Gay Rights Is Wrong

To begin with, my opponent has plagarized almost all of his argument from this website: http://www.tfp.org.... Also, before you claim I plagarized my argument from this debate: http://www.debate.org... please remember that I am Ron-Paul's second account. I. It Is Not Marriage On procreation, The United States Supreme Court has never indicated that procreation is an essential feature of marriage or that marriage is only between a man and a woman. What the Supreme Court has actually said in 14 cases is that the right to marriage is an aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association and identity.[1] The fact of the matter is that the state has never inquired into a couple's procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license.[2] In fact, the Supreme Court has indicated that "[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse."[3] Lawrence, 539 US at 567. Likewise, the Supreme Court has also mentioned that, completely apart from procreation, choice and privacy are an integral part of the marital union. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381US at 485-486.[4]On the well-being of a marriage: "Research shows that same-sex couples are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children. Thus, there is no scientific justification for denying marriage equality, when research indicates that marriage provides many important benefits."[5] II. It Violates Natural Law This argument is irrelevant to the debate. Even if homosexual acts were immoral, this doesn't provide a convincing argument as to why gay marriage should be prohibited.III. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a MotherI will concede this; yes it does. However, In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents. While research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, research shows these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships [6].IV. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual LifestyleAgain, this argument is irrelevant to the debate. Why does it matter if the legalization of gay marriage pormotes the homosexual lifestyle? Even if homosexual acts were immoral, this doesn't provide a convincing argument as to why gay marriage should be prohibited.V. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right My opponent claims that it opposes nature. On the contrary: "In a review article published in 2009, biologists Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk at the University of California, Riverside, noted that many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, mollusks and nematodes.Some animals, when given a choice, show a preference for the same sex, and researchers have even ascribed a same-sex sexual orientation to members of certain species."[7]"Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species."[8]Then on the comparison of interracial marriages to homosexual ones, Although the nature of these two examples may different, the very base of the argument is the following: Group X and Group Y should not be together for Reason A. This reason needs to be a morally relevant reason in order to be justified, but in the case of interracial marriage and gay marriage, the idea is incredibly similar. The reason for arguments against interracial couples is of a belief that blacks and whites should not be together, and the reason for arguments against gay marriage is of a belief that men and men should not be together. Both are morally irrelevant reasons for denying such marriages, and at that point, these marriages are at the very least similar in their nature. Therefore, analogies comparing them are fair.VI. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union My opponent's arguments seem to be degrading. Not only is this irrelevant, it is a "so what?" argument. So what if homosexual must circumvent nature by costly and artifical means or employ surrogates? In fact, they can also adopt; a very moral decision. So what if these unions do not create families? In fact, many couples do.VII. It Defeats the State's Purpose of Benefiting Marriage Like I said earlier, the state's point of a marriage is not procreation; even so, allowing homosexuals to marry would not produce any decline in the birthrate because heterosexuals would still have the same amounts of kids. In addition, allowing more couples to get married would provide either more children via surrogate or in vitro or by adoption. And, couples are more stable for children than single parents. This obviously benefits the state by producing more jobs and a stronger economy. VIII.-X. It "Destroys" MoralityMy opponent's final three arguments are just rants on how the legalization of same-sex marriage would degrade morality for society. Who cares if it "imposes" homosexuality's acceptance on society? This will actually help society as people become more tolerant of them. Who cares if homosexuality's acceptance is the cutting edge of the sexual revolution? This is again a step forward as we break the chains of "accepted" morality. And, how does the legalization of gay marriage lead to the legalization of rape and pedophilia? This is a slippery slope fallacy. These are true crimes, unlike homosexuality. And finally, who cares if it offends God? Jamie Raskin basically summed it up with this quote "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the bible." Just because something is in the Bible does not mean it should be illegal. If that were the case, tattoos would be prohibited (Leviticus 19:28), pork would be prohibited (Leviticus 11:7-8), and work on the Seventh Day (Christian Sunday, Jewish Saturday) would be prohibited (Exodus 20:8-10). See how silly all this sounds? Even so, "The Bible never mentions or condemns the concept we call same-sex marriage. Although opponents of same-sex marriage claim that lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender unions violate biblical principles, no verses in the Bible explicitly address gay marriage or committed same-sex relationships."[9]XI. So Why Should Gay Rights be Recognized? Gay rights are human rights. Marriage is a voluntary social contract between two people that the state has intervened in. Marriage isn't a state contract. Even if you believe in the idea that any contracts involving the state should be beneficial to it (i.e. benefits to gay marriages), remember that the sole reason for martial benefits is for the raising of children (and not solely be procreation), and gays have been shown in hundreds of reliable studies to do this effectively and efficiently. The state can't be selective with who it gives rights. Sources [1]: http://tinyurl.com... (Time 41:54 - 43:30)[2]: http://www.afer.org..., p. 67[3]: ibid, p. 111[4]: ibid, p. 111-2[5]: http://www.apa.org...[6]: http://www.livescience.com...[7]: http://www.popsci.com...[8]: http://www.news-medical.net...[9]: http://www.debate.org...;