Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Legally Recognized?

Is it beneficial for the United States to legalize same-sex marriage?

To Nate_SK: Permit me to offer some guidance for future discussions, which may assist you in debates against me or anyone else. "Debating Tip 1: Stay Calm. As Plexon_Warrior, someone on your side of the debate, stated to you on the opinion question where I learned that you're not fond of the LGBTQ+ community, "Calm down. I agree with you, but God didn't grant us the right to judge them. He commanded us to love them... Not in a romantic sense, but you understand the meaning." So, don't let your anger over the rainbow symbol, which you described as, "GOD MADE THE RAINBOW AND YOU VILE INDIVIDUALS HAVE NO RIGHT TO PERVERT IT," cloud your judgment in your quest to prove their wrongdoing. "Debating Tip 2: Research Your Opponent. Before making claims that can easily be disproven, which may make you appear foolish, even though you're a smart individual skilled at debating. For example, in the previous round, you called me a Leftist Liberal. Had you checked my profile, you would have seen that I am an Independent. (who actually believes that the left-right party system is outdated and now hinders our politics) "Debating Tip 5: Cite Your Sources. If you haven't noticed, I've been providing sources throughout the debate. I've only used a few of them so that you wouldn't catch on and start doing it yourself, which allowed me to have more compelling arguments between rounds 2 and 3, before I had to ask you to show any proof. "Debating Tip 6: This is related to Tip 2, but in this case, you couldn't have read that I used to attend Spring Creek Baptist Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin every Sunday morning and every Wednesday night during my early years. (Yes, I was a Baptist) I believe I've covered most of my suggestions for you and hope that you will recognize that they weren't meant to be insulting, but rather some wisdom I am trying to pass along to you. Maybe now that we both know a little about each other and see that there is more than just our own perspective on the subject, we can shake hands and be friends, even if we don't agree on some things, like I'm Andy Griffith and you're Barney Fife (from The Andy Griffith Show). So,

Rules:-Please keep language simple, I don't like looking up more than one word per post.-This debate should not be based on semantics. Use comments if you think a person's statement could mean two different things and you do not actually know what they are trying to say. -No new information in the 3rd round. Just rebuttals/conclusions. -By ‘language’ I mean laws, issuing ‘marriage’ license, things like that.I'd like to start out by stating I am for 'marriage' being a religious unity. I state this because I have never been to a wedding, including civil ceremonies, that did not mention God. That does not mean they do not exist, but because of the statistics, I consider 'marriage' a religious thing.That being said, I see the religious stand on why same sex marriage (SSM) should not be allowed. I also agree with them. Which is why I think the word ‘marriage’ should be removed from all government language. I believe unities are vital for our society. When it comes to children, two parents are more often better than one (1). More so if one of them stays at home, but that’s not the topic of this debate. Well, why not just live together? Government benefits of course. Not just tax breaks, but also death benefits and other public benefits. I believe states are making their own civil union laws, but some believe these laws are still not equal.(2) In short, I believe ‘marriages’ are religious and religious unions should be separate from legal unions. (1) http://www.census.gov... (2) http://www.saltlaw.org...

Why should the government recognize only heterosexual marriage? Arguments that the purpose of marriage is ______ (e.g., procreation, Bible, what is natural, &c.) do not work because they are entirely arbitrary; moreover, counterexamples can be found for any of these purposes, such as infertile couples (for PROCREATION), alternate religions (for BIBLE), historical/natural cases of other sexual orientations (for NATURAL), and the like. The teleological argument, the one most commonly used to justify heterosexual marriage alone, does not work. At the same time, what argument justifies state recognition solely of heterosexual and homosexual marriage? That these two orientations predominate society is, once again, completely arbitrary and unsuitable for the law. Consent can be established just as easily for incest, polygamy, arguably even bestiality. Unless one wants to recognize these other kinds of marriages, one must support the view that the state should just separate itself from the institution of marriage. The arguments to the contrary must draw a line somewhere, a line that is completely subjective and, like any other personal opinion or "comfort zone," deserves no place in the law.

I would first like to establish common ground by saying that I do not disagree that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. I do not agree that it is a healthy household due to fact that the natural order has a mother and a father in a household. Obviously there are many households that are minus one of these figures even in straight couples. If you are going to quote statistics please provide a link. Same-sex parents are not really focused on the needs of children, but upon the needs of a small number of adults. No society would purposely deny a child a mother or father, yet that is what same-sex households do. The nature of the beast dictates that all same-sex households ALWAYS be without one of these important parental figures. My argument against gay marriage focuses mostly around the benefits that marriage provides, and why only traditional families should be entitled to said benefits. The first question I ask is why does the goverment bestow so many rights upon two people in the first place? What could the goverment possibly receive in return for promoting marriage. I argue that the goverment gives these benefits to traditional families based upon the fact that these families help to ensure the continued natural existence of the nation. This is somthing same-sex couples obvioosly cannot provide due to obvious reasons. The goverment is not in place to provide happiness. It does ensure that you have the "pursuit of happiness", but does NOT provide. Are you saying that same-sex couple cannot be happy without the benefits of the goverment? And please esatblish why the goverment should provide those benefits to a relationship that provides no real benefit for the goverment. Another problem that same-sex marriage has is support of the country. The majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage and think it should be left up to the states to decide. In the 2004 vote some states voted on whether SSM should be allowed or not. Even in Oregon, where the Gay and Lesbian lobby focused its efforts, it failed miseribly. Shouldn't what the majority wants matter in something so controversial? http://www.abcnews.go.com... I thank you for providing this debate and I'm sure we can complete it in a civil manner. This debate can bring the worst out of people from both sides of the spectrum and I wish to avoid that.

Many same-sex couples wish to marry. They want to do so for the same reasons as their opposite-sex counterparts – to publicly proclaim and celebrate their love and commitment, to protect their children, to ensure legal and social recognition and for a whole host of other reasons. These couples would greatly benefit from being able to realise their choice to marry, an intensely personal choice that is widely recognised, at least for heterosexual couples, as a basic human right. Instead of sending a message that all Australians are to be treated fairly and equally, regardless of their sexual orientation, the message currently being sent by our federal law is that it is acceptable to exclude lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons from a central social institution and that our relationships are inferior. In recent years, most state and territory governments, have extended to same sex couples many, though not all, of the legal and economic rights and responsibilities available to opposite sex couples. Yet we remain excluded from the institution of marriage itself, a distinction that undermines our human dignity, diminishes our families and discriminates against us in violation of our basic right to equal legal treatment. Providing same sex couples with the equal right to marry will not harm religious institutions in any way. Each religion will still have the right to choose whether or not to perform marriages for same-sex couples. Religions that wish to perform marriages for same-sex couples should also have the freedom to do so. Some opponents of equal marriage have suggested that marriage as an institution would be weakened, even tainted, by our presence. Such people are, of course, free to hold whatever views they wish in respect of homosexuality and the treatment of same sex couples, but Australian law should not be based upon such degrading and offensive notions. No group of Australians should be systemically excluded from any legal institution, let alone one as central to our society as legal marriage. It must be open to all Australians, regardless of their sexual orientation. Some day, same-sex couples in Australia will have the legal right to marry. That is inevitable. As with every major human rights advance, from the abolition of slavery to allowing women to vote, future generations will look back and wonder how anyone could have opposed such a basic human right. Same-sex couples have and raise children. Allowing these couples to legally marry affords their children the same protections and benefits as children raised by opposite sex parents. For many Australians, marriage uniquely conveys the nature and legitimacy of a committed romantic relationship. Gays and lesbians should not be denied this form of expression. Language does not merely reflect discriminatory social attitudes and practices, but is involved in shaping and perpetuating such attitudes and practices. The exclusion of same-sex relationships from marriage and the invention of a different word to describe our unions represents gays and lesbians, and our relationships in particular, as deviant and abnormal, and as less worthy than heterosexual unions. Marriage is a part of Australian life and same-sex couples, in fact all lesbian, gay and bisexual persons, are constantly faced with the fact of our exclusion from it. It’s not a pleasant feeling. Because there is greater social reluctance to recognise the legitimacy of same-sex relationships, the benefit of automatic recognition that marriage confers is particularly important for lesbian and gay couples. When a same-sex partner is injured, the last thing the other partner needs is to have the legitimacy of the relationship questioned by hospital authorities. When a child is hurt on a school trip, and the biological parent is unavailable, the co-parent does not want to have to convince a schoolteacher that the relationship is valid. When a same-sex partner dies, the surviving partner does not need to have the grief of loss compounded by having to prove that he or she is authorised to make the funeral arrangements. In a married relationship, these matters are rarely called into question, and the validity of the relationship can be easily demonstrated if necessary through production of the marriage certificate. Australia is a country where individuals are afforded the right to choose their own religion and their own philosophy of life, the right to choose with whom they will associate and how they will express themselves, the right to choose where they will live and what occupation they will pursue. The government should respect choices made by individuals and, to the greatest extent possible, avoid subordinating these choices to any one conception of the good life. Our choice to marry should not be denied because we are not heterosexual. In Australia, same-sex couples, and all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons for that matter, still suffer under the weight of stigma and prejudice. While much progress has been made, we are still often subject to verbal and physical assaults, many of us still grow up in isolation and fear and kids who are not heterosexual still face significantly higher suicide rates than their heterosexual counterparts. These attitudes of prejudice are reinforced – and given State sanction – by discriminatory laws. The former Prime Minister, John Howard, once argued that preventing same-sex couples from marrying was ‘a matter of survival of the species’. Clearly, the ability or desire to have children is not a prerequisite to marriage. Opposite-sex couples can get married whether or not they are able or willing to procreate; same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying, whether or not they are raising children. “Companionate” marriages between elderly heterosexuals past the age of child-bearing are celebrated and affirmed in our society, not banned under law. Civil unions can provide some or all of the rights and obligations of civil marriage. AME has no objection to civil unions as a supplement to marriage, but as long as we are denied the equal right to marry, alternative regimes do not fix the discrimination. Australia would not be the first to take this step, and it will not be the last. Same-sex marriage is already a reality in a growing list of countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa. Thank you.

Married couples do have legal benefits, but that doesn't that non-married couples couldn't have the same benefits. For example, a law could be passed that allows the incomes of two people living in the same home to be taxed together, instead of separately. Or another law could allow a person to write a document similar to a will, that would give permission for such and such a person to visit one in the hospital. Laws like these would be much more equalizing than gay marriage laws, as they would give equal benefits to gays, straights, and people completely uninterested in marriage at all. Gay rights activists should be lobbying for equal benefits, not marriage. The negative effects of breaking with tradition in this case are these: 1. Giving the government the power to define what a family is. The present government may be genuinely concerned with spreading equality, but future governments could use this power against individual and religious liberty. Religious liberty should be preserved for religious institutions as well as individuals. 2. Confusion between marriage and friendship. As the culture learns to accept gay marriage, other groups will clamor for marriage rights. As marriages move farther and farther away from being fully sexual (that is, sex for the purpose of procreation) it will become closer to institutionalized friendship. Marriage will lose its meaning as a deep relationship and become dependent on like-mindedness, instead of total commitment. Friendship will decrease, as it will suggest a greater future commitment than is reasonable to ask for in a friend. 3.Decreased respect for raising children. Disdain for the domestic life began a long time ago, (maybe with the Vikings!) but will certainly reach its climax with the normalization of gay marriage. As the family becomes disassociated with blood relationships, it will become a loose collection of persons whose commitment to each other is based on like-mindedness, instead of a necessary duty regardless of the situation. The family will become weak and limited in its power to form children. This last point seems to me the most worrisome of all. I thank you for challenging me to this debate. May our conversation inspire others to think deeply on this matter of marriage.

Stepping away from my usual debates regarding abortion and the existence of God, I'd like to try my hand at debating this contentious topic. The argument I will present is as follows:P1: Marriage has a special link to children.P2: Same-sex couplings do not have a special link to children.C1 (from 1 and 2): Therefore, same-sex couplings are not proper marriages.C2: Therefore, same-sex marriage should not be legalized.Round 1 -- acceptance.Round 2 -- opening arguments/rebuttals.Round 3 -- rebuttals.Round 4 -- closing arguments.I look forward to debating this topic with whomever would like to.

I. The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) I forgot to mention this aspect of the Constitution that shows that discrimination against marriage is illegal. In the interracial marriage case Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court unanimously voted against discrimination in marriage based on the Equal Protection Clause. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is fair for you to have to rebut this argument, because it is so important and you have ample time to rebut it, two rounds. II. Topicality My opening statement was simply an introduction to my position and self as a debater. The topic, in debate, is always what is to be debated. That is one of the few rules of debate. I am sorry to confuse you, but legality is an issue as well as naturality. III. Natural Behavior Justification You used the argument that violence is justified for its naturality. However, violence hurts people. Love does not hurt anybody. This is a common sense argument. IV. Leviticus 20:13 A. This scripture was not presented by God. Most knowledgable Bible scholars, even the most conservative, will conceed that these rules are not from God. They are rather presented from Israeli religious leaders. They do not have the right, as well as any other human what is right or wrong. B. Leviticus 20:2 reads "speak to the children of Israel." Christians are NOT the "children of Israel". No Christians have an obligation to follow Jewish Levitical Laws. It is typical for religion to be used to justify hate. It has been done in slavery, suffrage and the holocaust. C. Leviticus also bans round haircuts, tattoos, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, and even playing with the skin of a pig (football). V. Romans 1:24 - 27 A. These priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves and carrying on drunken sexual orgies. This is the sin the Bible is referring to. God is obviously not condemning the way he created a group of people. B. These people refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. C. The scripture says that God gave them up for vile affections against nature, but how is it referring to homosexuality, which is proven to be from birth? And is natural? It is not referring to homosexuality. That is an incorrect assumption. D. Romans 2 begins with the scripture "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." That is what Romans 1 is about: judging others, not homosexuality. How dare you twist a message from God for your own personal benefit to spread hate! VI. You Being A Jerk DO NOT try to convert me to your religion or your sexual preference! I know what I am and who I am. I am not sinning, as I have proven. However, you are for being judgmental. There are only 6 scriptures that can be twisted to condemn homosexuality. While a main message of your Bible is to not judge others! Practice what you preach, buddy. VII. My sources My related sources all stated that homosexuality is natural and at least partially biological. VIII. Scientific Consensus You have the nerve to only copy and paste the part of my source that states that there is no scientific consensus on the BIOLOGY of homosexuality. However, among respectable scientific sources that are not biased the consensus is that homosexuality is in part genetic or set in very early in life. It is unfair and dishonest that you only copy and paste one part of the source just like you did with the Bible. IX. Natural selection A. Ok... B. It is possible that there is a recessive homosexual trait in humans that is being overshadowed by the dominant trait but still being passed down in some cases only not expressed. C. Homosexuals often reproduce through modern scientific methods like serrogacy and invetro. D. And, many homosexuals, in order to hide their sexuality, do indeed reproduce. X. Natural selection proves homosexuality to be immoral This argument makes no sense! Many genese will be naturally selected. XI. "This view of homosexuality as pathological is supported by the self-destructive nature of homosexual activity, which severely increases the risk of AIDS." This also makes no sense! AIDS is a disease. There is no scientific support or debate that it is a disease. XII. Gays should not adopt, because God does not want them to have kids. A. DO YOU KNOW GOD'S PLAN!? LET GOD SPEAK FOR HISSELF! STOP LYING IN HIS NAME! IT'S DISPICABLE! B. God perhaps made it so difficult for gays to have kids because of the many kids in need of adoption. XIII. Gay marriage is like psychos marrying. This is an incredibly ignorant statement and no source will claim that homosexuality is pathological. My opponent has lied in the name of science, God and twisted my sources. He is dishonest and only cares about his hateful message. I do not understand why e enjoys prejudice so much that he will lie to keep it up, but I have successfully thwarted every single point of his and have advantages of legality, freedom and the well being of many orphans. Discrimination is a policy that the United States should finally abandon.

OutlineI. Benefits of marriageII. Being Gay is not a choiceIII. Financial gain to governmentIV. Separation of church and stateV. SourcesI. Benefits of marriageThe first question, is why would someone want to get married? The answer is there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections available for married couples by federal law. Therefore, there are many logical reasons why people would seek to reap these benefits. "There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [4]II. Being gay is not a choiceThis might sound silly, but you can't just will yourself to be straight or gay. "Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis. " [5]"Gay conversion therapy, as it is known, supposedly helps gay people overcome same-sex attractions. But mainstream psychologists say the therapy is ineffective, unethical and often harmful, exacerbating anxiety and self-hatred among those treated for what is not a mental disorder." [6]That means by denying gays marriage we are practicing discrimination. Discrimination is unjust. III. Financial gain to governmentMarriages licenses are a source of revenue. This relieves tax burdens off of straights. Therefore, straight people gain a financial advantage from gay marriages.IV. Separation of church and stateAlmost all arguments against gays seem to originate from religion. Yet, the separation of church and state disallows religion to interfere with government affairs. Banning gay marriages on religious grounds would be a violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [7]By banning gay marriages based upon a religion, congress would be respecting an establishment of religion. V. Sources4. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...5. http://www.livescience.com...6. http://www.livescience.com...7. https://www.law.cornell.edu...

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).

Thanks! Again, I'll keep this as short as possible. My argument goes as follow: 1) Liberty is a default position in that we assume liberty unless given ample reason to place restrictions on it. (In short, we give liberty and freedom the benefit of the doubt. This is not to say that liberty is unlimited. ) 2) Marriage of any kind is cultural (and, therefore, unnatural. If there could be any kind of "natural" relationship between men and women, it would be one of promiscuity because we are not biologically monogamous. ) Words in parentheses are for further explanation. They are not actually part of the contentions. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be legal. As I thought was commonly known, most states presently restrict same-sex marriages. The first contention works perfectly, and Con has yet to refute it. The second contention was, more or less, added preemptively, and I was correct: Con attempted to naturalize heterosexual unions. For example he says, "There are emotional, sexual, and parental goods which are exclusive to heterosexual union. " Exclusive implies that heterosexuals have a "natural" quality that homosexuals do not. This focuses on the group rather than the individual merit of the parents, regardless of sexual orientation. If we accept contention two, which Con has failed to refute, we must accept the cultural foundation, and further subjectivity, of marriage. That is, there are no "natural" marriages in which to compare other concepts of marriage. This would make Con's entire argument invalid because he claims that relationships such as marriage have intrinsic value. This is simply untrue. The relationships are different in definition, but the relationships in themselves have no intrinsic value. For instance, bad parents are bad parents because they do not care for their children (i. e. they abuse or neglect their children). Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Any goods provided by any couple, or anyone for that matter, would be provided on an individual basis. Con raises a good point, however, on whether or not marriage should be recognized by the government at all. That is another debate entirely and not part of this one. Con had several options in which to attack my argument. He could have argued that same-sex marriages in someway deserved to be unrecognized based on some sort of wrongdoing. Instead, Con has focused his energy on arguing for discrimination against same-sex marriages. Con attempted to legitimize discrimination with several incorrect examples. The definition of discrimination would be as follows: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). This definition is more widely used and accepted in a social context. Con's usage,"To discriminate is simply to note or observe a difference between two things. .. ," would be more fitting outside a social context. I will address 2 points regarding Con's argument for discrimination. 1) "The state discriminates between convicts and the innocent, between combatants and non-combatants, between adults and children. " First, it is more correct to call these examples distinctions. Second, none of these violate my first contention; that is, they all have sufficient reason (except maybe adults and children because the age was only moved to eighteen so more troops could die in Vietnam). Nevertheless, adults and children are not discriminated against in such a way that could be comparable to the distinction (and further discrimination) made between homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2) "What is wrong is unjust discrimination, and thus far my opponent has failed to provide any valid argument as to why we should not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples in this sense. " This goes against my first contention, which Con has failed to refute. We need sufficient reason to limit freedom and should not assume that we must discriminate between any groups unless there is sufficient reason. It appears, however, that Con means to use "distinction" instead of "discrimination". In fact, Con's argument is based on distinction (concluding in discrimination). No one is saying that the two marriages are the same; homosexuals along with heterosexual allies are asking for equal recognition under the law. Thus far, Con has failed to provide a sufficient reason other than definitional differences in which to limit freedoms.


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Legalized?

Should Gay Marriage Be Legalized?
Initially, it's important to acknowledge that the government's role in marriage is primarily to establish paternity and lineage for offspring, rather than to maintain the bond between partners. If the government were to withdraw from regulating marriage, the question of legality for gay marriage would become irrelevant. The only concern would then be whether it's acceptable for same-sex couples to marry, which I personally believe should not be an issue. Love is universal, and marriage is not a prerequisite for love. However, the primary governmental interest in marriage is the welfare and rights of children. It's worth noting that same-sex couples cannot biologically conceive children. While they can adopt, the child is already part of the system, having been born to someone else.

This revised document maintains the length, complexity, and semantic style of the original while preserving its relationship to the question about the legalization of gay marriage.

Civil unions would give gays all the benefits of marriage

Ted Olson. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Newsweek. January 12, 2010: "When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so."

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: "Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. [...] To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding."

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.

Definition of marriage can and should evolve to include gays

Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage.

Gay marriage encourages stable gay relationships/families

For a lesbian couple, one woman's egg can be implanted into their female partner's uterus and then fertilized with an unknown donor's sperm. After the baby is born, instead of the father's name being used, the other spouse's names can be stated. Gay couples can also reproduce using one man's sperm and a surrogate mother. In both situations, the couples can raise-children, and fit any criteria of marriage being about reproduction and starting a family.

Steve Swayne. "The Case for Federal Civil Unions." Independent Gay Forum. February 28, 2004: "And one more suggestion: To avoid charges of separate but unequal, make civil unions open to straight couples."


Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Legally Recognized?

Same-sex marriage ought to be lawful.

In my opinion, same-sex marriage should be legal because everyone has the right to marry the person they love. It's a matter of equality and recognizing that love knows no boundaries, and everyone should have the opportunity to formalize their commitment to the person they choose, regardless of gender.

Gay marriage should definitely be legal because it is a fundamental right for every person to be able to marry who you love and be happy. In the constitution one of the main points was that every man was created equal and this should apply to gays and lesbians. Yes, gays and lesbians were created and born that way and its not a choice. It has been proven that you don't chose to be gay and there is nothing wrong with that. I ask you this question, do you think that the statement all men are created equal don't apply to gays and lesbians?

OutlineI. Benefits of marriageII. Being Gay is not a choiceIII. Financial gain to governmentIV. Separation of church and stateV. SourcesI. Benefits of marriageThe first question, is why would someone want to get married? The answer is there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections available for married couples by federal law. Therefore, there are many logical reasons why people would seek to reap these benefits. "There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [4]II. Being gay is not a choiceThis might sound silly, but you can't just will yourself to be straight or gay. "Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis. " [5]"Gay conversion therapy, as it is known, supposedly helps gay people overcome same-sex attractions. But mainstream psychologists say the therapy is ineffective, unethical and often harmful, exacerbating anxiety and self-hatred among those treated for what is not a mental disorder." [6]That means by denying gays marriage we are practicing discrimination. Discrimination is unjust. III. Financial gain to governmentMarriages licenses are a source of revenue. This relieves tax burdens off of straights. Therefore, straight people gain a financial advantage from gay marriages.IV. Separation of church and stateAlmost all arguments against gays seem to originate from religion. Yet, the separation of church and state disallows religion to interfere with government affairs. Banning gay marriages on religious grounds would be a violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [7]By banning gay marriages based upon a religion, congress would be respecting an establishment of religion. V. Sources4. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...5. http://www.livescience.com...6. http://www.livescience.com...7. https://www.law.cornell.edu...

I will be arguing on the "Pro" side of this issue. I believe that denying homosexuals this basic right is immoral and unacceptable in a country that claims to provide "liberty and justice for all". Homosexuals are human beings and deserve to be recognized as such. I will wait for my opponent to deliver his opening statement before I begin.

Gay marriage. Every one has their opinion on this topic. Mine is why not let them get married? The divorce rate in heterosexuals is very high, but I have know gays and lesbians that never break up. My opinion is there divorce rate would be much lover. The bible says god loves everyone, so why wouldn't he be o.k with this? If they want to get married, they should have that right. It shouldn't be taken away from them just because they like the same sex. I may not be gay and you may not be gay, you may think its gross but you still shouldn't take away their right. It's like abortion, I may not agree with it but doesn't mean that right should be taken away. Marriage is a civil right, and taking it away means your disobeying the constitution. Remember that? The act to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and taking away marriage crushes the dream of the pursuit of happiness.

My opening argument is that marriage is about love, not biological sex or gender. Who cares if two men or two women want to get married as long as they are consenting adults? My rebuttals: P1: Marriage, as properly defined, is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. As Girgis, et al, write, "The conjugal view of marriage has long informed the law -- along with the literature, art, philosophy, religion, and social practice -- of our civilization...It is a vision of marriage as a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond, distinguished thus by its comprehensiveness, which is, like all love, effusive: flowing out into the wide sharing of family life and ahead to lifelong fidelity. In marriage, so understood, the world rests its hope and finds ultimate renewal." [1] My rebuttal is that this creates a whole bunch of second class citizens. Are you really saying that old people, people who don't want children, people who can't have children should not get married? Limiting marriage and sex to those that do implies a positive answer to my question. Marriage is not just about having children, it is about having someone to grow old with. P2: Same-sex couplings do not have a special link to children. My previous argument is relevant for this too. Are people who can't have children wrong to get married? My Conclusion 1: Marriage is about companionship too, not just reproduction. My Conclusion 2: Please see my first conclusion.

The primary arguments that I will focus on during this round shall be as follows: Same-sex marriage denies children a parent of a particular gender, and the legalization of same-sex marriage can lead to various other legal issues such as polygamy and bestiality My first argument is as follows: same-sex marriage denies children a parent of a particular gender, which can be detrimental to their development and/or well being. For example, the lack of a father figure greatly increases the chances of early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy among females (1). Children with single parents also have greater chances of developing cognitive, social, and emotional problems (2). Do we really want to let our children suffer for political decisions made today? If same-sex marriage is legalized, within a few generations society will fall into a state of chaos. Bruce J. Ellis, "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy? ", Child Development, May 2003 . http://gaymarriage.procon.org... Paul R. Amato, "Marriage and Child Wellbeing", The Future of Children, 2005 . http://futureofchildren.org... I continue my case with my second argument that same-sex marriage can lead down a slippery slope to other issues such as polygamy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality. Proponents of these sorts of relationships will use the successes of same-sex marriage (if same-sex marriage is allowed) to advocate their own position. After all, if two adults of the same gender are allowed to marry, who is to prevent three or four or five from doing the same (1)? It was not so long ago that the state of Utah was forced to abolish polygamy in order for its admittance to the Union. Is it now poised to amend its Constitution to revive this practice that is still much more prevalent than many believe (2)? It is only a matter of time after same-sex marriage is legalized that the legalization of the aforementioned issues will follow. Jillian Keenan, "Legalize Polygamy! ," Slate. com, Apr. 15, 2013 . http://www.slate.com... "Do We Really Want to Redefine Marriage," www. floppingaces. net, Aug. 11, 2010 . http://floppingaces.net... Same-sex marriage does not only hurt our society, but hurts our society as a whole, and should not be legalized.

Wow thanks for that excellent response. Well I guess I will just do a conclusion any way. Gay marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental right to be able be happy and marry whomever you want. Also as I previously stated that every man is created equal and this should apply to gays and lesbians because it is not a choice and you are created that way. Next in round three I stated that, yes the catholic bible outlaws gat marriage but sense when have we been a country based on the bible because of our separation of church and state. Well thats it for me so vote for me in this debate

ON GUARD! I affirm the resolution: Gary Marriage should be legalized. For the sake of clarity and being terse, the term "gay" will be an umbrella term for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. I am not arguing in what way gay marriage should be legalized (federal or states), but I'm arguing that it SHOULD be legalized because there is no valid legal argument against gay marriage. Do note that since this is in context of being legalized, saying that God is against gay marriage is obviously a moot point. Hopefully this debate won't turn into a debate about God, but rather about the points of gay marriage. ===== Gays deserve the same marital rights ===== My argument is simple and brief: gays deserve the same marital rights as a heterosexual. For a long time, marriage was only a traditional and religious thing. And it was fine for the heterosexuals to hog it for themselves (though if marriage was still purely traditional, I doubt there would be laws concerning it). However, this is the 21st century. Marriages have rights and financial security alongside; things that are vital to living in this society. Gays are being deprived of these rights because they aren't allowed to marry for arbitrary reasons. This is all for now. I realize that my opponent will probably add some other arguments, like the slippery slope or the nature of homosexuality. I realize these possible counterarguments, but there is no guarantee my opponent will use such arguments. It's pointless to type out rebuttals to arguments that could potentially never be used. So with that said, I will await my opponent's rebuttals and refute his arguments accordingly.

I agree that LGBT epole should have the right to partnership and the same rights as heterosexuals. You still have not stated: Why should the government control marriage? Marriage is a bond between two people. For many it is a religious institution, and for others it is not. Marriage should not be a legal contract the way it is now. If LGBT people want to live together, they can. Government should not be able to recognize any marriage, they should stay out of it. Without government in marriage, Civil Unions is useless. Good day.

Structure of this debate. 1-acceptance/introductions 2-positions 3-rebuttals 4-rebuttals 5-rebuttals/summary I am for gay rights, and was for gay marriages until I had this idea in witch gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry in America because marriage is usually religious though it could be debated if marriage was first introduced by religion or not. It cannot be debated that regardless of origin marriage is usually conjunctive with religion and has been embraced by religion throughout time and is present modernly. As we know most if not all religions are against gay people, and or gay marriages. Since allowing this would contradict religious and traditional beliefs( Im against tradition because others values potentially can cloud potential development of personal views.) and is likely going to become the premises of why gay marriages will probroly never be approved on a federal level. Gay people shouldn't marry but instead introduce a new type of union. It will have the same purpose of marriage but will not involve anti-gay religious believers or those guys who read the vows who are religious(I forget what there called.) Since this is the acceptance/introductory round I will post and name this type of union next round........Side note.... Their are many avenues that one could take to tackle this debate. I honestly want to debate a female because they tend to have acceptable views of rights to me. Though it doesnt really matter what gender or species accepts this debate.....lol....It's highly probable that my opponent may use the one man one woman rule, or the naturallity argument if they are against gay unions derelict of any circumstances most likely for moral reasons. Id rather avoid these types of arguments due to repetition but if you are compelled to do such then go for it. I request that if my opponent uses this logic please post why this logic should be acceptable and upon what premise this is based. As for personal opinions i ask that one explains their logic from A to Z witch is the logical way to explain logic. I intend for this debate to give me a broadened perspective on how people feel about gays having a separate type of union( or one at all) and if people find it acceptable and if this proposal could potentially work at resolving the gay marriage problem. Thanyou I appreciate whom or whatever accepts this debate.....lol


Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Legally Recognized?

Gay marriage should be legally recognized.
My opponent's arguments will be addressed below. Paragraph 1: "Legalizing gay marriage would open the door to other forms of unions, such as polygamous and incestuous marriages." 1. How do you know that legalizing gay marriage would lead to other forms of unions being recognized? Even if it did, why would heterosexual marriage not also open the door to other forms of unions? Each group seeking marriage rights should be evaluated on its own merits. 2. My opponent assumes that I believe marriage should be based solely on love, but I never made such a claim. Paragraph 2: "My opponent's argument is flawed because they base marriage on love, not economics, which collapses their argument." 1. My opponent's claim that I base marriage solely on love is an assumption. I never made such a claim. 2. I did not base the idea of marriage on economics, but rather listed reasons why polygamous marriage should not be allowed. Paragraph 3: "Homosexual behavior in animals is not the same as gay marriage, and gay marriage undermines the natural order of family making." 1. My opponent's claim that animals cannot be gay is false, as numerous studies have shown that homosexual behavior exists in many animal species. 2. Even if some animals engage in pan-sexual behavior, this does not negate the existence of homosexuality in animals. 3. My opponent's argument that gay marriage undermines the natural order of family making is based on a flawed understanding of family. Paragraph 4: "Older people can still have children, but two people of the same sex cannot, which is why gay marriage violates natural law." 1. Reproductive ability should not be a prerequisite for marriage. Straight people who are medically unable to have children should not be denied the right to marry. 2. The existence of homosexuality in nature negates the argument that gay marriage violates natural law. Paragraph 5: "Two people of the same sex cannot have children, which is where the difference lies between gay and straight marriage." 1. The inability of two people of the same sex to have children does not negate the validity of their relationship or their right to marry. Affirmative Burden: "My opponent has not fulfilled their affirmative burden, so the affirmative case is impossible." It is unfortunate that my opponent could still "force" me to negate if I do not clearly state my position on why gay marriage should be legal. Gay marriage should be legal because

I am of course referring to human homosexuals living within the United States. DEFINITIONS: same- Conforming in every detail . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... rights to marriage- (divided up) right- Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... marriage- The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (though my opponent may prefer:) marriage- The state of being married; wedlock . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Okay, the basic argument line has been this: GBretz: Marriage is a religious institution. Cindela: No, it is a legal institution. GBretz: If you want only a legal recognition of your marriage, why not civil unions? Cindela: Civil Unions create a "separate but equal" situation, and history shows this to be impossible. Now, I rebut that last response earlier saying you cannot compare the homosexual marriage debate question to the civil rights movement of the Ffrican-Americans, and I said my reasons why. Cindela said, "Are you suggesting that it is the African Americans' fault that they were discriminated and considered inferior?" This is NOT what I was saying, if it was, I would've said so. What I did say was, "The reason "separate but equal" didn't work was because the African-Americans were in very small minority and did not know how to stand up for their rights for a long time. However, homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers are not in a very small minority and they certainly know how to stand for their rights. Civil Unions can be changed to provide all the same rights as a marriage would. If they are given the same economic and civil liberties through civil unions, why do they wish to have marriage on top of that?" This means that African-Americans were less in number and uneducated for a long time after they were granted freedom, so they were unable to stand for their rights. I don't know where you got the idea I was blaming the African-Americans for their plight. You stressed the importance of the fact "separate but equal" never works. Your proof is the historical record. But you cannot compare the plight of the African-American people to the "plight" of the gay people. In the words of Rev. Jesse Jackson, "The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote." The point is, marriage is not a "right" described in the Constitution. It is not something that needs to be defined in the Constitution either. Gays are not in an unfair plight that goes against their rights as described by the Constitution. All men were created equal, all men have the undeniable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. But that has little or nothing to do with the homosexual marriage debate, since marriage is NOT an undeniable right upheld in the Constitution. You said couples can be married through city hall. I grant you that, however, marriage done only through city hall is the equivalent to a civil union, except of course, civil union don't grant the same rights as marriage. You said this many times, and I offered you a solution to it many times, and you say "separate but equal" doesn't work. I say it can and will, and that your references to the racial civil rights movement is flawed and does not relate. We seem to be arguing in a circle. So I'll take us out of this loop. The differing point between the rights granted through marriage and the rights granted through civil unions is that civil unions give all the rights at the state level, but do not have the authority to grant the rights at a federal level. However, many of these rights concern children and tax benefits for them and such. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce without their child being considered adopted (even test tube babies)these rights wouldn't even apply to them anyway. As for the rights that do concern homosexuals, like social security and other social services, there is nothing preventing the gay rights activists from pursuing these liberties to be allowed in civil unions. You concluded: "Why should the majority be able to tell the minority what to do? What gave the majority the ability to take away rights from the minority?" I'll tell you what did, its called democracy. The will of the majority over the will of the minority, that's what democracy is all about. Its to prevent a small group of people from controlling the government for their own special interests. Obviously the minority should not be discriminated against, but gays are not being discriminated against. They already have civil unions, and can work to make them better, and they will NOT have an inferior system, despite the cries of, "Separate but equal never works!" And you know what? It does go against my religion, but not once did I use that as an argument against the granting of legal rights to homosexuals in this debate. (Which is what you said this was all about, "I am arguing that gay people should LEGALLY be allowed to marry. Keyword: legally.") My religion should not interfere in someone else's personal life. I also believe their personal views on life shouldn't be forced upon me and my religion. Homosexuals have the right to civil unions and they have the right to improve those civil unions to the point equality with marriage. Why redefine marriage for the rest of us? I leave you with that, and thank you for the debate. I would also like to ask the voters to vote on the debate itself and not on their personal views on the matter. Read thoroughly and carefully before casting your vote.

Structure of this debate. 1-acceptance/introductions 2-positions 3-rebuttals 4-rebuttals 5-rebuttals/summary I am for gay rights, and was for gay marriages until I had this idea in witch gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry in America because marriage is usually religious though it could be debated if marriage was first introduced by religion or not. It cannot be debated that regardless of origin marriage is usually conjunctive with religion and has been embraced by religion throughout time and is present modernly. As we know most if not all religions are against gay people, and or gay marriages. Since allowing this would contradict religious and traditional beliefs( Im against tradition because others values potentially can cloud potential development of personal views.) and is likely going to become the premises of why gay marriages will probroly never be approved on a federal level. Gay people shouldn't marry but instead introduce a new type of union. It will have the same purpose of marriage but will not involve anti-gay religious believers or those guys who read the vows who are religious(I forget what there called.) Since this is the acceptance/introductory round I will post and name this type of union next round........Side note.... Their are many avenues that one could take to tackle this debate. I honestly want to debate a female because they tend to have acceptable views of rights to me. Though it doesnt really matter what gender or species accepts this debate.....lol....It's highly probable that my opponent may use the one man one woman rule, or the naturallity argument if they are against gay unions derelict of any circumstances most likely for moral reasons. Id rather avoid these types of arguments due to repetition but if you are compelled to do such then go for it. I request that if my opponent uses this logic please post why this logic should be acceptable and upon what premise this is based. As for personal opinions i ask that one explains their logic from A to Z witch is the logical way to explain logic. I intend for this debate to give me a broadened perspective on how people feel about gays having a separate type of union( or one at all) and if people find it acceptable and if this proposal could potentially work at resolving the gay marriage problem. Thanyou I appreciate whom or whatever accepts this debate.....lol

What is marriage you may ask? Well, marriage is a religious and legal contract between people. But I, come down to the world religious. The Catholic bible is against gays, and 25% of Americans are Catholic. This problem began when the United States of America made marriage not only a religious thing, but intertwined with the law. In the defense that same sex marriage should be illegal, I say that making it legal would be like mocking the Catholic bible and over 25% of Americans.

Contention 1: The legalization of gay marriage aids to society.For the following reasons, legalization of gay marriage has been beneficial to society, meaning that it has aided people at some level. The legalization of gay marriage has aided to society in the following ways:Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community. The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: " Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases.Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.The following evidence of economy after the passage of legalization of same-sex marriage shows us that the legalization is a great supplement to commerce because of the increase of demand for products.Contention 2: Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.Aside from the aids to society, however, gay marriage at some level better establishes equality. This idea is supported by the following points:Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.The equality within the promotion of same-sex marriage in society lies within the balance of interests of all members of society at a moral level, including the homosexual portions of society. This is a scenario similar to the idea against the legalization of interracial marriage, where two people from two groups of people couldn't acquire a legal marriage based merely on the fact that they were members of that social group and nothing else, which is the pinnacle of what embodies prejudice and discrimination in society. The status against same-sex marriage is similar in this manner.Sub 2b: Civil unions are not a good alternative.Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.References: Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <" target="blank">http://www.businesspundit.com......;. Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://userwww.service.emory.edu......;. Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://www.policyarchive.org......;.

It is true that married couples get rights, but with rights comes responsibilty. Most of the rights they have aren't even that big of a deal. Most of the information can be found here, . http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm pretty sure that if you marry an American you still have to go through the legal process. My uncle (from England) married my aunt and he had to get a green card and do all that still. My stance is it should be legal for everybody, or nobody. You can't grant some individuals one right but not others because they don't like someone of the opposite gender. Since marriage wont be taken out any time soon, gay marriage should be legalized. I agree that everyone should have the same opportunity for happiness and if strait marriage is legal, gay marriage also should be too. Some other links that may be interesting: . http://www.catholiceducation.org... . http://nofo.blogspot.com...

A man and a woman physically mating with each other in physical reality are not an example of physically mating less opposite gender relations in physical reality. Therefore there are two completely separate and distinct opposite gender physical relations that exist in physical reality, physically mating and physically mating less. The traditional institution of marriage acknowledges and differentiates the true dichotomy of opposite gender physical relations that exist in physical reality, physically mating from physically mating less. It's the traditional institution of marriage that acknowledges diversity. Acknowledges the diversity of physical gender of human beings in physical reality male and female. Acknowledges the one and only diversity of human physical relations in physical reality that is a man and a woman physically mating with each other. Allowing two people of the same gender to be married homogenizes the institution of marriage which is why the institution of marriage is homo-phobic. To use the institution of marriage to acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations is gender equality. To use the institution of marriage to acknowledge all marriages as being two people of the same gender as physically mating less human relations is also gender equality and those are the only two ways to achieve gender equality with the institution of marriage. A group marriage acknowledges a group of human physical beings in physical reality like a flock of birds or a herd of cattle, whereas the institution of marriage acknowledges and differentiates human relations and which of these two physical relations, physically mating and physically mating less, the institution of marriage will acknowledge is determined by the physical gender of the human beings being acknowledge. Instead of acknowledging and differentiating the true dichotomy of opposite physical relations, physically mating from physically mating less, the institution of marriage will acknowledge and differentiate the false dichotomy of same gender physical relations, physically mating less from physically mating less in terms of physical reality, romantically loving each other from not romantically loving each in terms of human subjective reality, or whatever from whatever in terms of human subjective reality. Gay marriage advocates insist that the institution of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with acknowledging a man and a woman as physically mating human relations and this is the result.

Thanks! Again, I'll keep this as short as possible. My argument goes as follow: 1) Liberty is a default position in that we assume liberty unless given ample reason to place restrictions on it. (In short, we give liberty and freedom the benefit of the doubt. This is not to say that liberty is unlimited. ) 2) Marriage of any kind is cultural (and, therefore, unnatural. If there could be any kind of "natural" relationship between men and women, it would be one of promiscuity because we are not biologically monogamous. ) Words in parentheses are for further explanation. They are not actually part of the contentions. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be legal. As I thought was commonly known, most states presently restrict same-sex marriages. The first contention works perfectly, and Con has yet to refute it. The second contention was, more or less, added preemptively, and I was correct: Con attempted to naturalize heterosexual unions. For example he says, "There are emotional, sexual, and parental goods which are exclusive to heterosexual union. " Exclusive implies that heterosexuals have a "natural" quality that homosexuals do not. This focuses on the group rather than the individual merit of the parents, regardless of sexual orientation. If we accept contention two, which Con has failed to refute, we must accept the cultural foundation, and further subjectivity, of marriage. That is, there are no "natural" marriages in which to compare other concepts of marriage. This would make Con's entire argument invalid because he claims that relationships such as marriage have intrinsic value. This is simply untrue. The relationships are different in definition, but the relationships in themselves have no intrinsic value. For instance, bad parents are bad parents because they do not care for their children (i. e. they abuse or neglect their children). Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Any goods provided by any couple, or anyone for that matter, would be provided on an individual basis. Con raises a good point, however, on whether or not marriage should be recognized by the government at all. That is another debate entirely and not part of this one. Con had several options in which to attack my argument. He could have argued that same-sex marriages in someway deserved to be unrecognized based on some sort of wrongdoing. Instead, Con has focused his energy on arguing for discrimination against same-sex marriages. Con attempted to legitimize discrimination with several incorrect examples. The definition of discrimination would be as follows: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). This definition is more widely used and accepted in a social context. Con's usage,"To discriminate is simply to note or observe a difference between two things. .. ," would be more fitting outside a social context. I will address 2 points regarding Con's argument for discrimination. 1) "The state discriminates between convicts and the innocent, between combatants and non-combatants, between adults and children. " First, it is more correct to call these examples distinctions. Second, none of these violate my first contention; that is, they all have sufficient reason (except maybe adults and children because the age was only moved to eighteen so more troops could die in Vietnam). Nevertheless, adults and children are not discriminated against in such a way that could be comparable to the distinction (and further discrimination) made between homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2) "What is wrong is unjust discrimination, and thus far my opponent has failed to provide any valid argument as to why we should not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples in this sense. " This goes against my first contention, which Con has failed to refute. We need sufficient reason to limit freedom and should not assume that we must discriminate between any groups unless there is sufficient reason. It appears, however, that Con means to use "distinction" instead of "discrimination". In fact, Con's argument is based on distinction (concluding in discrimination). No one is saying that the two marriages are the same; homosexuals along with heterosexual allies are asking for equal recognition under the law. Thus far, Con has failed to provide a sufficient reason other than definitional differences in which to limit freedoms.

Full Resolved: 'Gay marriage' as a legal, state union is beneficial to all people in the country, economically and socioreligiously. Definition: Gay marriage is the legal, state union between two consenting parties of the same gender. I will be arguing based on three points: Gay marriage encourages stimulation of marriage and family related markets - Though gay people may have weddings, many, seeing the lack of legal recognition, are discouraged from holding weddings and because of laws surrounding marriage and adoption and family planning, may be discouraged from starting a family. If gay marriage were legal, thus encouraging more gay couples to have formal weddings, it would stimulate markets commonly utilized to hold these events (small markets perhaps, but markets nonetheless). As well, despite arguments that giving these couples marriage tax benefits will decrease state and federal revenue, it will also decrease the use of Medicare, as gay couples, now encouraged to marry, are less likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors. For example, following Massachusett's legalization of gay marriage, they say a decline in STD rates in the state, while other states not recognizing gay marriage saw an increase. Gay marriage legalization would be a landmark for social justice of all kinds - The legalization of gay marriage, despite protests from religious organizations, would be a step towards religious and social equality, which would benefit ALL religious institutions in the long run. The concern is often that gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples, despite only isolated incidences which may hint at this. State recognized marriage has not forced churches to recognize unions in the past and would not now - churches are still allowed to not recognize couples which do not follow their belief system. Allowing gay marriage would only solidify that religious freedom and continue to forward America's progress towards complete freedom. Marriage is a fundamental right - Gay couples consist of consenting adults wishing to enter a legal union. Loving v. Virginia set the precedent that marriage is a basic human right - denying this right to consenting adults because of their gender is gender discrimination of the same kind that prevented women from voting in prior to the early 1900's. Invalidating gay marriage also invalidates interracial marriage, and other marriages often looked on with dissent. Legalization of gay marriage would further validate these unions. I look forward to my opponents response.

Thank you for starting this highly controversial topic In order for a marriage to be 'fully legitimate', two things are necessary. One is recognition by the state. The other (which is technically optional) is recognition by a religous institution. Currently, the states of Iowa, Massachussets, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have legalized same-sex marriage (1). Each of these states contains a relgious institution somewhere or another in it willing to recognize a same -sex marriage. Therefore, homosexual marriages can be legitimate and the resolution is negated. More importantly, passing any statue to explicitly ban marriage by people of the sames-sex can have only one purpose, and that is to discriminate. As a result, laws banning gay marriage do not hold up to strict scrutinty, meaning that they stand in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (2). Moreover, homosexuality is not 'voluntary' or a 'lifestyle choice'. Most scholars are in general agreement that homosexuality is either caused by genetics or early psychological trauma (3,4). My opponent's point concerning homosexuals raising kids is disproved by these sources (5). Finally, I would like to point out that the Supreme Court's decision is "Lawerence v. Texas" (2003) stated that the constitution is not bound by any moral code, not even a Judeo-Christian one. As Anthony Kennedy stated in the majority opinion, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." (6). The right to privacy supersedes personal notions of morality not mentioned in the constitution. I think that I've more than negated the resolution. Thank You Sources: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.time.com... (4) http://www.home60515.com... (5) http://www.rossde.com... http://www.post-gazette.com... http://www.gay.com... http://www.bloggernews.net... (6) http://www.law.cornell.edu...