The United States Should Adopt No Gay Zones

To start off I have a couple of questions for my opponent to clarify for this debate, given that he asked that the contender start arguments in round 1. If such zones were to exist, we would have to consider the many different factors that go into one making one of these zones work. First of all, is a zone a small area the size as a military base, is it a whole county, or is it something the size of an entire state? Secondly how would one of these zone’s be moderated? Would gay individual’s already in the area be grandfathered, or would they be kicked out soon after the implementation? What type of punishments would be a result of a gay individual being caught in an anti-gay zone? Hopefully my opponent will answers these questions in the next round, as this will open up some different avenues of debate. Let’s jump right into the debate! Argument 1: Anti-Gay Zones are unrealistic, and non-beneficial Let’s for a moment avoid the moral debate, and assume a United States where anti “blank” zones were something plausible to implement in the United States, for any reason. According to several Polls from Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the human right campaign, about 59-63% of Americans support Gay marriage. (1) Further statistics in the source show demographics for Conservative, and Christian individuals who also support these rights. While statistics, can often be flawed, the fact that several polls draw in very close to this 60% average, shows that a general majority of U. S. citizens are in support of marriage equality. Now focusing in on the 40% who do not support Marriage equality, we do find many problems in finding specific statistics on beliefs. Most simply follow the belief (either through religious influence, or their own personal preference) that Gay Marriage is simply immoral. This does not however mean most of these individuals do not want to be anywhere around other Gay individuals. Again without flooding this debate with a bunch of probably biased polling statics on this minority, I would say it’s safe to make the claim that a majority of this (minority) group who dis-believe in Gay Marriage, don’t personally despise dealing with them (Gay people) in person. The ones who totally despise being around Gay’s so much that they would want to be in a separate society are probably so small, that it would be almost incredibly difficult to justify creating an entire “zone” for them. Let’s get into this meat of this point a little more clearly. Sub A: The infeasibility of “ If not A, why not B? ” Logic While it could be argued that anti-(insert specific here) zone’s already exist through recognizing individual state sovereignty’s , one might argue that if we are going to represent the interest of a small group of individuals (for the sake of hypotheticals, lets say “crazy, red-neck, bible pusher’s and shorten the term to CRBP’s), it will beg the question of “why not support the other Anti-‘blank’ Zones? ”. We get into the issue of Anti-Gun Zones for individuals who are pro-gun control or Anti-abortion zones for individuals who happen to be pro-life. How necessary or important is it to push out legislation to create such territories? Government officials then also have to worry about the many multiple things that would go into making such zones work. IE finances, law enforcement, maintainability, etc. My opponent’s clarification on the questions I have asked him in the beginning of this debate might shed some light on this subject and allow us to debate more specifics. This argument is not saying inherently that people will demand these other zone’s (which would be delving into the slippery slope fallacy), but rather saying that law makers would have to heavily consider the fairness in creating a law like this. In Conclusion, I will not be focusing to heavily on building a Con case in this debate. 1. Because of the 5,000 character limit, and 2. My opponent being the instigator of the debate, more likely has an idea of how the claim in the resolution will be supported. I have sneaking suspicions on the route he will go on this debate (or at least the route he won’t go in terms of arguing), and thus find it redundant to delve into morals and ethics unless my opponent brings them up in his first round of debate. So for now I am going to stick with the “realism” argument and focus mostly on negating in this debate. I find it non-realistic, non-beneficial, and unnecessary for Anti-Gay zones to be implemented based on the lobbying support of a very minor group of people who are likely mostly made up of “CRBP’s”. My solution for these individuals seeking anti-gay zones, would be to seek comfort in the ones we have tailored specifically for them, that I commonly refer to as “The psychiatric ward”. Good luck Mikal, I look forward to an interesting debate. Sources:1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...