Same sex marriage

That is the idea. Its just so we can have it voted on. Thank you Con for accepting my challenge and I agree to your condition that religion may be used as an argument if you choose to use it as one. Also I apologize my opening statement got very long very quick. In my opening argument I present three main arguments showing why society and legislators should allow same sex marriage. I will also present what I believe my opponents arguments will be and provide pre-emptive rebuttal to avoid any miscommunications of my point. The points I will argue are as follows. Equality of all human beings, one should be able to marry the one they love regardless of the fact that they are part of a minority group frowned upon by most religions. Childcare. Married homosexuals are better prepared to adopt children if they have entered into a legal agreement that provides legal benefits allowing for a better relationship which is suitable for the better raising of an adopted child. Lastly homosexual marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage . Equality All men are born free and equal. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equals and they should be viewed as such in the argument of same sex marriage. While homosexuals are a minority they should be given rights to marry the one they love even if the values of the majority demand they not be treated as equals. This is analogous to struggle of African Americans when trying to be viewed as equals. [1] This article shows examples of discrimination in regards to marriage mainly the laws that prevented interracial marriages. These marriages were denied because the majority viewed them to be immoral and unnatural. Now in present times these arguments are invalid because we know see these two groups as equals. The only natural progression is to view homosexual and heterosexual couples as equal and allow them the same rights to marry as was given to interracial couples even though it goes against the views of the majority. If laws were made solely on the grounds that they respect values of the majority nothing would ever change. If this were the case society would have never progressed passed the times of slavery. Marriage is a legal contract and has benefits that are provided by the individuals and state. A great number of laws that have been written that include the word marriage.[2] These laws are exclusive to those who are married and provide benefits from the state such as visitation rights on hospitals and prison, etc. To deny a minority group these rights that come along with violates the equality between all people. Along with the benefits given to married couples by the state is the right to divorce should the relationship fail. Without the ability to divorce ones partner should the relationship fail leaves homosexuals unprotected. Divorce allows for the division of property accumulated during the marriage and the possibility of alimony [3]. Without these rights homosexuals are at risk should their relationships end they may be left on the street with nothing for the years they had invested in the relationship. My opponent may argue some of the following points.: Homosexuals are not denied the right to marriage they can if they chose marry someone of opposite sex It is not analogous to the struggle of African Americans because their race which is undeniably out of their control. In response to the first proposed objection marriage implies a certain amount of love between the two parties entering into the contract. In the case of a homosexual entering into a heterosexual marriage that love is not love (by ‘’that love’’ I refer to the love between a married couple) In response to the second proposed objection the analogy refers to the oppression of a minority group based on matters out the control of the minority (skin colour, who one loves, etc.). Child Care Couples that are married are more likely to be allowed to adopt a child should they decide to do so. By denying homosexual marriage society is also making an already difficult process much more challenging.[4]. Homosexuals are already denied the ability to adopt in some areas. And not allowing the couple to present a stable home environment through marital status greatly lessens their chances of adopting a child. This negatively affects society because we harm the couples who are only to achieve one of the greatest achievements, that of having an heir. We also harm the child by leaving them in the foster care system because society refuses to acknowledge homosexual families. This also results in higher costs for the state because supporting the un-adopted child fall to the state. Children with married parents are more likely to go to college and less likely to drop out of school. These are just some of the benefits of having married parents on lives of the children. There are many other benefits for the child if the parents of the child are married. These benefits stem mainly from the fact that marriage produces a better home environment because of the benefits and obligations provided by the institution. Marriage involves agreeing to be with one’s partner for the entirety of their life in front their family and friends. This provides an expectation from society for the relationship to last. This makes it more likely that the couple will work harder to make it last. A parent making an effort to keep the intact for their entire lives makes it more likely that they will not break up, which would adversely affect the child. My opponent may argue that. A child needs both a mother and a father so same sex couples should not adopt children. In response to this argument having may be better for a child may be better for the child (not saying this is true it is an entirely different debate)but having no parents is undoubtedly worse than having two loving parents of the same gender. Also having homosexual parents would allow the child to become more open minded and accepting in regard to other minority groups. It will not destroy the institution of marriage Marriage has and always will be a contract between two parties. Same sex marriage only removes the discrimination on who those two parties may be. I have presented an example of this earlier about interracial marriage. Allowing this ‘’unnatural’’ form of marriage did not result in polygamy or bestiality. One argument against same sex marriage was that it will lead to incestuous same sex marriage by removing the harm of deformed offspring. But is not the case harm is still present because both parties are not entering into the contract on equal standing because one will always have more power than the other and coerce the other into acceptance of the marriage contract. For example uncle and nephew the uncle is in a position of power because of the age difference and the fact that he is a role model for the younger party. Another argument is that it will result in marriage between a human and an animal. This argument is almost laughable because same sex marriage in no way extents to inter species marriage. An animal cannot consent to the contract (also it’s just wrong). I have proved that same sex marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage by allowing incestuous, polygamous or inter species marriage thus disproving this argument. If anything same sex marriage will improve the institution of marriage by allowing everybody to marry the one they love. Conclusion Same sex marriage can only make society better by allowing a means of removing a form of discrimination against a minority group and allowing for children without families to be adopted by a loving homosexual couple rather than having no parents at all and finally it will not harm the institution of marriage but only make it stronger. [1] http://www.marriageequality.org...... [2] http://people.howstuffworks.com...... [3] http://www.marriageequality.org...... [4] http://www.loveandpride.com......