Homosexual Marriage

org, hope this turns out great! I should remind my opponent that next time, the resolution (title) of the debate should reflect a claim, a sentence with an opinion. However, I'm sure that both of us as debaters and those who will judge this as voters understand the topic at hand - gay marriage. My opponent, being Con, is obviously against it and I, being Pro, am obviously for it. With this little introductory post done, let's get to the debate! For the purposes of clarity, "gay" will now refer to the entirety of the LGBT community (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender). Also, it should also be noted that any references to the legality of gay marriage takes place in U. S. jurisdiction - if it was Sudan, this debate would be much, much different. ========== Con Claims: Homosexual marriage is contradictory within its own terms ========== I don't see how this is much of an argument at all. Yes, in many states and in the federal government marriage is defined to exclude homosexuals, but that IS the point! The entire issue at hand is whether or not marriage should include homosexuals, which I am obviously contending. This argument is no more but a red herring. ========== Con Claims: Gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage and create havoc in society ========== First, my opponent claims that legalizing gay marriage will be a slippery slope to other forms of marriages, such as "polygamy and zoophilia". This seems like the trump card, does it not? Well no. I argue that incestuous and polygamous marriages should be legalized as well. The only requirement for people(s) to get married is that all parties are consenting and that all parties are adult. Case solved! He then claims that marriage is a "fundamental order of family structure in society", and that it's vital to society. But wait, how come marriage is becoming less and less common now[1]? Why is being in a relationship now viable? Oh lord, the tyranny! Shouldn't society be in crumbles? But wait. Look at the crime rates for many states. .. it's actually declining[2], and overall the average hasn't increased much - if at all. And realize this: he is arguing that somehow what two guys do in bed will. .. destroy civilization and humanity as we know it? Interesting - I ask of my opponent, describe to me how what two men or women are doing privately will affect the infrastructure of society. I mean, it's obvious that gay people exist right now, and are free to have private relationships. As stated in the previous argument, crime is NOT going through the roof - even when marriages (which are obviously dominantly heterosexual) are decreasing in commonality. If marriage is the bedrock of society, as you would claim, would not society be doomed already? How exactly does stamping the label "married" and giving beneficial rights to a gay couple bring the end of society? The thing with these slippery slope arguments is that people who use it rarely, if ever, use it correctly. ========== Con Claims: Gays can't become "sexually whole" or "one"/they can't sexually reproduce ========== Why does it matter if gays can't sexually reproduce? Marriage may signify that a man and woman become whole, but it can mean many times for other people as well. To others, it may simply be a pragmatic way to live life together as a couple. Why the melodramatic terms and the emphasis on sexual reproduction? Whatever the purpose of marriage was originally (which was more like polygamous families, proxies, and arranged marriages - religious ideals weren't introduced until the Catholic Church stepped in), it doesn't matter. To say otherwise would be committing the genetic fallacy[3]. If you said that sexually reproducing is natural, then you commit yet another fallacy - the appeal to nature[4]. Just because something is natural or not, does not make it good or bad in itself. For example, many people think that just because a particular item is natural, it's automatically good for them. But MANY natural plants can kill you or cause great diseases - what's so good about that? ========== Con Claims: Because the majority will of the people is against gay marriage, then society henceforth shall be against gay marriage. ========== Really man? Are you just saying this as a fact, that it will be hard for society to bend it's thinking? Because that's totally true. But if you are arguing that because that society or culture believe it's right, it must be right, then you are a cultural relativist my friend. Truly tyranny of the masses. ========== Con Claims: Legalizing gay marriage may influence people to become gay ========== Exactly how will this work? Do you have scientific evidence to back up this claim? Because if scientists aren't even really clear of what causes homosexuality, how can you possibly argue that legalizing it will cause others to be gay? You bring up the point of Play Boy, and how many people "accept it". Yes, there is much more sexual freedom in society now than there was 50 years ago. HOWEVER, the change happened in being open, not sexual preference. People were just much more comfortable with their sexual orientation, it didn't *change* because Play Boy was distributed around the globe. But let's grant you this; let's say you are correct and that legalizing gay marriage will make some people gay. Why does this matter? Is being gay wrong? Because now it's your burden to show why homosexuality is wrong. ========= Conclusion ========= I hope that was a meaty enough response for my opponent :). I await his response. ---References--- 1. . http://www.divorcemag.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...