is not the case. You could have homosexual parents they would represent one sex, or maybe the dad died, and the child lives with its mum, which represents one sex. But in both of these cases the child could be a safe and healthy person. Because in the end, representation of sex is not the reason a child is raised a certain way. Just like that a polygamous relationship should not cause any problems. Kids can learn new things and understand that one sex is not different mentally and that one sex doesn’t have to be dominant. Its what the parents do that matters, not what sex they are. Also they say that the wives suffer more. But all the reason they have said all happen in a monogamous relationship as well. We are to make this legal all around the world, so people can recognise it. The women will have all the equal rights. This is a choice. If the marriage goes bad just like a monogamous one, they can leave and divorce. If the spouse marries a person the current spouse doesn't like, they have the right to divorce. And as the state recognises it there will be more support groups and help to deal with problems, just like any other marriages. The problems you said, is the people not polygamy.

Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003: "We now need the procreative symbolism of marriage more than in past, because of new technoscience possibilities for transmitting life, if we believe that, ethically, there should be limits on the use of these technologies."

A marriage is a contract, any marriage has certain terms that apply when the contract is defunct. They’re saying that there should only be one set of conditions of how marriage is dissolved that is determined by the State. What we want to establish in this point is the value of individual liberty and why the State should respect decisions of individuals to engage in pre-nuptial agreements. We also want to write some more extensive rebuttal on the nature of decision making under the influence of love and about the uncertainty of the future, to further justify the validity of pre-nuptial agreements. First of all a fundamental question, why the State cannot control your life? We can all agree that one of the important responsibilities of the State is to maximize the ability of people to fulfill their personhood. What distinguishes people from for animals is the ability to reason and make their own decisions based on their own methods of thinking. Any state must preserve the ability of it's citizens to engage in rational thought that makes a person a person. Actions based on that rational thought should be recognized by extension, because what would be the point of living your life and thinking if you're not allowed to make decisions in your personal life based on your own ideas about what is right for you. We think that individuals should have the right to enter into long-term contracts (pre-nups) which have a potential harms (circumstances change) in their pursuit of a good life. From the very first points of the proposition's case we see that they're trying to defend the idea that people who are in love don't make rational decisions. In particular they do not consider the possibility of that love ending when entering into pre-nups and are blind toward the future. Through this they try to justify the motion of not considering pre-nuptial agreements in courts. We have four points in rebuttal to that idea: 1. The point that couples who are entering into pre-nups do not consider the possibility of divorce, may hold if everyone were entering pre-nups, but that isn't the case. Most people stay with the State based system. Pre-nups are only entered into by couples who make an active decision to leave the State based system, who decide that the State system isn't right for them, and we would argue that this represents a significant selection effect. A couple who has already decided that one divorce system is not right for them is clearly not a couple that is incapable of considering divorce. 2. Love may mean that the decision isn't a perfectly considered, objectively rational view, but so what-- people fall in love and get married based on impulse to a large extent anyway. There are lots of decisions that have confounding factors. People tend not to think they'll get sick, we still let them decide whether to get health insurance or not. Optimism doesn't mean you take away an individuals decision making freedom because they might make imperfect choices, and to do so is patronizing for any State. People should be allowed to make imperfect decisions in a free society. 3. Even if impulse is present, decisions are made with constant advisement from legal professionals who actively question their decisions, these aren't things the individuals write up themselves on sheets of paper. 4. Finally, most of what goes into a pre-nup has nothing to do with divorce per se. Most of a pre-nup determines the responsibilities within a marriage, what each partner needs to do to remain without fault should a marriage be terminated. This section only requires the couple to have a considered view of what they think a marriage should be. Given that they are getting married, we think that this is something they should have. Even the sections that deal with divorce don't require an individual to think that they will be divorced. It simply requires an individual to decide what they believe would be fair under this hypothetical scenario. People have shown themselves capable of declaring decisions under hypothetical scenarios, no matter how unlikely they believe these scenarios to be, so we don't think the effect of love, which only impacts the person's assessment of the probability of divorce, would impair their ability to decide what they think would be fair under that hypothetical scenario. Furthermore, we think that all sorts of dangerous and absurd conclusions can be drawn if we consider people to be irrational when they're getting married. If people are irrational about the terms in the pre-nup, then surely it must follow that they irrational about what they want from their marriage and how the decisions they make during marriage. Should the State then have the right to decide how people should behave within marriages? Love is often an irrational impulse, that means that they are irrational about whom they chose as their partner. Does that then mean that the State should decide what sort of partner people should be with? That is clearly an absurd scenario and the fact that it is absurd to most people shows how much people value individual liberty and decision making, even if that entails risk. The second argument that we want to consider in more depth here is the argument of ''future blindness''. The proposition claims that the fact that decisions made in the past may become detrimental to individuals in the future, because of changing circumstances should be a basis for not considering those past decisions in court. If they really believe this then they wouldn't approve of marriage. When you marry someone you sign a contract that you may later regret. Future blindness is a necessary evil for every marriage. Society accepts that there exists a pretty good correlation between who you are now and who you are in the future and the sense of individual continuity. Otherwise there would be no basis for punishing crimes. They raise the problem of mutual consent, the fact that you cannot change your decision without agreeing with the other party first. But we think that responsibility is a good thing. People are held accountable for their past decisions in society, there's nothing wrong with that. Also, just because one individual in the marriage changes their views, shouldn't mean that the other party shouldn't be protected. The liberty of one person to exit a pre-nup shouldn't come at the cost of another person. Either way the problem of mutual consent falls when we look at the alternative-- the State imposing the terms of divorce on you. In that scenario you have no consent at all, you are entrapped into what the State thinks is right for you. In the point ''The State imposed system is not objectively right for everybody'', we show that the proposition has not proved to us that the State is objectively right. We think they'll have a difficulty proving it, because it is natural that all people are different, desire different things and that one-system-for-all, especially in such personal matters as marriage, simply will leave many people unhappy. Individuals have the right to enter into long-term contracts which have risks in the pursuit of good. Future risk acceptance is the fundamental freedom of human activity. We think that by proposition's argument people shouldn't be able to invest (because they might not receive returns on their investments) and shouldn't be able to vote (because your opinions might change before your elected politician enters into office and you no longer support them, or because he himself might change in that time period). A plethora of equally absurd examples can be brought if you follow the proposition's logic. In conclusion this argument was written to defend the validity of pre-nuptial agreements and the right of people to make such agreements. To do this we have given arguments against proposition's claim that pre-nups are irrational (but also pointed out that this idea can be reduced ad absurdum-- if pre-nups are irrational then chosing your partner in marriage is also irrational. Does that mean that the ''analytic and objective'' state should determine whom you marry?) and against their claim that future blindness is a fundamental harm in the case of pre-nups.

Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003: "To form a society, we must create a societal-cultural paradigm — the collection of values, principles, attitudes, beliefs, and myths, the “shared story” through which we find values and meaning in life, as both individuals and society. In establishing a societal-cultural paradigm all human societies have focused on the two great events of every human life: birth and death. Marriage is a central part of the culture — values, attitudes, beliefs — that surrounds birth. We require a culture related to birth in a secular society, at least as much as in a religious one, and must establish it through secular means. That is one reason why the legal recognition of marriage is important."

Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003: "There is an ethical difference between individuals choosing to create such a situation [of a gay couple raising a child] and society authorizing or facilitating it [through marriage]. While society would have ethical obligations not to interfere with the freedom of individuals in relation to reproduction [...] it also has obligations not to facilitate the creation of situations that are not in the “best interests” of children. In short, the compliance of society in helping to create non-traditional families in which children will be raised is not an ethically neutral act."

Marriage is not special simply because two people love each other. Otherwise, two unmarried persons who love each other would have a relationship that is equally celebrated by friends, family, and society. Marriage is special because it is the relationship in which people enter when they plan on bringing new life into the world.

Gay marriage encourages stable gay relationships/families

Adam Kolasinksi. "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage." The Tech (M.I.T.) February 20th, 2004: "state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing."


Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Recognized Legally?

Same-sex Marriage
I intend to present the argument that same-sex marriage ought not to be sanctioned by law, due to the belief that the government should not have a role in the institution of marriage. Best of luck.

Firstly, I disagree with your definitions. Gay [Homosexual]: "Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex". [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Marriage: "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. " [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Gay does not imply a person engages in sexual activities with the same sex. It believes they are sexually attracted to the same sex. Big difference. Love isn't a requirement for marriage. It can be a reason to marry, but it isn't the only reason to marry. === PRO: === "Jesus, God, and the Bible don't want 2 people of the same sex to marry each other. " === REBUTTAL: === 1) Where does it implicitly state in the bible they aren't allowed to marry? Sure, it states in Leviticus 18:22 that "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable", however, marriage does not imply "lying with another man". [. http://www.biblegateway.com...] 2) The bible also states it's justified to sell your daughter into slavery in Exodus 21:7 "if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. " [. http://www.biblegateway.com...] 3) Jesus never actually condemned being homosexual or marrying as a homosexual. 4) Where has a God implicitly stated homosexuals marrying is wrong? === PRO: === "It is wrong to go against anything they believe in" === REBUTTAL: === Sure, maybe for people with Judeo-Christian beliefs, but for Atheists, Agnostics and Non-Theists it isn't. And because less than 100% of people are Christians, it shouldn't be taken as the official religion and moral guideline. === PRO: === "If 2 people of the same sex do love each other, they will go to Hell and I dont want that to happen" === REBUTTAL: === 1) It is completley someones choice to go to hell, should it exist. You shouldn't violate that right. 2) Where's the proof hell exists, and that homosexuals are sent to hell

So the Federal Government must recognize valid same sex-marriages however, the States do not. Imagine using the argument my opponent has when it comes to Marijuana. Say I legally buy some in the great state of Colorado, and then take it to Utah and get arrested then to claim Full faith and Credit Clause from the Constitution of the United States. Not all laws or rights protected in one state are honored by others. The flaw in my opponent’s argument is easily seen when applied to other State “rights.” For example, States do not always honor conceal carry permits from another State. What my opponent as failed to understand is that a marriage license is a vital record. Can a state ban death certificate of homosexual people from other states? Can they ban birth certificates of homosexuals from another state? The confusion of my opponent and there argument is that it is called a marriage license and the other vital records are called certificates. My opponent also fails to understand that this is like a driver’s license. Each state might have the right to make different rules on how to get one, and what rules you most follow once you get one. They most still recognize all drivers’ licenses issued by another state. If a state as the right to ban marriage licenses issued for a homosexual couple they then would also have the right to ban driver’s licenses issued by another state. There is another fundamental right in the US that you should be able to travel freely with in the states. This is why there is a Full Faith and Credit Clause in the constitution. Otherwise you would lose all you vital records when you travel to each state. Homosexual marrage bans are making you lose a vital record when you travel to each state. Just to be thorough, my opponent first argued that a majority supported his side and we are a democratic country and thus should support the resolution. Then when shown that an argument of democracy could easily be used to support the opposite view he calls the application of the same democratic principle “mob rule.” In part of an argument that the issue was about freedom and liberty. The statements are interconnected. When the majority supports an action against freedom and liberty it is violation of our principles as a nation. The unchecked majority support for slavery was against our principles. It left a stain on our country. While the issue of homosexual rights is treated more humanly it is still leaving a stain on our country. Which is it, does my opponent believe in the principles of democracy… or believe that democracy is “mob rule.” Thus far it seems that pro supports democracy so long as it agrees with his view. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I believe in the principles of democracy. I also believe there must be a check on democracy to insure the mob rule does not infringe upon the rights of others. This is why we live in a Republic. America’s founding fathers understood this. Though this check against mob rule we have as a nation become more and more free. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. As marriage is not recognized as an unalienable right, this is reasonable. Also, as each State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected. Do homosexual people banned from marriage feel they have liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? No they don’t because they don’t have it. Is it liberty to turn on the news every day and here how you are an abomination and will destroy the country? We have free speech and people say a lot of stuff like this. We can't and shouldn't stop this. Then states made laws in agreement with this statement. Being married and raising a family as best you can is part of your pursuit of happiness. Do they have this right under the bans? No they do not. They are banned from being married any all the benefits that come with that. In Utah they cannot adopt and raise children together. My opponent’s argument that bans don’t violate unalienable rights is as ridiculous as my examples. http://www.adoption... help.org/qa/are-there-laws-prohibit-same-sex-couples-adopting

Gay marriage advocates insist that the institution of marriage has nothing to do with acknowledging a man and a woman mating with each other, i.e., physically mating human relations. Advocates for the traditional institution of marriage insist that the institution of marriage does acknowledge a man and a woman mating with each other, i.e., physically mating human relations. It's the core argument for allowing two people of the same gender to get married.

The issue of same-sex marriage is one which divides not only the United States, but much of the Western world.[1] What is most remarkable about this matter is not the lack of agreement, but rather the lack of strong arguments against same-sex marriage. There are simply no compelling arguments (legal, political, or moral) against same-sex marriage. (While there may be religious arguments against it, I would prefer only to address arguments that do not assume a belief in the supernatural and/or the authority of holy books.) It seems to me that the best arguments for or against same-sex must be either political and/or moral, not legal. Legal arguments rely on "the peculiarities of our legal tradition."[2] In other words, they are dependent on what has just happened to be the case in a particular legal tradition, not what ought to be or what ought to have been the case. The mere fact that something has been part of a tradition does not, in itself, justify that thing. Political arguments, on the other hand, directly address what ought to be the case in a given state. And moral arguments address whether an action is right or wrong. Successful political and/or moral arguments would demonstrate that same-sex marriage ought not to be legal and/or is immoral. Thus, I think it is rather obvious that if one wants to make a compelling case against same-sex marriage, it should be political and/or moral. As far as moral arguments are concerned, I must admit that I see no evidence that same-sex is in and of itself immoral. I will gladly canvass any moral arguments that my opponent does not present. However, I do not want to be accused of presenting straw man arguments against same-sex marriage and therefore I will wait until my opponent presents his/her arguments before I address what I find lacking in them. With regard to political arguments, I agree with John Stuart Mill that in a liberal state, "the ï¿½ priori presumption is in favour of freedom and impartiality."[3] Therefore, as Mill writes, "the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty [emphasis mine]."[4] In other words, those who wish to restrict a person's liberty must present compelling reasons for why this should be the case. In the case of same-sex marriage, therefore, the onus is on my opponent. However, another fundamental liberal principle holds that "the state should not promote, or justify its actions by appeal to, controversial conceptions of the good [life]."[5] Thus, not only must the political arguments against same-sex be compelling, they must also be uncontroversial. In other words, they must not rely on comprehensive religious or moral traditions. Such traditions are not valid in political arguments. For example, one cannot claim that a liberal state—like our own—should ban same-sex marriage, because it is immoral. Liberal states allow for many "immoral" actions, e.g. free speech allows for neo-Nazis to have public parades and spew hate speech. It seems to me that many, if not most people, would hold that such activities are immoral. Thus, for the purposes of this debate, the political and moral arguments cannot work together—at least not as I have presented them. I look forward to my opponent's opening statement and a lively and informative debate. Footnotes. ——————————————————————— 1. Http://www.angus-reid.com... 2. Ralph Wedgwood, "The Fundamental Argument for Same-Sex Marriage," The Journal of Political Philosophy 7, no. 3 (1999): 240. 3. John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXI - Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, ed. John M. Robson, Introduction by Stefan Collini (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984). Chapter: Chapter I Accessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org... on 2011-05-03 4. Ibid. 5. Wedgwood, 226.

Firstly, I will present my arguments and refute each of my opponents arguments next roundResolved: Gay marriage should be legalized. Contention 1: Gay marriage goes against the Bible's will. [1]There have been numerous instances where the bible has credited gay marriage as immoral. Leviticus 18:22 (ESV) 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. This identifies homosexuality as an abomination. Romans 1:26–27 (ESV) 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless. This declares homosexual actions and desires to be shameful and unnatural.1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV) 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,This states homosexuality is unrighteous. Contention 2: Gay marriage will have a negative impact on education. [2]"But the changes it will bring to our schools make this unlikely. A California task force appointed in 2001 recommended all curriculum's there be changed to include alternative sexual lifestyles. In 2006, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that schools have a duty to teach children that there's moral equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships - and have no obligation to let parents opt their children out of such instruction. "I will refute each of my opponents point's next round.

At this point I will summarize this debate and produce a final refutation at the same time.At the beggining of this debate con produced a stance in this debate witch is as follows, " I hope to show how civil unions would be worse in comparison to marriage in a modern society." Con has failed to promote his stance because he hasn't successfully proven why civil unions would be worse than marriage in a modern society. Now I am completely aware that neither of us debaters said whom has the burden of proof but while debating one must prove his side of the debate regardless. So with that being said con hasn't proven his case whatsoever and has completely gone somewhere else with his case and has constructed his argument in a way to turn his case into arguing mainly same sex marriage. witch does not support his stance for this debate.My stance is this,. Gay people should have the option of a new civil union to be introduced to more states and to be legal in more places than just the very tiny few it is in America. As you see I bolded options because that word is the most important part of this debate. Speaking in terms of equality if homosexuals are being denied marriage and civil unions then they have no options. How are they to pursue pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Witch is synonymous with my first contention being, "1. Gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Witch my opponent agrees upon because he never refuted this point. In debating my philosophy is silence equals concurrence.Moving on my opponent offers a counterplan in witch is platform is, " Thus, SSM is the best solution. To summarise so far, SSM is the best solution, better than civil unions. Thus, the resolution would be negated." There is A major problem with his counter plan. It fails because As we know same sex marriage isnt legal federally so obviously all gay people cant take advantage of this option to make it fair. This problem is the reason im having this debate as we can see to not contradict principles of equality all people including gays should have the major option of civil unions. Since gay people cant marry they need to have another option for the sake of fairness. That option is civil unions. My second contention witch con also failed to refute explains my logic on this matter in further detail, "2.Civil unions should be an option if marriage is denied. "Religion and traditionCons counter plan also fails for these additional reason. Majority of people oppose same sex marriages because of traditional values based on religion and traditional beliefs where people use the gay marriage isnt natural argument. Or they use the bible or other religion as their defense. These two are the major arguments against same sex marriage. One is because of religion and the other is because of traditional values. I don't agree with those but it cannot be ignored that the majority that denies same sex marriages deny it for these major reasons. It seems majority of American voters support those beliefs. Witch is why marriage wont be approved on a federal level unless we eliminate that kind of thinking. As we can see the conditions for cons counter plan most likely wont happen. IF it does happen it might take years. There's no way that the conditions will be met by tomorrow so are gays to just sit idle and be denied their constitutional rights? to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? NO civil unions is the awnser.Here are some statement from the last round from con "we live in democracies, where the majority should set the laws. Whether the religious mind is an irrelevancy: the only important part of this issue is the part regarding the majority, not the majority of the religious. "First not all countries are democracies. Second lets look at America con fails to realize that majority of Americans are religious witch makes them very relevant in voting for laws when they vote seeing as majority always wins in votes. Here's what the data says...."76.5% of American adults are Christian , 14.1 are nonreligious" [1] These people are voting and have negative views toward gay marriage and civil unions as we can see they are a major contributor to the non legalization of same sex marriage and civil unions."Many religious groups find that SSM is not just compatible but promoted in their faith. “Some examples of [Christian] organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church,"...etcTheir faith is based on what? The bible and hers what it says, Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."[2] as we can see those people are contradicting there own beliefs. They also don't count because con cannot prove that these people are voting in elections. While I can prove those whom are not contradicting there own religious beliefs are indeed voting.[3] "Also, my opponent’s second paragraph on “Religion and Tradition” is nonsensical, either for self-contradiction, non-adherence to the facts, or sentences not making coherent sense. For example, my opponent says “It seems majority of American voters support those beliefs”, meaning (I think) that the majority of Americans are against SSM. Not only does this artificially and unjustifiably narrows the scope of debate, but is categorically false: as shown in the previous round, the majority of Americans are in favour of SSM."Here's what happened since con is confused. He showed that majority of Americans are starting to favor same sex marriage. I responded and showed proof that although his poll says that. Those who are voting say other wise. Its not the polls that lead to making laws its the votes. It doesnt matter what non voters think in legal matters.final statementAs we see civil unions need to be a major option for gays. Con never defeated any of my contentions and actually seemed to promote then in his last post. I have proven religion and traditional values to be a major issue in this matter. I have also successfully proven cons counterplan will not work. Con has also failed to prove his posisition of this debate witch was to show how civil unions are worse than gay marriage. I believe a pro vote is a very justified response to this debate.Sources[1]....http://www.religioustolerance.org...[2].....http://www.biblegateway.com...[3].....http://pewresearch.org...

As Con/against, your aim is to provide reasons as to why gay marriage should be legal (hence, the burden of proof is on you). As Pro/for, my job will be to rebuke your claims, but I will also provide arguments that you must successfully rebut. We're not arguing about a relationship between two people of the same gender, we're talking about a legal contract that recognizes the two as together. Issues involving 'the right to raise children' are expected to be brought up despite not being necessarily involved in every marriage. To avoid any confusion, please ask any questions in the comments section. Please jump straight into argument once you accept (no acceptance round) as you're the one who has to start this debate. I look forward to your acceptance.

In some states gay and lesbian people are not allowed to get married. That is very wrong. My opponent, shall be persuading why these rights should be provoked. This is my first debate and is all for fun. I am just trying to learn how to use this website. Thank you for your support and I hope to see you on the field of law.

I believe that gay marriage has become a highly controversial issue which people have blown out of proportion. Exclude the fact that these people are homosexual. They are people just like the rest of us and if it makes them happy to be together, then who are we to deny someone of their happiness? Gay marriage should be allowed throughout the United States.

Civil union is open to anyone but it is but as separate from marriage which is not. In most states (there are exceptions) marriage is open to just heterosexuals. Just because a homosexual was never consider 3/5 of a human doesn't mean people aren't constantly dehumanizing them. "Homosexuals or Homo Sapiens: Who Deserves Protected Class Status?" That is trying to say being a homosexual is apart from being human. It's not just this one quote who is saying it either. The number one reason people were bullied in schools was because of their appearance. Number two? Their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. Nine out of ten LGBT teens reported being bullied in schools for their orientation. More than 1/3 have been reported for attempting suicide because of the way others treat them. Yes, other people are bullied. But this shows that the general population IS dehumanizing them. Vermont adapted civil unions to entitle same-sex couples to ensure the same rights as marriage while keeping "the institute of marriage." The same rights are not given. Proposition 22, passed in 2000, is there to ensure that same-sex unions are not given most of the state benefits that are given to opposite-sex marriage. The Marriage Defense Act, passed in 1996, keeps same-sex unions from receiving federal benefits. The only way same-sex is truly equal is through marriage. No matter who started civil unions does not change the fact they are still a step down from marriage although as stated above, they were suppose to be designed as equal to marriage. Just as women started getting jobs as secretaries and could do nothing more, they took the jobs as a step towards equality. Civil unions are that step to be taken, but not yet the step there. Not everyone believes that gays deserve the rights as others. That is an invalid argument that it should be easy to convince everyone when the majority looks down on the minority. Majority rule, minority rights down exist under the law in this country. It is there so no government or majority may take away the rights and freedoms of a minority group. Under the law marriage is a right. You cannot argue that it should be easy to convince everyone. The majority does not agree with it, the minority, under the law, still keeps their rights. I am gay and I don't need any scientific evidence to tell me whether or not I chose this. I don't know anyone who would choose to let society tell them to be someone else. Speaking from personal experience I would never choose to let my parents yell at me, ground me, and tell me how unnatural my choices are. If a choice was given, I personally would be heterosexual. Society first tells me to be myself, but then changes its mind. But I am not attracted to guys. It's as simple as that. You are incorrect about the no scientific evidence. Psychological science is a branch of science. Social science is based off the ABC's (affect, behavior, and cognition). They are looked at by both self and others. Affect is feelings. Feelings have been stated by the individuals. How you feel about others is stated. Other people have observed these feelings. Republican Wade Kach said "I saw with so many of the gay couples, they were so devoted to one another. I saw so much love. When this hearing was over, I was a changed person in regard to this issue. I felt that I understood what same sex couples were looking for." Yes, other people observe it. The behavior is apparent and doesn't have to be explained by the gay rights movement. Cognition is the thought. Homosexuals have clearly thought about through the way they're being put down to stand up for what's rights. There has been no evidence on what causes sexual orientation, so you are correct on that, but it has been proven that most (yes, some people do choose their sexuality, not everyone possesses that in their wiring) people do not choose their sexual orientation. I'll humor you and pretend it's a choice. That brings back to the discussion you can't discriminate for someone's choice. Everyone chooses who they like better. You can't take away a right because of their choice. You still don't need a wedding. The license needs to be signed, that does not make it a wedding. The wedding it the couple's choice. Yes, restrictions have always existed. Interracial marriage used to be illegal. Things progress. I am not arguing for or against the other restrictions. Am I saying those are correct or not? No. I have done research on those issues nor do I have the time at this moment. I will look into them for a future debate with you. Although your animal argument does not work because you cannot get consent from both parties. Restrictions are there but that doesn't mean they're right. Love is love. It was nice debating with you. I learned a lot about formatting, especially how to source them. I've always just sourced in alphabetical and your format will help in the future. But I'd suggest not using Wikipedia as a source. http://blog.chron.com... http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com... http://www.america.gov... http://www.apa.org... http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... http://www.infoplease.com...


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Made Legal?

The legalization of gay marriage is necessary as it upholds the principles of civil rights and equality. Our Constitution and civil liberties guarantee many freedoms, including the pursuit of happiness, which has been denied to homosexual individuals by prohibiting them from marrying their loved ones. According to professorshouse.com, several states ban not only gay marriage but also civil partnerships. The question arises: why should anyone have the authority to dictate who marries whom? If a heterosexual couple decides to marry, it is widely accepted; however, if a same-sex couple wishes to do the same, it causes outrage. Imagine a world where sexual orientations are reversed; would straight people advocate for the rights of now-gay people? America prides itself on being the land of the free, yet we are not free to marry who we choose. Despite the challenges faced by the LGBTQ+ community, they would likely support the rights of others if roles were reversed. We are all equals, regardless of race or sexual orientation, so why should equality be denied based on whom we love? The First Amendment protects religious beliefs and prohibits discrimination against minority groups, which includes the LGBTQ+ community. The separation of church and state means that marriages cannot be defined as divine gifts. Love is the foundation of marriage, and if gay couples share this love, they should have the right to marry. In many states, same-sex couples are denied the benefits and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy, such as joint bank accounts, living together, and making medical decisions for each other. Legalizing gay marriage would not affect anyone else but would ensure that everyone has the same rights and opportunities. Parenthood is a benefit of marriage, and gay couples should have the right to adopt children without facing discrimination. Additionally, married couples receive tax breaks, which should be available to all couples regardless of their sexual orientation. According to professorshouse.com, "When we hit our mid-thirties, we wanted only true friendships- friendships that were durable." This sentiment aligns with the essence of marriage. While some religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism, consider same-sex relationships a sin, denying gay marriage based on this belief would be discriminatory. America has not given gay marriage a fair chance, fearing that it would weaken the institution by leading to higher divorce rates. However, opening the door to gay marriage does not necessarily lead to polygamy, as some fear. Concerns about the impact of same-sex parenting on children's mental capacities are unfounded. Despite the opposition, we must strive for a more inclusive society for future generations

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled to infer a "separation of church and state" all the way from federal to local levels. In this way if the government put the millenia-old definition of marriage as "man and woman" into the legal system that is purely in violation of this legal inferrance. If the government redefines a religious term, both in origin and use, than the government would effectively violate the "separation of church and state". It would be paramount as to saying that Parliament in the U.K. would redefine Queen Elizabeth II as King Elizabeth II. Obviously we can see that this is something that violates the inferrance of the Supreme Court to establish a "separation of church and state".

If a man wants to marry into a citizen of a MEDC he does find the spouse. However when there is one person willing to do this then there would be more "costumers" to this fraud. Rather than having many felons all over the country the criminal scope will be narrowed down to only a few, making it easier for the state to take action and lesser people forced into this. Thus, all the native problems will actually be decreased by the more suspicious felons. We believe that illegal polygamy will be of more damage to the children's and the mothers' mental development than legal one. With no legal registration under the law the women in polygamy are more vulnerable to abuse. Because there are no state law for these illegal wives and children, they are scared and ashamed of contacting lawful institutions when they are abused. Since polygamy is illegal they are under constant pressure of hiding their relationships with the men and therefore seize to make it public by contacting the police. For the children, when they are raised to hide their true identity and origins they build a psychological burden which is more capable of causing disturbed mental development rather than inequality of sexes. When the father sneaks to meet his second wife and the children born between them, the children are incapable of building a father figure, a male resemblance at all. These cause far more extreme problems than when divorce occurs. When a polygamous marriage takes place both parties have to go through the circumstances of any marriage. This marriage will have to approved by all the wives if a man wants have another wife (in the case of a polygyny). Thus, having been through broader and deeper consideration the marriage will be less likely to end up in a divorce. Also if the father dies the illegal wife and children are legally under no condition of receiving possessions. Therefore the state should make polygamy legal to improve the conditions of illegal wives and children.

By offering benefits for staying together, gay marriage incentivizes couples staying together.

Ted Olson. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Newsweek. January 12, 2010: "Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations."

The institution of marriage is dependent on its traditional definition being maintained as between a man and woman, and the traditional family/reproduction/child-rearing/mother-father-role-models function of marriage being upheld as well. Gay marriage breaks from many of these traditional functions. Civil unions uphold the institution of marriage by not interfering with them.

Society is changing, and the traditional idea of the nuclear family with married mother and father is no longer the only acceptable alternative. The reason that many countries are beginning to award legal rights to gay couples is because the stability of such relationships is now recognised. There is no reason, therefore, why such couples cannot provide a stable and loving upbringing for children.

Paul Varnell. "For Civil Unions". Chicago Free Press. March 8, 2006: "Once you are in a civil union, you can refer to yourself as “married” if you like. A friend in Vermont who is in a civil union says he and his partner refer to themselves as married. So does everyone else. A friend in Norway reports the same thing: 'Oh, you two are married.' It seems clear that once people are comfortable with thinking and speaking of same-sex couples as 'married,' their willingness to accept gay marriage itself is sure to follow."

Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage.

Gay marriage is a civil, not religious, issue

Proposition is willing to achieve a not existing right by breaking many others. The main point in this debate which was completely missed be the side of government is that we are talking about recognition of marriage not polygamy itself so everybody is free to live in a polygamous family if he wishes to as it is in the status quo, but official recognition will allow officially breaking more rights and freedoms. Firstly, it is impossible to achieve equality between spouses, because most of women will be oppressed by the unequal and stressing families [[http://goo.gl/eYY0L]]. Secondly, the freedom of choice is also limited by impossibility to decide about new partners. Moreover, we argue that polygamous marriage will harm the freedom of choice of men because most of them will not have a partner at all. That creates social tensions and they just don't have any right to decide. The consequences on breaking rights and freedoms with recognising polygamy will be much bigger then benefit of one individual, which are even impossible to achieve; therefore, the state should not recognise it. There is difference between polygamous and same-sex marriage. Lesbian or gay behaviour is naturally given and it wasn’t choice of the person, where on the other hand, it is not proven that people are born polygamist and it is just a desire of person instead of natural orientation. Moreover, not all countries recognise gay marriage and proposition failed to justify why it is the same case as polygamous marriage. Even if men would be polygamist by nature, it doesn’t mean that we should strive for it and support it.