Gays

As he has taken R1 as his opening statement, I will take the opportunity to use R1 as rebuttal. I'd like to note for the sake of readers and voters that the instigator of this debate, who has the presumptive BoP, has set himself up as "Con" to the motion--I will do my best to remember that, as it just feels weird to be opposing his ideas from his instigated debate, yet to be Pro. And, to repeat, he has the presumptive BoP. Con opens with: "Gay people should be shunned by society. " This is the main motion, and the one I will be arguing against. He makes points further down regarding marriage, rights, and adoption, but I see those as extensions of that central premise. Con's opening contention ostensibly in support of his motion is: "It is unnatural for people of the same sex to become sexually attracted to each other. " This is, first off, a nonsequitur. It doesn't directly support his motion without further argument that Con does not provide. I suppose we are to assume that Con is maintaining that that which is unnatural should be shunned by society. This would lead to the shunning of clothing, of eyeglasses, of modern medicine; it's rather clearly absurd on its face, and I hope Con can present an actual argument as to what, specifically, he means by this. Further, even accepting the premise that the statement is based on (which must be, in order for the statement to make any sense, that that which is unnatural is to be shunned), the huge flaw is that homosexuality is perfectly natural, and homosexuality is exhibited in the natural world in many species [1]. As such, his opening argument fails in every meaningful way--it's a non sequitur which, if I infer the argument, leads to absurdity, and which is still not true even then. Con says that he hates "these new times where openly gay people are becoming more prominent". His own bigotry is not a sufficient justification for society to shun an entire group of people. He then moves on to his extensions: He thinks gay marriage shouldn't be called marriage because "marriage is between man and woman not man and man or woman and woman". But of course, that idea of 1 man and 1 woman is far from the universal standard throughout time. The simple assertion that marriage is between man and woman is just that--assertion. Con demands we beg the question as to the definition and meaning of marriage so that his assertion is valid. As he's given no reason for us to do so, I maintain we should not. Marriage, at its core, is a contractual relationship between parties. Back when religion and the state were more closely intertwined, religion was allowed to dictate what it "meant". In this age, however, we have governments which are supposed to be removed from, distinct from, religion. Of course, some religions allow homosexual marriage, too, including "In particular, the Metropolitan Community Church. .. The United Church of Christ and the Alliance of Baptists also condone gay marriage, and some parts of the Anglican and Lutheran churches allow for the blessing of gay unions. " [2] But if the state, separate from religion, is going to sanction a form of marriage, it must sufficiently justify doing so--and, in the US at least, must sufficiently justify why it is the way it is, particularly if it discriminates against one group of people or another. There are legal, Constitutional, and philosophical issues at play which, at present, are largely irrelevant as Con has given no justification whatsoever outside of assertion (and indeed, even excludes religion at one point! ). At the risk of being mean, Con's fundamental ignorance is underscored when he makes this statement: "I'd consider them a different species. " Gay people are not a different species under any classification system I've ever heard of. I see this as merely an expression of Con's personal revulsion, a revulsion based on no rational grounds. Con continues, stating that if he had a choice, he "would send them to the leprosy colonies in Hawaii. " I presume he's talking about the Kalaupapa settlement, which currently has no active sufferers of leprosy, but does still have about fourteen former sufferers of Hansen's Disease. It's a national park now, and remains open both to allow the folks who were forcibly sent there to continue living, and to remind us of our past regarding those with the illness. There is no reason given by Con as to why homosexuals should be sent there--I again am forced to conclude this is an expression of Con's personal revulsion, an emotional equation of homosexuality to disease. Con claims that "Normally, when famous people (or anyone really) come out and say they are gay it is a big deal. And you know why? Because it is UNNATURAL. " I beg to differ. It's a "big deal" because homosexuals have been discriminated against by people holding views similar to Con's for centuries, and a famous person coming out as homosexual is both news regarding a celebrity (which we, as a culture, lap up quicker than Nyan Cat), but also because it's a celebrity coming out and publicly admitting to their membership in a minority group. Con then says "This isn't even because of religion. I truly hate them. " He gives no reason for his hatred that isn't mere revulsion and bigotry. At further risk of being mean, I'm sure that the majority of homosexuals who might read what he's posted so far will have grounds to hate him, but at the risk of over-hypothesizing, I suspect there would likely be less hatred than pity for him. Con finally says that he feels "bad for the orphans that have to be adopted by the gay couples, I'd rather stay an orphan. " I presume Con is not, in fact, an orphan. That he presumes to think what an orphan would choose is sad, to say the least. Suffice it to say, there is no real evidence that children adopted by gays do worse than those adopted by straights, and no evidence whatsoever anywhere of any kind that they do better than kids who aren't adopted at all. "The best study so far. .. is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, begun in 1986. The study has followed 154 lesbian mothers. .. The lesbian mothers" reports of their children "indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts". .. [and as regards] their kids" testimony: "The self-reported quality of life of the adolescents in this sample was similar to that reported by a comparable sample of adolescents with heterosexual parents. "" [3] Con closes with: "If anyone has something to say. .. try. " Since I have, I now turn the floor back over to Con. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.bu.edu...