Gay Marriage

I am generally accepting of the idea of gay marriage, but for the sake of this debate I will fight against it. I am also sorry to hear your friends and family avoid this topic and am glad you found Debate. com. Good Luck! ========================== PRO CONTENTIONS and CON COUNTERS ========================== A) Pro decides to begin with a statement of his beliefs, which include his wish for gay marriage made a reality in the US. He goes on to state that our country was founded "for freedom of oppression", which I am going to assume means "freedom from oppression", and that gays are currently being oppressed because they do not have the right o marry. I would like to point out now that nowhere in the US Constitution does it guarantee marriage, of any sex, as a right [1], and as such should not be considered a form of oppression. The main call for homosexual marriage is that of love, and the state is doing nothing to prohibit this. The state is not stopping two homosexuals from loving each other, and since love is the crux of their argument then I do not see anyone being oppressed. Some states may even refuse to marry heterosexual couples if they are infertile or too closely related [1]. B) Pro makes the contention that as long as gay marriage does not affect social norms negatively and does not affect the economy negatively that it should be fine to legalize. My opponent offers no foundation for "social norms", so I will give examples of my own. 1) Social Norms a) I will cede that studies have shown homosexual parents can raise children just as well as hetero couples if my opponent also agrees to cede that studies have shown they cannot. This would make child rearing a moot point. b) Social norms are subject to change, but given the current mood of society I believe homosexual marriages will be found offensive by many, thus damaging our social norms. Though other people's opinions of gay marriage should have no effect on the legalization process, it does satisfy my opponent's point of affecting our social norms negativity. c) Gay marriage could start a decline in the number of births in this country since homosexual couples cannot reproduce without the aid of medical intervention. d) An increase in the number of marriages will inevitably lead to an increase to the number of divorces, which is shown to have negative consequences on society [3]. 2) Economy a) The amount of benefits married couples receive over unmarried cause a certain strain on our country. Marriage gives tax breaks and incentives one would normally not receive if single [4]. To allow gay marriage would only increase the number of married couples logically, and would therefore apply a greater strain on the economy. b) Married couples are expected to return the favor to the state by providing stable family units, and of course children. Now, I am not saying that gays are not capable of stable, happy families, and I'm not implying that gays cannot bring children into the world (at least lesbian couples can). What I am saying is that gays require extra assistance in doing so that most hetero couples do not require. This may include more medical expenses, more people entering the bureaucracy that is child adoption, and of course both of these cause unneeded strain on the State and the economy. ============= CON CONTENTIONS ============= A) I have read a very good argument [2], which basically renounces gay marriage because "If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. " In other words, if you allow people to marry based solely on their love for each other, then what is to stop groups of people from marrying? What if 5 men and 2 women want to form a union of matrimony? They all love each other, and they are all consenting adults, so why not? What is to stop people from marrying brothers and sisters? According to gay marriage proponents, blood kin should marry, genetics should be no issue, because they simply love each other and are consenting adults. One can see the pitfalls in allowing blood kin to marry. Where should the marrying stop if people are allowed to wed based solely off of love? In reality, there are more things to marriage than just love. B) Marriage is traditionally seen as the union of a man and woman because only this combination can procreate, one of the main legs of matrimony and of human existence. I do not like to discuss what is right and wrong, and I do not like to tell people what to do, but consider this thought experiment. If the world consisted mainly of homosexual couples, where would we be? Would there be later generations? Lets assume there is no medical interventions, no Invitro. Would the human race continue to exist in 100 years? Obviously the answer is a resounding no. A world with hetero couples allow procreation though, and through marriage society is able to give them benefits and the stability to achieve this goal. Maybe perhaps, marriage is an institution worth protecting and worth being made exclusive (i. e. hetero couples only) C) I would like to add the opinion that, since the very idea of gay marriage is based off of the love of two people and nothing else, then why would not allowing them to marry effect this? Of course there are rights that should be given to those in love, and while this can be done through a reformation of the current system of civil unions, I honestly ask how being referred to as "married" will affect in any way the love you feel for each other. I await rebuttal. [1] . http://www.usconstitution.net... [2] . http://tech.mit.edu... [3] . http://www.heritage.org... [4] . http://lesbianlife.about.com...