Gay Marriage

1) Some people are entitled to marry for love, but some are not. Which will be discussed with in the following paragraphs. I again would like to thank Con for accepting this debate, I wish you a good rebuttal. To the audience & to those voting, I thank you for your time. A) Con goes on to say: "So what if heterosexual couples have genetic defects, should they be not allowed to marry? Since gay marriage proponents hold that love and consent should be the main factor for allowing marriage, it seems reasonable to assume that they would also allow brothers and sisters to marry, assuming they are consenting adults and in love. Thus, the genetics argument was meant for that, not gay couples." If a heterosexual couple has a serious genetic disorder with in their family then they may want to look towards adoption, but that is not what this debate is about. There is not a public outcry for incestuous marriages like that of homosexuals. Homosexuality is not frowned upon as much as that of incest. And finally allowing siblings to marry would result in an increase of genetic disorders unlike a homosexual marriage. 2) Let us take a look at the definition of marriage; (I)"The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. (B) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage ". A polygamous Marriage does not meet the same criteria recognized by our society. Marriage is viewed as monogamous in which both homosexual & heterosexuals share. 3) After looking into some research I have come to the conclusion that I would be comfortable with the allowing homosexual couples to raise children. I go on to quote: (II) "Sociologists Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California, spent five years reviewing 81 studies of one- and two-parent families, including gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples. No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being, they conclude. Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures, Biblarz says." Society also agrees with the concept on (III) WWW.Debate.Juggle.Com 71% of the voters agree that gay couples should be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals in adopting children, with only 29% being against the notion. Now let us take Invitro fertilization, Seeing as a homosexual couple are just as capable as raising children as a heterosexual couple It is safe to agree upon allowing this process to take place. Invitro fertilization would have no negative impact upon the DNA structure opposed to that of an incest couple. 4) I would like to quote Cons statement from point 1; "it seems reasonable to assume that they would also allow brothers and sisters to marry, assuming they are consenting adults and in love. Cons point 4 which goes as follows; "This debate is not about sexual intercourse, it is about gays marrying, but yes, I cede that restricting marriage will not stop incest and homosexuality. This has nothing to do with the marriage argument though, and only goes to show that people will do what they want regardless if they're married or not, negating the issue." Con continues to seemingly contradict himself with in the points. Marriage is a contributing factor towards sexual intercourse so point 1 is a valid question & falls into the current realm and therefore must not be negated. Yes we can agree that individuals will do as they please, but marriage will just be a contributing factor which is why society had ruled out brothers & sisters getting married. B) Con goes on to state; "Marriage is traditionally seen as between a man and woman because before modern medicine, it was only a man and woman who could procreate. Not to mention most, if not all, religions hold this belief and since religion is the progenitor of modern morality and tradition it seems reasonable to relate the two." Yes Marriage had traditionally been seen as the union between a man and a woman. Are we not living in modern times? Modern medicine does exist with in today's society, & as we have agreed upon earlier people will end up doing as they please. Today you do not need to be married to create a baby, so how is allowing homosexuals to marry any different as long as it follows the same modern day principles? Con then argues that it is reasonable to relate to the fact that religion is the progenitor of modern day morality & tradition. (IV) "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference." This matter can not withstand to the Constitution if allowing gay marriage is solely based off religion preference." 1 & 2) Con continues on with the contradictions, I quote; "Pro does not dispute the fact that if everyone was gay, there would be no human race today as we know it, thus lending some illogicality to it." His following statement; "Pro describes that despite having homosexuals, the world continues to grow. This is not what I am debating." Since con is not debating the fact that the world grows regardless of the fact that homosexuality has been around since Alexander The Great, I should not need to dispute the fact that if every one was gay there would be no human race today. The problem with Cons reasoning is this, not every one is gay. (V) "If we are counting those who are exclusively practicing homosexuality, it is probably the lower figure. If we are counting any who have at any time ever had any type of homosexual encounter, then the number is probably 10%, or even higher." As we have seen through out history homosexuality had existed at all social levels. (VI) According to US Demographics from 1900-1999 The population as rose by nearly 200,000,000. Saying "If everyone was gay" Is ridiculous for the fact that not every one is. If every one was gay, we live in a modern society where invitro fertilization does exist. For Con's final point he goes on to over exaggerate the matter that some human beings want to be pronounced as some ones "Mr & Misses" but not all. Con then goes on to say that by this logic we should conform to all human beings innate desires, such as allowing incest. Case in point, there is a public outcry for homosexuals to be married. It is no longer a grand taboo with in the modern day to be a homosexual, it falls within society's normality's, unlike that of incest. My conclusion is that there is no reason why homosexuals should be denied the right to marry. There is no evidence that proves that they can not raise children as well as that of a heterosexual family. We are living within modern times with modern medication there is evidence that proves that our society will continue to grow despite sexual preference. And furthermore that religion is not an excuse to allow homosexuals to marry based off of the 1st Amendment. -Thank you References: (I) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (II) http://www.usatoday.com... (III) http://debates.juggle.com... (IV) http://topics.law.cornell.edu... (V) http://wiki.answers.com... (VI)http://www.demographia.com...