Gay Marriage

Thanks for the debate Cameron. 1. Homosexuality is not a choice Homosexuality has a significant genetic component: According to Time Magazine, "It's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party -- no, an orgy -- among themselves. With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line. What's going on? Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings." [1] In addition, according to New Scientists, "A gene has been discovered that appears to dictate the sexual preferences of female mice. Delete the gene and the modified mice reject the advances of the males and attempt to mate with other females instead." [2] In addition, many studies link being gay with pre-natal testosterone exposure (which would be determined genetically, since the fetus's genetics determine which hormones it manufactures). According to the Seattle Times, "In heterosexual women, the index and ring fingers are usually about the same length. In heterosexual men, the index finger is shorter, on average, than the ring finger. It's one of several differences between the sexes that seem to be set before birth, based on testosterone exposure. Breedlove found lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function. 'Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women,' Breedlove said. This can't be a fluke.'" [3] 2. Homosexuality in nature The same Seattle Times article points out that sheep breeders have long known that 8% of rams refuse to mate (because they are gay). A book by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., called Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity outlines all the different animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. For example, 10% of silver gulls, 22% of black headed gulls, and 9% of Japanese macaques are homosexual. [4] The book is the first to document homosexual behavior on such a wide scale because the taboo nature of the subject led many previous biologists/naturalists to exclude observed homosexual behaviors from their published literature. Bahemihl documents 1500 species that display homosexual behavior. [5] If animals, which are not rational beings, engage in homosexual behavior, it must be "natural" and cannot be a "choice." 3. Equal Protection The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law." Gay marriage opponents usually argue that "gay people have an equal right to marriage because they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender." However, since homosexuality is not a choice, gay people, by definition, cannot fall in love with someone of the opposite gender, so they do not have equal protection, unless my opponent endorses the idea of loveless marriages. 4. Separate is inherently unequal As the Supreme Court famously said in Brown v. the Board of Education, "separate . . . is inherently unequal." Just as segregated schools were going to be inherently unequal because Southern states had an inherent disinterest in making the "black" schools as good as the "white" schools, so domestic partnership will be inherently unequal because states and the federal government (or at least many legislators) have a disinterest in making the two institutions exactly the same. So gay couples will always find it difficult, for example, to visit each other in hospitals (and be recognized as the other's proxy decision-maker), to inherit from each other, to help a non-American partner gain citizenship (and not be deported), etc. The only way to ensure gay people receive equal rights is to make the two institutions the same. Even most civil union states do not grant all the same rights to gay couples. 5. Stigma Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married implies that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple. Let's be honest here about the true reason to try to limit marriage to "traditional, Christian marriage." 6. Utilitarianism We should seek to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Gay marriage generates tax revenue for the state and business for a lot of people (caterers, photographers, etc), so there are benefits to allowing it, but absolutely no downsides, as we'll see later with studies of countries where it is allowed. ==Rebuttal== R1) Traditional Christian marriage This is the argument from tradition, which is merely the is-ought fallacy. Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is morally right for it to be that way or it ought to be that way. The same argument would justify not allowing blacks and whites to marry. Also, the Bible is not exactly a good moral guide: it tells us to stone our children for being disobedient, for one thing. Lott, the most moral man in the Kingdom of Sodom, told the villagers that they could rape his daughters (rather than his two visitors) and had sex with his daughters and impregnated them once he fled the city. This is not exactly the best morality tale. So if the Bible should not inform our morals, we should not look to it when deciding anything. In addition, the Bible is a work of fiction. Here are 700 inconsistencies in the Bible. [6] In addition, the account of Paul fails to mention the virgin birth, which you would think is kind of a big deal. Why should we deny real people rights based on a fictional book. God doesn't even exist. Proof 1: The Problem of Evil P1: If the Christian God exists he is aware of all suffering (omniscient), Capable of ending all suffering (omnipotent) and would desire to end all suffering (omnibenevolent). P2: Suffering exists. P3: Therefore the Christian God does not exist. Proof 2: Omnibenevolent and Omnipotence can not co-exist. P1: An omnibenevolent being will always perform the most benevolent act, is unable not to do so. P2: An omnibenevolent being therefore lacks free will. P3: A being without free will cannot be described as omnipotent. P4: A being cannot posses the characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. P5: Therefore God does not exist. [7] R2) Gay marriage degrades marriage for others This argument is inherently silly. No one goes home to his loving wife and his beautiful children and thinks, "wow, I can't enjoy any of this because those gays can get married." There is no evidence that people lose respect for the institution of marriage. "In countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized--Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain--the rate of heterosexual marriage stability has either gone up, remained stable, or declined consistent with other countries in the region that do not recognize same-sex marriage." [8] So gay marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage. If anything, turn this argument, gay marriage strengthens marriage because it shows that all people want to pledge themselves to each other. Sources: [1]-[5] http://www.debate.org... [6] http://www.cs.umd.edu... [7] Cerebral_Narcissist, http://www.debate.org... [8] http://civilliberty.about.com...