Gay marriage

Thanks Con! It seems Con joined just to challenge me to debate. I feel very special! One can't argue with Con's sources, because he didn't provide any. A wizard named google told me that Con copied and pasted his entire argument from gaymarriage.procon.org. Neat site, but you could've cited it. My arguments Love is love regardless of gender. The Supreme Court said in Loving v. Virginia said that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," [1]. Gay marriage should be legal for the same reasons as interracial marriage, equality. There's many rights one gets when their married [2], not allowing consenting couples to marry is to deny rights. This shouldn't just be about money, but allowing gay marriage actually boosts the economy [3]. Con's arguments. 1. This is what we're debating. The definition can change and arguments need to be given why it should stay or change. 2. How would it weaken? Marriage is a contract, not something that weakens overall with divorce. It's like saying we shouldn't sign contracts if more people are breaking the agreement, because the institution of contracts would weaken. This argument holds a hidden assumption. Why should we assume gays would make the institution weaker? Why wouldn't it strengthen it? Maybe have no effect at all. Why would it necessarily weaken it? This seems to be an argument against gays and not gay marriage. Someone could use this as an argument against marriage in general, marriage shouldn't be allowed, since divorce rates are already wreaking it. 3. This is a slippery slope fallacy [4]. Polygamist marriages if consensual, I see no problem with. However comparing it to incest and bestiality is false. Incest ruins genetics and an animal can't consent to marriage or sign a legal contract, so it's a blatant false analogy. 4. It's irrelevant if religion doesn't approve of gay marriage. It doesn't mean it should be illegal. Claiming churches will be forced to marry gays is a scare tactic. The first amendment protects religious practices. Many churches will not marry people who are divorced, or marry a couple whose denomination differs from the church's. Children being taught about gay marriage is not an argument against gay marriage, but again against gays. Something doesn't have to be permitted in order to be taught about. For example, something such as drugs is usually taught about, but not legal. Furthermore, would you be OK if heterosexual marriage was taught in schools? If you are, how isn't this just being bias against gays? 5. This is argument is basically “I don't like gays, so gays shouldn't be married”. Is not liking a group of people getting your tax dollars really a good reason for not letting them marry? Many didn't like blacks decades ago, should they have been allowed to marry? Should left wingers not be allowed to marry because right wingers don't approve of them? Since approval of gay marriage is above 50%[5] , should couples who are against gay marriage be allowed to marry? 6. This could also be an argument against singles adopting, being raised in an orphanage, or divorce. Does a fatherless child necessarily mean a gay couple? Did the study examine gay couples or only divorced and singe parents? More information is needed in that one. The second argument is circular, it assumes the very position you have . Why would it be bad for kids to be more likely to engage in homosexual behavior when older? Only if it's first assumed to be bad. It could be that children raised in with homosexual parents are more open and honest with themselves. Finally, numerous studies have shown kids with gay parents turn out just as good as kids with straight parents, and sometimes better [6][7][8]. 7. Why is this bad? Gay marriage doesn't even need to be legalized for this to happen. 8. Marriage is a contract between people. The want of gay identity is irrelevant to the want of marriage equality. No evidence is given for thinking these are the primary goals anyway. Also, something that the Gay Liberation Front says doesn't mean every gay believe it. In this argument you said (or copied) “The institution of marriage is sexist and oppressive; it should not be expanded but weakened” However, argument 2 was saying gay marriage should be illegal because it would weaken the institution. If Con thinks gay marriage will weaken the institution, and he thinks the institution should be weakened, then he supports gay marriage. 9, This commits the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form: A occurs before B. Therefore A is the cause of B. [9] The study says the children are born out of wedlock, however this doesn't mean single parenthood. A link between gay marriage and single parenthood makes no sense. Sex is a biological urge, single parenthoods are going to happen regardless of gay marriage law. Britain has the most single parents [10], however gay marriage has been illegal, only now are laws progressing to make it legal [11]. 10. Marriage is a right. See my main argument 11. There's so much wrong with this argument. First, Con never justified this was the purpose of marriage. Procon.org's source was from the wall street journal with this one [12]. The WSJ doesn't determine what the purpose of marriage is. Ironically the article was criticizing this argument. “The once-critical relationship between sexuality and parenthood also is quickly becoming irrelevant. The explosion of reproductive technologies make it possible for men and women to reproduce regardless of sexual orientation. Finally, gender roles have become so fluid that they strain court decisions on family matters. The courts can no longer rely, as guidelines in family cases, on the once deterministic roles of "husband," "wife," "mother" and "father." [13]. When people get married, they don't swear an oath to reproduce. Infertile, old and non child wanting couples get married, even though they can't or don't want to reproduce. 12. This carries a religious assumption. The Pope can only regulate marriage among practicing Catholics. He can't dictate what Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, or other Christians do. In order to get married, one doesn't need to goto a church. You just goto courthouse. 13. Gay marriage actually fits all three of those. a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination Ironically, Con's number 4 argument was “Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups.” Gays have been discriminated against for so long. One only needs to look in the Bible for proof. "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”- Leviticus 20:13 When the Roman Empire was under Christian authority, homosexuality was shunned, often by the pain of death [14]. It's clear, gay marriage does have a longstanding history of discrimination. Economic disadvantage There's economic advantages for married couples [15]. Immutable Characteristics There's many lines of evidence that show being gay isn't a choice [16][17]. Con's pasted arguments aren't very good and contradict each other. Thanks, back to Con Sources ___________________________________ http://www.debate.org...