Same-Sex Marriage

Because the negative is the instigator of this debate, I will be using this round mainly to address the points made by my opponent, as well as bring up a point that I would like to defend for the rest of this debate. Definition(s): Marriage - A social union or legal contract between people that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. The affirmative argument: Marriage is a right that should be enjoyed by all people, not just those that meet certain requirements. Historically speaking, the reasons for which two people get married have changed dramatically throughout the years. Early recorded history displays marriage not as a display of love between two consenting adults, but as a strategic ploy to establish diplomatic ties between two individuals. Whether or not two people would get married was entirely up to their parents, whose job it was to marry off their children to establish connections with families just as wealthy as their own. In the 12thcentury, this was completely changed by the Roman Catholic Church by declaring marriage a holy sacrament, which defined marriage as a divine tie between two individuals that were destined by God to be together. This idea of marriage was almost completely forgotten by the time the 17th century rolled around and British Parliament passed an act that allowed an individual to divorce his wife. What does any of this have to do with same sex marriage? Well, the point is that marriage is an institution that has changed several times throughout the course of history. Defining marriage based on what it has been “traditionally” is a near impossible task, because the institution of marriage along with the reasons people have to get married have been constantly changing. Currently, marriage is about love and commitment, and these two attributes are not limited to being shared by a man and a woman ONLY. The negative would like to convince you that there exists a certain set of requirements for a marriage that reflect the best possible conditions for which two individuals can happily live together. The big question is this: How do you know YOUR set of requirements is the correct conditions for whether or not to allow a marriage? Who has the right to decide what these requirements are? If the negative would like to suggest that there should be certain limitations on the institution of marriage, then there must be a follow up explanation that explains why the negative has the right to impose such limitations on the rest of humanity. The negative arguments: a) Marriage and Procreation To summarize the negative’s first argument, he states that marriage should be restricted ONLY to individuals who are able to procreate. He states that because of this reasoning, marriage should only be permitted as long as it is between a man and a woman. There is an obvious, inherent flaw with this line of reasoning. In short, if the negative’s procreation requirement were enacted, the following individuals would not be allowed to get married: Homosexual men and women. Men and women who are naturally unable to produce offspring. Men and women who, by choice, do not desire to produce offspring. Unlike the negative, I see no reason to restrict these individuals from the right of marriage. The negative covers their ground on this issue by saying that heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate can simply adopt offspring to make up for their shortcomings, to which I respond that homosexual couples can also do this, making the negative’s point non-unique. b) Marriage between man and woman The negative’s second argument goes on to say that procreation isn’t the only reason that same sex marriage should be disallowed, but because men and women are complimentary to each other, and are capable of loving each other and having intercourse that is not based on lust. The problem with this argument is that the negative fails to explain why all of these things cannot also be shared between two homosexual individuals. Why exactly can intercourse only be done without lust between a man and a woman? Why can only men and woman have a loving natural relationship? Why is a relationship between a man and a woman beneficial to society, but not a relationship between two homosexuals? All of these are questions that are left completely unanswered. This argument should be disregarded unless the negative can provide detailed answers to these questions. c) Government had a role in marriage, however that role should be limited In short, the negative’s argument here is that the government’s involvement with the institution of marriage should be limited as much as possible. The negative concludes that the government must inevitably decide upon certain terms and conditions that determine whether or not a couple can get married, and that these terms and conditions should disallow same sex marriage, because of the negative’s procreation argument. The negative goes on to say that if the government decides that same sex marriage should be legalized, “the meaning behind marriage is lost”. This entire argument is based off what the negative calls “the meaning of marriage”, however, the negative does not give an accurate description of what exactly “the meaning of marriage” really is. He fails to mention this at all in the entire argument. On that note, he fails to give a definition of marriage at all. Fortunately for the readers, I have given a definition of the word marriage, and with this in mind, the negative’s third argument can be completely dismissed, because same sex marriage does not conflict with the definition that I have provided. d) Parenting among homosexuals In this argument, the negative argues that homosexual couples would be unfit parents when compared to heterosexual couples. The negative attempts to demonstrate this by citing the results of a study conducted by the Journal of Human Sexuality in 2012, which unlike any of the negative’s other citations, was not hyperlinked back to the original study. I was unable to find the study on my own, and thus, I am unable to respond to it. I urge the voters to disregard all claims made by the negative in this argument until he is able to provide the actual study that he references. Unlike my opponent, I will actually link to a study that is essentially a compilation of research done over the course of 30 years that directly contradicts everything my opponent has said in this argument. The study concludes that sexual orientation of parents has nothing to do with either competency or the ability to raise a child.[1] In fact, the study goes on to say that competency of homosexual parents is negatively affected by the popular notion that same-sex marriage should be illegal and that homosexuals are unfit parents. That’s right, any negative parenting traits that my opponent can slap onto homosexual parents is directly correlated to societal restrictions on their livelihood, which is exactly what my opponent is advocating for in the first place. Conclusion: In conclusion, never has the institution of marriage been solely about how many offspring you can produce, and I don’t believe it ever will. There is no reason for anyone to believe that homosexual couples cannot share the same love and commitment as heterosexuals, and it is for this reason, that I urge a vote for the affirmative. “Families don’t derive their sense of worth from being told ‘You’re married, congratulations’. No, the sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other; to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us; that’s what makes a family.” [2] Citations: 1: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... 2: http://www.youtube.com... YouTube video above