Their common claims, debunked.
1. Not legalizing gay marriage creates second class citizens. [1]
The common argument here is that it is discriminating their choice to a marriage.
There is actually no discrimination. In nature and in the governments eyes, marriage is to create a procreating type relationship that creates this effect. [2] If marriage entails this, and it is naturally a man and a woman, then there is no discrimination occurring because same sex "marriage" doesn't exist. [3] So to conclude this, there is no discrimination is marriage is for a man and a woman. [4]
2. Marriage is about love not procreation
Their refutation to the procreation argument is that marriage is about love. It the government cared about love, then wouldn't they regulate other relationships? A boyfriend/girlfriend scenario may have lots of love, but as they cannot raise a child effectively much of the time it is not regulated, and not in the states interest. [5] If marriage is only about love, then if a man and other 5 men went to get married would the state recognize them? Well if marriage is about love then what grounds do they have? As they deny them this right on a certain ground, the ground is procreation if you haven't figured this out, then only people who are in the states interest can marry. You are probably against bestiality, yet if marriage was about love couldn't this be allowed? My point is marriage in the states eyes cannot and will never be love, and it is almost impossible to say it is.
3. Banning Gay marriage is unconstitutional
Equal protection:
Due process:
Gay marriage claims debunked.
[1] http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-marriage-should-be-legalized-in-the-United-States./1/
[2] http://www.debate.org/debates/RESOLVED-Gay-marriage-should-be-legal-in-all-of-the-U.S./1/
[3] "One Man, One Woman: Defending Traditional Marriage" By Tim Hsiao, Florida State University.
[4] "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
[5] Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage"
[6] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
1. Not legalizing gay marriage creates second class citizens. [1]
The common argument here is that it is discriminating their choice to a marriage.
There is actually no discrimination. In nature and in the governments eyes, marriage is to create a procreating type relationship that creates this effect. [2] If marriage entails this, and it is naturally a man and a woman, then there is no discrimination occurring because same sex "marriage" doesn't exist. [3] So to conclude this, there is no discrimination is marriage is for a man and a woman. [4]
2. Marriage is about love not procreation
Their refutation to the procreation argument is that marriage is about love. It the government cared about love, then wouldn't they regulate other relationships? A boyfriend/girlfriend scenario may have lots of love, but as they cannot raise a child effectively much of the time it is not regulated, and not in the states interest. [5] If marriage is only about love, then if a man and other 5 men went to get married would the state recognize them? Well if marriage is about love then what grounds do they have? As they deny them this right on a certain ground, the ground is procreation if you haven't figured this out, then only people who are in the states interest can marry. You are probably against bestiality, yet if marriage was about love couldn't this be allowed? My point is marriage in the states eyes cannot and will never be love, and it is almost impossible to say it is.
3. Banning Gay marriage is unconstitutional
Equal protection:
- My opponent first claims it is discriminatory therefore it is against the equal protection clause. This is first assuming marriage is a right. [3] Lets then for fun claim it is a right. If marriage is defined as a man and a woman then there is no discrimination as Same Sex "Marriage" doesn't exist. [3] So if it is a right then there is no discrimination if you word it correctly.
- Now lets assume it isn't a right. Then not only do heterosexuals still deserve it as this is the states interest, [6] but even if marriage is defined as anything there would be no discrimination if it was banned.
Due process:
- It can only deprive them of liberty if a fundamental right is being deprived. Lets go through scenarios again.
- It is a right, but there is still no Same Sex "marriage", therefore there is no deprivation of rights.[3]
- It isn't a right, therefore any ban does not infringe on liberty.
Gay marriage claims debunked.
[1] http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-marriage-should-be-legalized-in-the-United-States./1/
[2] http://www.debate.org/debates/RESOLVED-Gay-marriage-should-be-legal-in-all-of-the-U.S./1/
[3] "One Man, One Woman: Defending Traditional Marriage" By Tim Hsiao, Florida State University.
[4] "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
[5] Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage"
[6] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
No comments:
Post a Comment