Question: Should Religious Organizations Continue to Be Tax-Exempt?

Tax exemptions for churches should not be a given right.

The contention that churches should automatically receive tax exemptions is a contentious issue. One argument is that the money citizens pay in taxes is not exclusively used for building and maintaining churches. In fact, the tax exemption for churches costs the government billions of dollars in lost revenue, which is particularly problematic during tough economic times. For example, US churches own between $300-$500 billion in untaxed property, and a single megachurch like Lakewood Church in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue. [1]

Moreover, tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing financial benefits to religious institutions, the government is supporting religion. This is a violation of the principle that the government should not favor one religion over another or religion over non-religion. [2]

A tax break for churches also forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. This is a violation of the principle of religious freedom, which should not be compromised by the government. [3]

Furthermore, a tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars the government from subsidizing religion. This was confirmed by the US Supreme Court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983), where Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist stated that a tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. [4]

Another issue is that the tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. For example, the Church of Scientology, which has been described as a "thriving cult of greed and power," was granted federal income tax exemption in 1993. [5]

Additionally, churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified. Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. [6]

Furthermore, American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish "megachurches" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year. This has been documented by US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA), who launched an investigation into these groups in 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy

I will not cease to say, that personality of my own calibre has been mocked, i have been cornered at a spot by my co-debater for some certain reasons..my co- debater has committed fallacies in cost of this argumet. Let me start by one of the fallacy my co-debater committed. 1.that i keep using nigeria as a point of reference, do not mean that i can't use other examples, i use nigeria as example because their government sponsor pilgrimage and besides, it is not even in their constitution to do that..talking about fraud, some of the government officials there i.e nigeria, uses this as means of looting public fund and this is never what we wanted.. I acknowledge the rebout of my co-debater but clearly look at his rebout, he has no argument..he kept on emphasizing on tradition..indeed i agree but what am saying is this, that government should not sponsor it.. Readers of this motion will bear me witness that i never said going for pilgrimage is a bad thing. What am saying is that government should not sponsor it.. Talking about the economic point of view, you asked a question, who will take the money is it not the government? But then in my second outing i asked you a question which you never answered..that is, at the detrement of who? Another government? You talked of the host city, i am glad you mentioned that, since nigeria as a nation has been going for pilgrimage, how many times has any country come to nigeria? Atleast so that their own economy will rise just as you rightly put it? Talk of isreal, how many times have they gone to other country for pilgrimage? Or you want their own economy to be rising at the detrement of others? Vanguard you said is a local newspaper and all information there is irrelevant, lol and behold, it is a newspaper that covers almost the whole African story but that's not the main point..all you outing, you keep saying that why should we end tradition? But then let me answer you this by asking you this question, what tradition? Is u.s.a government sponsoring pilgrimage? If yes tell me when, date and source! Readers, do you know that government sponsoring this pilgrimage is not even in the constitution? Even in u.s.a constitution or any constitution so why should government be doing it? More over, do we know that going for pilgrimage is not compulsory? So why must government sponsor millions of people to pilgrimage? Do we know how much nigerian government has spent? Over billions of naira don't misunderstand me why am using nigeria am doing that because they have spent alot and yet gain nothing..this money, they can use and solve the pressing needs which is retarding the pace of their development like the strike, corruption issue not to mention but few.. I equally beg to disagree that prophets are God ponder on this, we chritians don't go for pilgrimage to worship profects rather God.... Why go for pilgrimage if i may ask when you can pray in the mountain and be heard? Even in the church or your bedroom? Answer my question, what will you say about people who die there? Ponder on that.. Please, answer all my questions even that of economy...in conclusion, my stand still remains, since it is not in the constitution for any government to sponsor pilgrims, then it should not be sponsored..thank you all.

In America, we use John Locke's concept of the social contract theory to determine law. Locke argued that the government could not act on behalf of a collective conscience, and that individual conscience must be protected from government authority [1]. As such, religious differences ought to be tolerated. The concept of a separation between church and state therefore refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state [2]. In other words, it becomes not only unconstitutional but downright unethical to allow the beliefs of one particular religion to dictate the law that governs all citizens. As such, a different standard of ethics must be applied to law. Secular Humanism is a philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision making. It is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives morally consistent with the ethics that govern their fellow man [3]. It should be noted that secular ethics do not necessarily oppose or inherently contradict religious ethics. Certain sets of moral beliefs, such as the golden rule or a commitment to non-violence, could be held by both positions and mutually agreed upon [4]. Let's consider the reality that not everybody believes in the same god (or rules), yet laws are intended to govern all citizens regardless of creed. As such, the first problem in prioritizing religious ethics is not knowing which religious ethics to follow. Using secular ethics, we can find ways to determine moral codes of conduct applicable to all people without showing a preference or tolerance for one religious perspective over another. For instance, Buddhists typically stand united in defense of legalizing gay marriage [5], while fundamental evangelicals vehemently rally against it [6]. Some even rightly point out that homosexuals would be condemned to death if people applied Biblical law to constitutional law, which stands contrary to the moral code espoused by groups such as the Human Rights Campaign. Therefore, if we plan to prioritize religious over secular reasoning, one of the most pressing concerns is not knowing which religious doctrine to adhere to. Imposing one particular creed on citizens against their will is tyranny, and why many original settlers came to America in the first place. Another problem lies in the fact that no human nor scientific measure can either prove or disprove the existence of god [7]. As such, we have no reason to apply religious ethics over secular ethics when secularism is based on tangible, verifiable standards, and the basis for religious ethics is questionable, at best. Also, remember that religious ethics and secular ethics do not always disagree. When they do, we must realize that secularism offers a reasonable and logically sound basis for determining ethics, making it is a morally superior standard to something we cannot fully rationalize. These concerns make religion an insufficient standard for law making. Con may try to argue that law should dictate right and wrong, therefore if the secularist position is wrong and the religious position is right, that the religious standard ought to be prioritized over the secular. First, how would it be determined that the secular position is wrong? I contend that secular reasoning would generally lead to this observation. Nevertheless, one must consider why law was derived in the first place. When people live together in society, disputes inevitably arise. There are only two ways to resolve these disputes: violently or peacefully. Because violence has high costs and produces unpredictable results, human beings naturally seek peaceful alternatives [8]. As such, laws are created to resolve discrepancies in the way people live, act and trade. Rules that govern these aspects of life need not be determined by a supreme being or creator, but are in fact feasibly reconciled by the rational individuals who determine the necessity of law in the first place. In short, legislative law exists solely for our convenience to live peacefully in a functional society. If one chooses to follow a religious code of moral conduct, they are free to do so in their personal lives. However considering there is no evidence for god nor is there absolute evidence to prove that the Bible or any other religious book accurately portrays god's desires, then again we come to the conclusion that secular ethics ought to be prioritized in the legislative process. There we have concrete answers to reconcile disputes whereas with religion we do not. Furthermore, let us consider the ways in which sometimes religions call upon people to (violently) harm others or contradict modern science or standards of morality. For instance, Bishop John Shelby Spong rightly points out, "...texts from the source we call Holy Scripture have been used in the past to defend the divine right of kings and to oppose the Magna Carta; to condemn Galileo and to assert that the sun does indeed rotate around the earth; to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid; to keep women from being educated, entering the professions, voting or being ordained; to justify war, to persecute and kill Jews; to condemn other world religions; and to continue the oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian people" [9]. This is proof that upholding religious ethics can have devastating effects on individuals and even entire nations. Religious ethics are not infallible or able to be defended as inherently righteous simply by applying the word "god." Moreover, there is still an ongoing debate about whether or not morality is objective or subjective [10]. Even if morality is indeed objective, it does not have to be rooted in religion. There are many philosophies that espouse an objective standard of morality without relying on god(s) as a divine law giver [11]. Still, the fact that there is such a widespread dispute about the nature of ethics and morality proves that human beings - whom laws are intended to govern - should have an active say in the rules that govern their lives. If they don't, they are nothing more than oppressed slaves. Philosophers all through the ages have widely agreed that self-governance was a good, moral standard [12]. Even if one looks to religion to evaluate their own ethics, I fail to see why everyone shouldn't have that same opportunity to either choose or not choose whether or not religious ideals will play a part in their standard of life. If not, what right do believers have to impose that standard upon them? I eagerly look forward to Con's questions and rebuttal. == Re-Cap of Arguments == 1. We can't prove god exists making it an irrational basis for morality. 2. Even if god(s) existed, his/her exact desires are disputable. 3. Following religious dogma has been problematic in the past. 4. The law is applicable to everyone, yet religious beliefs on morality vary and we don't know which are right. 5. The government cannot speak on behalf of all religious morality. 6. The government imposing religion is oppressive tyranny. 7. A separation of church and state is right and necessary to respect rights. 8. Secular humanism is a logical philosophy with reasonable ethics. 9. We are capable and willing of governing ourselves ethically using this system. 10. Conclusion: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process. [1] Feldman, Noah. Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux: 2005. pg. 29 [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com...

To have faith in something is basically saying you have faith in a religion, and when you have faith for what you BELIEVE in it is then declaring it a religion. Another definition about religion is: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Atheists usually have a set of beliefs including the theory of Evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc. If this definition is correct (which it is) then Atheism should be considered a kind of religion. They have a set of common beliefs just like any religion.

I think that religious education should still have to be held to a standard of truth. I think that they should be allowed to teach their religious doctrine while at the same time teach real science.

A) Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts. Removing which religion? Judaism, Islam, Paganism, Pastafarianism, Rastafarianism, Deism, Christianity? 1. ) Adultery is immoral, It is not illegal. 2. ) Abortion is immoral, It is not illegal. Why is abortion immoral. You have not backed up this claim and as such it may be discarded. Also, how would introducing religion into the judicial system make abortion illegal as some people of all faiths agree and disagree on abortion. 3. ) A parent coaching a child into telling a state agency that their other parent committed the crime of molestation is immoral, yet it is also not illegal. First, this is fraud and is illegal. Second, why would it be legal due to a lack of religion and how would introducing religion stop it? B. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another. "A new commandment I give unto you, love one another; as I have loved you, love one another. " Jesus (John 13.34 NKJ) My opponent believes all court decisions should be based off this one statement. But how does this help to decide on issues such as gay marriage and civil unions where the people seeking marriage certainly love each other. Or what about euthenasia where people on both sides of the issue might love the person in question. The person against believes the person has the right to life and the person for believes the other has the right not to suffer. C. If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge. "The victim would choose the punishment, if the victim was no longer alive the victims family would be responsible for that decision. " This would certainly be a confict of interest as the victim or the victim's family would be the one hurt by the crime and as such would not be able to come to an objective decision about what punishment is deserving. Also, a regular person who was the victim of a crime has no more legal expertise to decide what punishment is suitable for an offender then another person off te street. Punishments are decided by judges because they have training in the law and are more qualified to make that kind of decision. My opponent ends by listing some alleged pros that would come about if his system were to be adopted by the American judicial system. 1 jails and prisons would thin in population, providing more money for the taxpayers that fund them due to alternate forms of punishment. My opponent has not shown why adopting this system over the current system would result in less arrests and less incarcerations. Until my opponent can show that this would happen, this 'pro' may be discarded. 2 there would be less repeat serious crimes, let me explain, imagine a repeat offender who steals. . Maybe the first time he gets a light punishment, then he does it again and the victim chooses a removal of his hand, lets just say, unless he trains a monkey to steal he will only do it twice. Not only that, the family of that person would be responsible for the care of that person who has no arms. Imagine the families response, that would be enough to deter many people. Or imagine a guy who violently rapes a woman, his punishment is a loss of his manhood, he will never commit that crime again. I will not contest that possibly if such draconian measures as my opponent is advocating would be put in place, repeat offenses might happen less often, but that does not excuse the injusticeness of these awful punishments which my opponent is advocating. 3 It follows the system currently in place in our government with a check and balance system between the victim and the court. The victims would have more closure knowing that they had a say in how the situation was handled. Just because the victim might get more closure does not mean that the victim is qualified to make an objective decision as to the punishment of a criminal. Pro's contentions have been negated.

Framing:The way that pro has set up this debate requires him to prove that religion is overall not beneficial to society and humanity. He clarifies in his round 1 that this means both in the present and past. Thus there are four arguments which my opponent must uphold:1. Religion is not beneficial to society now.2. Religion was not beneficial to society in the past.3. Religion is not beneficial to humanity now. 4. Religion was not beneficial to humanity in the past. Thus far my opponent has mostly focused on point 2, with a tiny bit of point 1. The Trap: A Secular Community:Pro suggests that quantification of non-religion can occur by examining secular communities. This is a false proposition, very few completely secular communities exist in the world, and none are of substantial size [1]. The next best thing is to examine the motive behind past atrocities: were they religious based or not? This examination will tell us whether they would occur in a world devoid of religion. Thus I will quickly list three secular movements responsible for mass deaths:1. The Holocaust (6 million deaths)2. Pol Pot's Cambodia (1-3 million deaths) [2]3. Stalin's Russia (3-60 million deaths) [3]My esteemed opponent will of course argue that there were some religious underpinnings. In the 2nd and 3rd case such an argument is unfounded, both situations were focused on the ideals of communism (an asecular philosophy). In the 1st case it has been well documented that Hitler became disdainful of Christianity; he repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular idealogy [4]. Of course these are only examples of wars which religion failed to prevent. My source 1 from round 1 demonstrates that religions heighten altruism in populations. Fundamentally many world religions preach respect for fellow human beings. Thus we arrive at the same problem as before: comparing secular and religious atrocities is impossible because we do not know how many atrocities religion prevented. Finally my opponent uses a few out of context quotations from my own source. The actual quote reads, "Perhaps moralising gods are not required for complex societies. After all, the Romans and Greeks created large, complex societies despite having a pantheon of gods who were not exactly paragons of virtue." This of course isn't my point; I'm well aware that moralizing gods are not "required". My argument is that complex society formed around religions which acted to bind them together. As the source delineates pro-social training can be taught via religion or otherwise. However, it is most likely that religion was the enabling factor for complex societies as it represents an absolute moral code. Thus religion has enabled much of present day society and it's population. The Mind's WarI'll quickly reiterate that massive medical organizations (the mayo clinic) recommend religion as way to relieve stress. My opponent's speculation stands unfounded in the face of scientific research. He argues that religion creates stress by causing people to pray, worship, and repent for their sins. I would like to remind him that the alternative is not knowing what will happen after death (a life stress). Religions allow people to avoid the greatest perpetual stress via promises of salvation. Besides, the majority of religious people are religious at their own convenience despite what the church says [5].I will reiterate the magnitude of what we're discussing. Life stress can increase risk of death by 50%. We are talking about 6 billion people here, these impacts dwarf anything my opponent has presented. Genetic Codes:As my opponent has constructed this debate, he must also argue that religion is not beneficial to humanity. He has yet to do so. I previously articulated that humanity, at it's core, is the genome. Thus the question of being beneficial to humanity is one of genetic favorabilty and inheritance [6]. Since Pro has already conceded that aggression and violence are not beneficial to society, my point is quite easy to win. Aggression and violent tendencies are partially genetic predispositions [7][8]. And war, at it's core, is just glorified natural selection [9]. Since people with violent predispositions are the most likely to be caught up in wars those predispositions are also the most likely to be terminated. Societies with the greatest scientific advances are likely to triumph in these wars, which allows their brilliance to become a larger proportion of the genetic pool. A world with religious wars is one in which humanity thrives, regardless of society. Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. Ridley, Matt. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. HarperCollins 2013. Print.7. http://tinyurl.com...8. http://tinyurl.com...9. http://tinyurl.com...

"I would respectfully disagree as religion has unfortunately been a major aspect of our society for years." I misspoke when saying this. What I was trying to say was that religion is a huge deal in society, but there is plenty of worse things to expose your children to. I disagree with you when you say the Easter Bunny and Santa are fictional characters that represent innocence. Mark Joseph Stern, believes that subjecting our kids to The Easter Bunny and Santa is a worse idea then subjecting them to religion. The Easter Bunny and Santa make kids believe things that are 100% not true.Several studies do seem to corroborate the conventional wisdom that kids raised with religion"any religion"are psychologically healthier than kids raised without it. [1] Religion as I just shows makes kids psychologically healthier. The next point I would like to address again, that you didn't address earlier is "A PARENTS RIGHT TO CHOOSE." A parent has the right to choose these types of things. A parent has the right to choose whether they want their child to see a general physician. A parent has the right to abort there fetuses before they're born. Parents have the right to choose whether they want their kid to receive a proper education or attend specialty schools. Why shouldn't a parent have the right to choose whether or not their kids should be exposed to religion. Technically under United States law, the legal guardian of the child has control of everything their child (anyone under the age of 18) does. So, under United States law, if a guardian wants their child to be religious, until that child becomes 18, the parents can choose to do so. "Richard Dawkins' paragraph." You stated that children should learn from their morals and mature without religion controlling them. I disagree with that entirely. Unless you're a religious extremist (which only 27% of Muslims are, and 7% of Christians.) then you don't believe that religion should control your child's life. Obviously, Richard Dawkins is and Atheist, and has his specific views about religion. He therefore is not extremely reliable, considering he doesn't believe in religion at all. **Note**' Considering you live in Australia, and I live in the United States, lets not bring up the religion is schools, because we have conflicting information, so therefore that point can't be true.

I accept the burden even though I shouldn't and I will defend the following arguments from[1]: 1.Religion provides mental peace Human life is uncertain. He struggles for his survival amidst the uncertainties, insecurities and dangers, Some-times he feels helplessness. It is the religion which consoles and encourages him in all such time of crisis. Religion gives right shelter to him. He gets mental peace and emotional support. It encourages him to face his life and problems. 2. Religion explains individual suffering Man does not live by knowledge alone. He is an emotional creature. Religion serves to the emotions of man in times of his sufferings and disappointment. On God religion puts faith and entertains the belief that some unseen power moves in mysterious ways to make even his loss meaningful. In this way religion gives release from sorrow and release from fear. It helps man to bear his frustration and integrate his personality. 3. It inculcates social virtues: Religion promotes the major social virtues like truth, honesty, non-violence, service, love, discipline etc. A follower of the religions internalizes these virtues and becomes disciplined citizen of the society. 4. Religion promotes social solidarity: Religion gives rise to the spirit of brotherhood. Durkheim viewed that religion strengthens social solidarity. A.W. Geen also pointed out that religion has the supremely integration and verifying force in human society. It is true that common belief, common sentiment, common worship, participation in common rituals etc. are the significant cementing factors which strengthen unity and solidarity. 5. Religion converts the animal qualities to human qualities: Religion inculcates the spirit of self-service. It demands that people should be charitable and benevolent. Through various religious experiences he forgets the worldly life and problems. This experience suppresses the animal desires and converts the animal qualities of man to human qualities. 6. Religion is an agent of socialization and social control: Religion provides a model for living. It upholds certain ideals and values. The believer imbibes these ideals and values in his life. Religion can help youth generation to become moral, disciplined and socialized citizens of society. Organization like temples, mosques, church, Gurudwaras etc. also control the behavior of the individuals at different level. 7. Religion promotes welfare: Religion teaches to the people to serve the masses and promote their welfare. It gives message that "the service to humanity is service to God". For this reason, people spend money to feed poor and needy. Great religions like Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity etc. put emphasis on aim-giving to the poor and beggars. With the influence of religious belief different religious organizations engage themselves in various welfare activities. Like spreading of education and opening up many charitable institutions like hospitals, rest houses, temples and to help the poor. 8. Religion gives recreation: Religion plays a charming role in providing recreation to the people. Religious rites and festivals are more or less performed in every religion which gives relief to the people from mental exertion. Similarly religious lectures, shamans, kirtans, musical concerts followed by the utterance of hymn etc. gives much more pleasure to the people and provides eternal recreation. 9. Religion comes as a source of social cohesion Religion is the ultimate source of social cohesion. The primary requirement of society is the possession of social values by which individuals control the action of self and others and through which society is perpetuated. Science and technology cannot create this value. Religion is the foundation upon which these values rest. Children should obey their parents, should not tell lie, women should be faithful to men, people should be honest and Virtuous, are some of the social values which maintain social cohesion. 10. Religion influences economy: Sociologists like Somber and Max Weber rightly established the relationship of religion with economic system. Weber observed the influence of Protestant ethics in the development of capitalism. Somber found this spirit of capitalism in Jewish norms. For the distinct religious principles present in Christianity, capitalism grew in protestant countries but not in the country like India, Pakistan etc. The Hindus lay great stress on spiritual progress than on material progress. Hence, materialism could not grow in India 11. Religious influences political system: Religion has played a significant role in political system in the ancient and medieval society.Even in modern times in many countries of the world the religion directly and indirectly also influences political activities. During ancient and medieval period, the monarchs were treating themselves as the representatives of the God or ruling the society in the name of God. Even today, Political leaders take oath in the name of God. The political system of the countries of the world like Bhutan, Pakistan, Italy, Germany, England etc. are influenced by religion. 12. Religion Strengthens Self-confidence: Religion is an effective means to strengthen self-confidence. There are certain beliefs like 'work is worship', 'duty is divine', 'result in predestined' etc. which is found in various religions gives strength to the individual and promotes self-confidence. One last reason that we need religion is that it gives us something to believe in. People need to believe that there is a reason for what they are doing and that there is a reason for life. Religion provides this for them. This is what gives people the desire to go out and work every day and to try to make the world a better place. They do it because they believe there is a meaning behind it all. This is largely down to religion [1] http://www.academia.edu...

I have reviewed my opponents argument and it seems apparent that he proceeds to argue the case of human nature and religion being two things that weave together. What is misunderstood is that human nature is what makes a society, and if religion has been weaved into human nature over the years then it sure as well will be built into No society of any human culture as well. Currently, I am doing this debate from my phone due to my desktop is having de problems. So I will merely argue the key points you made that I see simply and neatly. "He concludes that the horrors performed in the name of religion are of equal guilt as the state of belief they allegedly came." Allow me to correct you, I do not believe that both are equal, I find that the baseline state of belief could be closely related to taking drugs for the first time. It feels good, depending on the type of person you are, you'll proceed and proceed with the drug until you just grow a addiction or tolerance to it. In this metaphor, you can see that as theists who never consider they're wrong, or have contempt towards atheists, agnostics, or even other religions. And many other systems. This point is bad and sadly a lot of people go beyond it around the globe, which does lead to the murders and horrors done in its name. I do not believe they are equal, the path begins once you start religion and depending on how your psychological health is, it gets you more and more out there. I have reviewed your points for how human nature ties in with religious belief, and again, I agree perfectly. But again, society is an offspring of human nature. And if religious values are added into that human nature, then the society, will also follow in the footsteps of humanity. And going down this list, I would like to point something out to you. You say it yourself, fear ends up dominating the minds of humanity, and through the process of non-thinking called faith, fear grants the holy leaders power, and that is tyranny and manipulation. Granting the people a false disease and a fake cure. Am I wrong? Ah, yes. Your comparison in your next paragraph I see as faulty because the holy text in religious books endorses said horrors. Allow me to give you some verses. 1. Christian bible, Deuteronomy, chapter 17, verse 12. "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel." 2. The Quran, 3:56. "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony both in this world and the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." And if these are indeed the literal word of God, then it should not be accepted into faith at all. And these aren't the only ones, there are several more detestable ones. And the law wouldn't even be needed. I am saying that if people willingly abandoned their faith. I'm not some sort of monster that would force such a thing. That's terrible. Religious freedom is definitely a thing in America, but most certainly not respected. Atheists in America are treated terribly in so many ways, even people of other religions in some cases. Separation of church and state is fine if it actually were upheld. But its effects already HAVE infiltrated the national institution. Children in schools are told to say the pledge of allegiance every day with the phrase "Under God" within. If you are anything BUT a Christian in the political system, you will not be successful. Name me one popular atheist or agnostic politician, I challenge you. That's just some reasons. And BOTH are a result of society weaved beside religion which was weaved beside human nature. You admit that. This is issue of human nature and religion both equally. Mostly religion for taking advantage of the flaws of our species. I am not being biased, this is what I observe, and I do wish you to prove me wrong.

Jesus received the most opposition from the most religious people of his day. At it's core Jesus' gospel and the good news of the Cross is in pure opposition to self-righteousness/self-justification. Religion is man centered, Jesus is God-centered. Religion either ends in pride or despair. Pride because you make a list and can do it and act better than everyone, or despair because you can't do your own list of rules and feel "not good enough" for God. With Jesus though you have humble confident joy because He represents you, you don't represent yourself and His sacrifice is perfect putting us in perfect standing with God the Father. Religion says do Jesus says done, religion says slave Jesus said son. Its like saying lets dress up the outside make it look nice and neat ,Its funny that's what they do to mummies while the corpse rots underneath, We are given this long list of chores of what were supposed to do, to be accepted by God, I understand when you said people should follow the teachings of Jesus but Not be Christian. But think of this way during the time of Christ religious people who had no idea about the work of God, Who had control over the people because they say they are Holy, Who didn't believe in Christianity BUT! says they know God then suddenly Jesus came along and all this religious people rejected Him saying they know the truth, And because of all the power they now acquire they were scared that the people may know the truth, So after all the happenings when Jesus rose from the dead all the people that witnessed it shared the truth to everyone until the church Discovered a way for their power over the people to remain they said Hey! lets call it Christianity so that we can still have control over the people, I know it sounds way out of line but hey I wasn't there to know the truth. Jesus said I am the way the truth and the light (John 14:6 ) live by faith and not by sight. inside we know that there is a God and that we love him, We don't have to show that feeling by boasting that you are a very religious person you don't have to say that You pray every time You don't have to criticize other peoples religion just coz' you think you have a better one. The church says they are the way to God But is that what God said? as this debate comes to an end I would have to say I Need to Learn a little bit more this is my first time And I had Fun!


Question: Should Same-Sex Unions Be Made Lawful?

The legalization of gay marriage in the United States is necessary to ensure equal rights for all citizens. Before we delve into the argument, it's important to clarify the resolution, which pertains to federal legalization and recognition of gay marriage, not just state-level legalization. This means that if heterosexual marriage is legally recognized, so should gay marriage be. Let's discuss the following points: 1) Sex vs. Gender, 2) Minority Discrimination, 3) Marriage vs. Religion, 4) Civil Unions vs. Marriage, 5) Sanctity of Marriage, and 6) Family Values.

1) Understanding the differences between sex and gender is crucial. Sex refers to biological differences, while gender is related to cultural aspects of masculinity and femininity. A person of the male sex can identify with the female gender and still legally marry a woman, regardless of their feminine behavior. The opponent must explain why biological factors should determine legal rights over personal characteristics.

2) Failing to legalize gay marriage is a form of minority discrimination. As society becomes more accepting of the gay lifestyle and acknowledges that homosexuality is not a choice, it's crucial to recognize the rights of homosexuals. The government should not limit marriage rights solely to heterosexual couples. The opponent must justify why sex-based discrimination in marriage is acceptable when it's not in other areas like employment.

3) While opponents argue that marriage is a religious ritual, the legal binding aspect makes it the government's concern. Some religious institutions recognize same-sex unions, yet the federal government does not. Discrimination based on religion is unconstitutional. The government should not impose religious beliefs in legislation, as it goes against the separation of Church and State.

4) Civil Unions are not equivalent to marriage. Marriage grants over 1,050 state and federal benefits, while Civil Unions provide only 300 benefits at the state level. This means Civil Union partners miss out on 750 benefits that heterosexual married couples receive. The opponent must explain why these benefits should be exclusive to heterosexual marriages.

5) The sanctity of marriage argument is flawed. Heterosexual couples can marry for any reason, even under the influence, while committed gay couples cannot legally wed. The high divorce rate and infidelity rates among heterosexual couples already challenge the sanctity of marriage, even before gay marriage is legalized. Recognizing same-sex unions does not impact the sanctity of heterosexual marriages.

6) Family values should support the legalization of gay marriage. It teaches children that love and commitment are not restricted by sex,

=====Counterarguments===== "First homosexuals already have the right to be together and have relationships and basically all the same rights as heterosexuals anyway. " ----> Quite untrue. Civil unions and marriages have the same rights, but only STATE-wise. This gives around 600 rights for participants in the civil union/marriage. Federally speaking, the government gives about 1,138 rights[1] also. HOWEVER, in 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act[2] was passed by Bill Clinton, and effectively a marriage was defined between a man and a woman in the federal court. This means that for the majority of states who grant homosexuals civil union, there is an imbalance in rights. Basically, gays in a civil union get LESS rights (about a 1000 of them) than if they were in a marriage or if DOMA wasn't passed. =====Conclusion===== My opponent's main argument is that the rights are the same. A simple research shows this is untrue, and thus my opponent's argument fails. ---References--- 1. . http://www.gao.gov... 2. . http://www.domawatch.org...

Thanks to pro for the reply.Pro's ArgumentUnfortunately, the argument that pro is putting forward is still unclear to me. It's not shown how the notions of "nature" and "culture" as defined help his case. Even if I grant that we should not place restrictions on practices without good reason, and that marriage of any kind is unnatural, how does it follow that the state should hand out gay marriages? First off, the argument isn't even valid, and pro still has not fixed this fact. Secondly, if anything, pro's case supports the view that the state shouldn't be giving out marriages at all. If pro is trying to argue that the state is limiting freedom by not giving gay marriage, it's not. By not giving gay marriages the state isn't preventing anyone from doing anything. So I still cannot see pro's line of argument. I'm still waiting for a valid argument where the conclusion follows from the premises.Con's ArgumentI don't think pro quite understood my argument, so I'll try to explain. What I am arguing is that the state ought to make relevant distinctions between relationships which are inherently different. We can understand whether a relationship X is different from a relationship Y if X and Y, by their very nature, have different goods which are intrinsic to them. So just as the relatonship of close friendship can be distinguished from the relationship of a business partnership by the different goods which are intrinsic to each type of relationship, so can we distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual union by the different goods which are intrinsic to each. This isn't to deny that one or more of these relationships might obtain between two people (though in some cases they may incompossible); a wife can also be a business partner. It's just to say that they can be distinguished.As for the second point pro brings up, I should note first of all that my contention, that the state should support hetersexual marriage, is prima facie quite plausible. In order to accept this you need not explicitly deny that, therefore, the state should deny same-sex marriage. It only follows given my other premises. I'd still support my claim that the state's most vital interest is in supporting heterosexual union, given that the vast majority of sexual unions take place between heterosexuals, that heterosexual couples are the most common way that children are produced, as well as the fact that heterosexual couples can engage in the type of union which is intrinsically ordered toward reproduction (though female homosexual can reproduce artificially, by a sperm donation of a third party, it's still not intrinsically ordered toward reproduction). Either way, pro has to either say that heterosexual union should be enshrined as marriage, or heterosexual union should not be enshrined as marriage. So which is it, pro? Do you or do you not think that the state should support heterosexual union as marriage.Pro also makes the point that my argument could be used just as well against inter-racial unions. That's not true. There is nothing intrinsic an qua heterosexual union that could be used to separate inter-racial couples from non-inter-racial couples. All the goods available by marriage are available in the same way to a white-black couple and white-white couple. Finally, pro calls my arguments discriminatory. So be it. To discriminate is simply to note or observe a difference between two things, and the state should do this; indeed, the state has to do this if it's to carry out any functions at all, which is what my sixth premise states. The state discriminates between convicts and the innocent, between combatants and non-combatants, between adults and children. There is nothing wrong with discrimination in this sense. 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.

I think that gay people should be allowed to get married. I mean why not? They are no different than us.. They haven't chosen to be gay. So many people say they choose to be gay. Some people take their lives because they don't want to be gay. Think for a minute about this.. Did you ever just choose to be straight? Or were you born like that? People can't help who they love, and they shouldn't be punished or feel downgraded. They are the same as us. They are just humans. Everyone's different. If this has to do with religion, doesn't god say love everyone?

The first thing I'd like to say is that I'm 100% in favor of gay marriage, but I accepted this debate to see how I would do on the other side of the issue. This should be interesting! The first thing I'd like to point out is that gay marriage is not universally illegal in the U.S. - it is accorded the same weight as heterosexual marriage in MA. I'd also like to point out that homosexuals, as individuals, have the same rights when it comes to marriage and unions as heterosexuals - everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender. It's different types of COUPLES (not individuals) that are being treated differently. What about the illegality of gay marriage deprives homoseuxals of "rights as humans"? The crux of your argument can really be summed up here: "can you really justify illegal gay marriage just on what you believe?" I don't know, but I'll try! First let's be clear that the legalization or criminalization of gay marriage is a state issue, so the voters and legislatures of each state are the ones deciding the fate of gay couples in that particular state. Many other things on the state level are decided based solely on beliefs. Let's look at some examples: Bob is running for the Texas state senate on the promise that he will cut taxes for his district. His constituents don't have any inherent right to lower taxes, but they vote for Bob, and their taxes are lowered. Fred is also running for the Texas state senate on the promise that he will repeal restrictions on hunting ducks in his district. He is voted in, and duck hunting restrictions are lifted. There also aren't any inherent rights to duck hunting. So these two representatives passed or repealed laws based solely on the wills of their constituents - not because they were delegates of inherent rights. If laws similar to these are passed based on beliefs alone, why can't gay marriage be criminalized in a state where the majority of citizens vote for state representatives who they know will criminalize it?

I understand marriage was traditionally between a man and woman but that doesn't mean we can't change it. Back in the day, women didnt traditionally participate in politics and generally ran the house, which was unfair but that was tradition. And look how far women have come. Today many women take part in politics so breaking tradition isn't bad. Also, if homosexuals want the legal benifits of marriage like filling joint income taxes and inheriting a spouses property after death. Why should we deny them those legal benifits? Marriage is a commitment with sexual attractions as well. Freindship is the state of being a friend with no sexual attraction. I hope that answers your question.

Continuing the previous format: "In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples." ~ It is true that this union could be known as the engagement period, but it is also obvious that a heterosexual union can be a civil union." This was clearly not my contention. You stated that unmarried heterosexual couples can be considered as having a "civil union" before they are married, which is quite simply wrong. A civil union must be endorsed in some manner by a third party, it's not simply an agreement between two people to get married at some later point. As such, your point is irrelevant and my contention still stands: Marriage and Civil Unions are in no way equal. "Firstly, marriage itself discriminates against nothing, does it?" No you're being intentionally thick. Marriage obviously discriminates, because not everyone can get a marriage. This is not a point you can refute. "That is a fallacious assumption which states that married couples intentionally lord their married status over that of others." They do "lord" their status over others when they say only heterosexual couples can get married in order to "preserve" the sanctity of what they have. I'm unsure of what you might call that, other than "lording" or some other euphemistic synonym. Hence, it is not in the slightest fallacious to say that married people against homosexual unions are elitist, but this is beside the point: marriage licenses in the first place are unconstitutional - a point you have yet to refute with any evidence to the contrary. "Marriage is the most intimate relationship that can be found. It is also the most moral union of people." Personal opinions aside, if this is true how can you deny participation in such a union? Doing so would be unforgivably immoral, a fact I have pointed out all ready and one which you continue to ignore. "The reasons homosexuals and civil unions aren't completely recognized is because their union, though their right, is not officially moral." Explain to me what is "officially moral". Then explain to me the reason why you get to decide the morality of another person's decision which in way directly effects your life, other then offending your sensibilities - which is not illegal. "Neither is prostitution or living with each-other or sleeping together without being married." Prostitution and Homosexual marriage are incomparable in terms of morality. To make such an argument is fallacious and ignorant. Furthermore, living with the opposite sex is generally not considered immoral unless you live in the 15th Century and burn witches. "I believe that the majority of humanity still realizes that these things are morally wrong, even if they aren't religious people." Provide proof that the "majority of humanity" believes living with the opposite sex is immoral. Again, my opponent continues to make unfounded claims and refuses to address arguments for which I have provided evidence and he cannot seemingly refute. "A marriage ceremony can be conducted by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge. I think also that a ship's captain still maintains the authority to perform marriage in some areas of the world." This is beside the point. When they preform a "marriage", they are acting as an agent of religion - as they are preforming an explicitly religious ceremony. "These people aren't priests - marriage doesn't have to be religious - it just has to be recognized as such on moral guidelines by an authority." You seem to be under the assumption here the marriage and civil unions are equivalent, so I'll try this again. Marriages are inherently religious - this is a fact you cannot dispute. Conversely, civil unions need not be religious and therefore can be preformed by an agent of the Government. "I don't believe your sources are correct or applicable everywhere in the world." Give me one example of anywhere in the world where the conventional notion of a "marriage" has been between anything but a male and a female. Furthermore, my contention obviously does not apply to the entire world, and I never asserted it did. I simply said marriage licenses are unconstitutional (read: with respect to the U.S. Constitution), a point you have yet to refute and have consistently avoided throughout this response. "As I have before stated, by completely abolishing marital status, you would be breaking the 14th. Rather, all status should be granted as marital as long as it is officially performed." You clearly are not even aware what we are arguing. I am not advocating for the abolishment of "marriage". I am arguing that we should remove the legal and socio-economic benefits from it because it is discriminatory. This is a point you should try and understand before responding again. "Rather, all status should be granted as marital as long as it is officially performed." All statuses cannot be declared marital because not all ceremonies are denominational, nor do all relationships abide within the confines of a religion. However a private contract between two people, and endorsed by the government, need not adhere to any of these tenets and is more universal in nature. "It cannot be abolished or the people forced to apply for civil union." Your using an ineffective appeal to emotion, specifically outrage here, because you are too unwilling to accept that religions are discriminatory - and as agents of religion, so are marriages. Furthermore, no one is being "forced" to apply for a civil union. If you would prefer to have a solely religious ceremony recognized by your church / temple, no one is going to stop you. However, if you would like the socio-economic benefits provided by the federal government, you should have to get a civil union in addition to your "marriage". "Abolishing slavery and abolishing the status of marriage are two entirely different and irrelevant comparisons. Slavery was cruelty in keeping one in a state of servitude. Marriage is not a cruelty. Rather, marriage is the purest form a couple can apply for. It is the peak of morality. Abolishing the status would be as unjust as personally forcing each person into servitude." You cannot change my analogy to suit your purposes. You argued abolishing marriage would be an outrage, and therefore immoral. I argued that outraging a segment of the population is not necessarily an outrage, as declaring slavery illegal was an outrage to "slave owners", but was clearly the moral path necessary. Taken in context, my analogy still stands and regardless of your "moral" outrage, society has the obligation to insure equality among all segments of its population. "Exactly what I have been saying. If all couples were officially married and granted marital status, then there would be no purpose for abolishing that status. Thank you for clarifying my point." I addressed this point earlier. Furthermore, I would like to know your exact points of opposition to reaffirming marriage as a religious ceremony - specifically what are the downsides of doing so, other than losing your "power" to endorse the morality of a population's actions. "The basis behind the benefits of marriage is obviously not discrimination. It is rather a reward for bring morally proper." A "reward" for being morally proper? This is the most outrageous claim I have ever heard. For you to even make this argument makes me think you aren't taking this debate seriously. "If you abolish marriage, as your argument states, then you are, in fact, creating a deterioration of society." I've already stated extending equalities would in no way "deteriorate" society. You have yet to provide evidence that doing so would indeed lessen the quality of society Conclusion: My opponent continues to ignore the constitutionality argument I offered because he cannot refute it, therefore I await his response.

Actually, marriage IS an institution of the Church. By "Church," I mean the religious institutions performing the marriages, not necessarily only Christians. Other religions besides Christianity frown upon homosexual marriages as well. Also, some atheists have been turned away by some churches due to their lack of belief. If they can find a preacher that agrees to do their marriage, then they can be married, no problem. However, homosexuality is expressly condemned in the religions writings like the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Koran to name a few. In the eyes of most religious persons, marriages are degraded by allowing those obviously against the teachings of their faith and unwilling to change to participate in the same religious marriage ceremony as those of the faith. I challenge you to find a legitimate religion that would happily marry a homosexual couple. "If civil unions are basically the same as marriages, which they are not, then why can't we let homosexuals marry?" Marriages are religious. They are designed to be a covenant between partner and partner to declare before their religious deity that they are forever one. Civil Unions are contracts made with the state to ensure the same economic and civil rights as those with marriage. They are not basically the same, civil unions have no religious significance. 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? As for my last point about homosexual couples contributing less, I concede that it is possible for them to reproduce with the help of technology. I realize it was a long shot argument and I didn't expect it to be an important point. It doesn't affect my main points anyway. And since you say I didn't respond to your arguments, I'll do so expressly now. Why is it that just because a gay person is gay, they cannot marry who they want? Because marriage is not controlled by the government, and many religious institutions do not wish to perform homosexual marriages. Since when did the government have to right to limit our liberties and freedoms that do not matter in homeland security? The government does not have this right. It can't force you to be straight. It also can't force you to accept homosexuality. The government has no say in the matter, but they did provide a nice compromise by creating civil unions that are supposed to give the same economic and civil liberties to homosexuals as marriages do for heterosexual couples. Why do we discriminate based upon sexual orientation, even though we don't discriminate based upon race or gender? Unfortunately, you cannot change what people think. Some people are racists, and there is absolutely nothing you can do legally to change that. Acting on your racism to break a law, however, is illegal. The same argument can be applied to the homosexual debate. You cannot stop religious institutions from condemning homosexuality as a sin and withholding their ceremonies, but you can prevent them from actively pursuing the end of homosexuality in violent manners. Homosexuals are not discriminated against except in certain social environments, and the government does not have the right to interfere as long as no laws are broken. Homosexuals have the right to a state-recognized civil union that should grant them the same rights marriages between heterosexuals do. I ask you, why do Non-religious homosexuals wish to be married by a religious institution if they have the same rights as the heterosexual couples? You argue that they don't have the same rights, so I also ask you this: Why not just change civil unions to be equal to marriages in all legal matters?

While my strong point in this debate is most likely to my rebuttals, I can also offer reasoning as to why gay people should be allowed to be married. Let me first say that marriage is not a right owned by any religion, because any (straight) person of any religion, or even a person with no religion, is allowed to be married. Marriage is also not for children. This is proven in the fact that people that cannot have children and people that do not want children are still permitted to marry. Gay couples help with abandoned children. Gay couples are not able to have a child through each other, and so must turn to another source for a child. "Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents. An estimated 65,500 adopted American children are living with a lesbian or gay parent." http://www.pbs.org... An argument could and has been made that children in gay homes suffer from that, but it simply isn't true. ""Consistently, over the past three decades, researchers have found that the daughters and sons of same-sex parents are psychologically well-adjusted. And now our new data demonstrate that 17-year-olds raised from birth by lesbian mothers are as happy as their peers," said lead author Loes van Gelderen, MSc, University of Amsterdam." http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... Even if gay couples are bad for children, it isn't very important to the discussion of whether or not they can get married. Most states already allow gay couples to adopt. "Currently Florida is the only state that bans adoption by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Some states, such as Mississippi, allow a man or woman to adopt alone but will not allow second-parent adoption by a same gender partner. The state of Utah prevents any unmarried couples from adopting." http://www.pbs.org...

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.

I agree with my opponent on his first point. As for his second argument, it is a very good point except that there is a better alternative then giving gays marriage. It would be better to give them Civil Unions, since it would get rid of any religious outcry that could be caused. Civil Unions would give just as much revenue as marriages would. My opponent is right concerning this but, they do not have to be in a marriage to adopt the children. Rather then give them marriages they should be given Civil Unions and the couples would be together and the children would have a stable family to be raised in. My argumentThe Seperate but Equal ArgumentAccording to this argument Homosexuals would be allowed to have Civil Unions with the same benefits as marriages, and therefore equal to heterosexual marriages. Thus, they would be seperate but still equal. Everyone would be happy. ConclusionIn conclusion, everything my opponent has put forth is true, but giving homosexuals Civil Unions would be better then marriage. It would make everyone happy, it would allow homosexuals to be together with the same benefits as marriage, it would give religious people what they want, it would give the state its extra revenue, and give adopted children a familyVote Con


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Made Legal?

The legalization of gay marriage in the United States is a necessity.
Counterarguments: >> "I concurred with the legislation when I mentioned 'should,' referring to marriage being between a man and a woman." However, I argue that this law is in violation of the Constitution. Please support your stance. >> "I also provided citations indicating that homosexuality is not even tolerated in the Bible." Unfortunately, the Bible is not a legitimate source of law within the United States. Any other defense? >> "Thus, actual marriage is not recognized because marriage is a religious affair." Yet again, I've just provided you with the legal definitions of marriage on two separate occasions. >> "I also concur with the current statute permitting individual states to decide on allowing gay marriage." Nevertheless, this law is also unconstitutional. Please defend your position. >> "If you support gay marriage, please demonstrate to me where marriage is not a religious ritual and does not conflict with the Bible." Marriage is indeed a religious ceremony as well as a legal institution. Moreover, the Bible is not a legal authority in the United States, as I've mentioned before. ********************************************************************** It is disheartening to see that my opponent has not presented any argument other than "I disagree" and "because the Bible says so." This stance is hereby confirmed.

Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003: "Jonathan Rauch, in his recent book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, defines marriage as essentially a legally enforced, long-term relation of mutual aid and support between two sexual partners. Marriage, he says, "is putting one person ahead of all others." According to Rauch, "if marriage means anything at all," it is knowing "that there is someone out there for whom you are always first in line." We can here leave aside how odd this definition will sound to any married couple with young children, partners whose first responsibility is not obviously spousal."

While many argue that civil unions sometimes deprive couples of certain rights given to those in gay marriages, many existing laws and many proposals and legislation on the table would see every single right given to married couples also given to couples with civil unions. Civil unions, therefore, do not inherently involve depriving couples of the various benefits outlined by the opposition.

Gays are taxpaying citizens, deserve marriage benefits

Ted Olson. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Newsweek. January 12, 2010: "The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons."

Gay marriage does not help propagate society

Marriage ban makes gays second class citizens

Lambda Legal on OppossingViews.com: "The exclusion from marriage also impairs the ability of employers, large and small, to attract and retain the most comprehensive pool of talented and committed employees. Current and prospective employees place a value on whether they live in a place that supports their commitment to take care of and be responsible for a loved one. They often will make their employment decisions based on whether the state respects that value."

Gay marriage ban is analogous to interracial marriage ban

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.


Question: Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Legalized?

Should same-sex marriage be permitted? I firmly believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized because individuals deserve the freedom to express their true selves. If same-sex marriage remains prohibited, people will be unable to authentically present themselves to others and will be unable to reveal their genuine identities. Who would want to associate with someone who conceals the truth about themselves due to fear of being judged for their sexual orientation?

If gay marriages are sanctioned, religious organizations that don’t allow homosexual marriages and don’t recognize gay marriage as legitimate will come under attack for their beliefs and when preaching the bible. It may even come that preaching the bible and the same religion the United States was built upon, will be unconstitutional, charged with hate crimes.

While the law should not penalise gay relationships, it also exists to encourage the nuclear family as the ideal for child-raising. Just as married couples receive tax benefits and unmarried mothers may suffer cuts in welfare, legal prohibition of adoption by gays is a natural step towards this ideal.

Gay marriage exists successfully in many countries

Civil unions would give gays all the benefits of marriage

Gays have no right to marry; neither do incestuous

Gay marriage is a negligible change to institution of marriage

There are many possible ways in which gay marriage could lead to other attacks on the basic principles of marriage. It is possible that gay marriage will be seen as an opportunity by polygamists and polyamorists to attempt to obtain marriage rights. What logic could stop this if marriage is offered to homosexuals? If the traditional definition of marriage is stretched to include homosexuals, what rationale could prevent it from being stretched to include polygamy and polyamory? The same justifications for gay marriage could be put forward by polygamists and polyamorists; That there relationship is based on love and commitment. And, obviously, if marriage is extended to these groups, the traditional institution of marriage and the principles that it stands on will be damaged if not utterly destroyed.

Andrew Sullivan. "Why 'civil union' isn't marriage." The New Republic. May 8, 2000: "The institution of civil marriage, like most human institutions, has undergone vast changes over the last two millennia. If marriage were the same today as it has been for 2,000 years, it would be possible to marry a twelve-year-old you had never met, to own a wife as property and dispose of her at will, or to imprison a person who married someone of a different race." [It should now evolve to include gays].

Ted Olson. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Newsweek. January 12, 2010: "The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons."

With marriage, partners can make emergency decisions across state lines. This means that partners in civil unions may not be able to make decisions out of state. This is an additional reason why civil unions create unequal rights and second class status.[3]