Instigator / Pro
Points: 14

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized Worldwide

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
TheAtheist
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 8
Description
There is simply no reason not to let two consenting adults marry. Your religion or opinion of homosexuality does not mean you can control how others behave. Homosexuality and gay marriage don't harm anyone; they are fully consensual.
Round 1
Published:
First, let us define homosexuality and marriage. These may seem like really basic terms, but do it just in case!
Homosexuality - sexual attraction to members of the same sex.
Marriage - legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.
Okay, now we can begin.

ARGUMENTS:
My reasoning for supporting gay marriage is this: if something doesn’t harm others it should be legal. When two consenting adults marry, it doesn’t harm others in any way. Just because someone is a homosexual (a sexual orientation people are born with), doesn’t mean you get to deny them the right to marry.

You may say that your religion is against homosexuality. But the UN guarantees freedom of religion as a human right, which means you don’t get to dictate your religious beliefs to other people. In countries where religion does control the government, they throw gays off buildings and kill people for apostasy. So I think we should both agree that passing laws based on religion is stupid as there are literally thousands of religions.

You may also say that homosexuality is immoral. What exactly is immoral about two consenting adults entering a personal union? Nothing. Morals are also subjective, and different cultures have different morals.

So to summarize, there is simply no reason to stop homosexuals from marrying each other. They are consenting adults and don’t harm anyone by marrying. Why would you stop them?

Published:
I’ll add on a few other definitions:
 
State - the operations or concerns of the government of a country; of or relating to the central civil government or authority.  the system or group of people governing an organized community.  a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
 
*if something doesn’t harm others it should be legal *
 
The purpose of the State is not to go out and codify everything it’s members should be able to do.  Going out in my backyard and juggling 3 bowling balls doesn’t harm anyone (perhaps me if my hand-eye coordination is off ;-) )  —  the state is not, and should not be, obligated to formally recognize, and thus, codify, the act of juggling bowling balls in one’s backward as “legal”.
 
* When two consenting adults marry, it doesn’t harm others in any way.*
 
You don’t know that.  There is what is a called “setting a bad example” for younger members (future generations).  Those activities or relationships that set bad examples do, in fact, cause harm.  Perhaps not physical harm, but non-physical harm.  Obviously, not every activity or relationship sets a good example for younger generations.  We’ll get back to this point later.  
 
 
* a sexual orientation people are born with *  WRONG.  This has not been proven by science.  Sorry, it hasn’t.  Sexual orientation has not been proven to be genetics.
 
Religion – not sure why you are bringing “religion” or “theology” into the discussion.  Be advised that just because someone says an activity is wrong (i.e. two people of the same sex should not engage sexual activity) does not necessarily mean it’s based on religion.  I will not argue this from a religious standpoint.  
 
“there is simply no reason to stop homosexuals from marrying each other. They are consenting adults and don’t harm anyone by marrying.”
 
This is the crux of the debate.  
 
I’ll argue this from a different perspective.  
 
(A)  What is the primary objective of the State?  The primary objective of the State is, first and foremost, to ensure the continuation of the State.  One of the primary ways the State ensures it’s existence is ensuring that it continues to get new members—if the State ceases to exist then the state has failed it’s members.  So, the State should be primarily concerned with safeguarding those actions that ensure the continued existence of the state (i.e. making “legal”) and prohibiting those actions which pose a threat to the continued existence of the State.  If an action (a) does not ensure or foster the continued existence of the state or (b) does not harm or endanger the state, then the State should not be under any obligation to formally recognize or “legalize” those actions. The State should not be obligated to enact legislation just because it makes certain members happy or feel good.  Doing so would bog down the State in frivolous activities.  So, again, the State’s responsibility is first and foremost to safeguard those activities that ensure it’s continuation, and prohibit those activities that pose a threat to its continuation.  
 
(B)   I’m sure we can agree that there are many many types of human relationships.  There is the man-woman relationship (sexual), there is the man-man relationship (sexual), the woman-woman relationship (sexual), the father-son relationship, mother-son, father-daughter,  man-man (friend) relationship, woman-woman relationship (friend), man-man (coworker) relationship, man-young girl (mentor), etc.  I can go on and on.  There are MANY different types of relationships.  Some of these relationships have a sexual component, some of them don’t.  Some of these relationships offer a benefit to the State, some don’t.  Some of these relationships can be detrimental to the State.  Are all human relationships equal?  Of course not—I hope you can understand this.  If not let me know and I can explain how they are not all equal.  Not all human relationships are equal.
 
(C)   Now, of all the possible relationships out there, there is one, and ONLY ONE, relationship that will ensure the State’s continued existence (refer to item A)—that is the man-woman relationship.  Only the sexual relationship between a man and woman will bear offspring and add new members to the State.  No other relationship will bear offspring.  A woman-woman relationship will not bear offspring, neither will a man-man relationship.   This is a fact.  A scientific fact.  This one little difference is what separates the man-woman relationship from all other types of human relationships.  Now, I realize that not all man-woman relationships are beneficial to society in this way (i.e. adding new members) and in fact some man-woman sexual relationships can be harmful (i.e. father-daughter sexual relationship).  So one can say that the State has a vested interest in a healthy man-woman relationship, because this is the ONLY relationship that will ensure the State gets news members added to it. 
 
(D)  So the State is completely justified when it upholds certain relationships over others.   In fact, one can argue that the State is obligated to promote and encourage those relationships that ensure its existence—namely, the man-woman relationship.  And not just ANY man-woman relationship, but a “healthy” man-woman relationship, because “healthy” relationships are want ensure the offspring are healthy emotionally, physically, etc.    
 
Is the State obligated to recognize all relationships as being equal?  No.  Why not?  Because not all relationships are equal, and there is no compelling reason for the state to do this (see A above)
 
Having the State recognize, codify or enact laws that acknowledge a particular relationship is not a “right”.  Can two people “be together”, even have sex together?  Yes, absolutely.  SHould the state step in and prohibit two people from being together?  No, not at all-- that's not what I'm arguing.   Is the State obligated to recognize and “legalize” any such relationship as a 'marriage".  No, not at all.  It’s not a “right” to have your relationship recognized by the State….
 
What you are asking for is the State to recognize and treat a same-sex relationship as if it’s equal to male-female relationship.  It’s not (see C above).  The State is not here to cater to every whim and fancy of the populace. 
 
If two guys want to be together (or two gals), there’s nothing prohibiting them.  However, what you want is for the State to recognize this type of relationship as equal to a male-female one.  If the State doesn’t recognize this as a “marriage”, will that prevent the two guys (gals) from being together?  No. 

Perhaps the two guys won’t get the perks/benefits that a male-female relationship would?  Ok.  What is wrong with that—the State has a vested interest to encourage and promote, perhaps via benefits and perks, the healthy male-female relationship (See D above).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the State saying "In order to get the benefit or perk of X, you must do Y".  Now let's just say we substitute some items for X and Y:  "In order to get the benefit of special tax privileges, you must marry someone of the opposite sex".  Does this discriminate?  No.  Why not?  Because it is a choice on whether or not you want to marry someone of the opposite sex.  

Round 2
Published:
Before we begin: something is either legal or illegal. There are no laws against juggling balls in your back yard, therefore doing so is legal. In every country where there is no gay marriage, there is a law prohibiting gay marriage. This isn't about passing laws that allow gay marriage, this is about revoking laws prohibiting gay marriage.

The primary objective of the state is to serve its citizens. Think of the state as the CEO of a company. The citizens all own stocks in the company. If the CEO does things that only benefit him, he gets fired. We live in a democracy and not in Oceania.
Because of that, your argument about what benefits the state is wrong. It doesn't matter what benefits the state, what matters is what benefits the citizens. An individual is more important than society as a whole. Countries where this was not true, like the Soviet Union, have failed disastrously. The state is a servant of its people, and it must do what its people tell it to do. There is simply no reason for the state to deny its citizens the right to marry. If two consenting adults want to marry, let them.

Saying things like "Gays marrying will result in the collapse of the state" is simply ridiculous.



Published:
I agree, the CEO (State) should not do things that only benefit them.   But put another way, the primary purpose of the State is to ensure the continued existence of the community.  If the community ceases to exist, then the State has failed in its purpose. 
 
So how exactly does same-sex marriage benefit the citizens?  It makes them happy?  It’s not the job of the State/Government to make the citizens happy.  There are lots of activities that make citizens happy.  Again, the purpose of the State is not to cater to every whim and fancy of the citizens.  The purpose of the State is not to legalize everything that makes its citizens happy—that’s foolish. 
 
Did I say Gays marrying would result in the collapse of the state?  Nope, not at all.  And I challenge you show me where I said that.  Am I condoning the “outlawing” of same-sex couples being together.  Again, nope, not at all.  The State/Government has every right to treat relationships differently, and there is a very real valid reason why the State/Government would want to encourage/promote a male-female marriage over other types of relationships.  I can’t think of any reason why the State/Government would want to promote/encourage “same-sex” unions other than the fact it makes the people happy—but again, this is not valid/good enough reason.  It is not the role  State/Government is not here to cater to every whim of the people
 
Why do you feel it’s the State/Governments’ obligation to recognize a same-sex union as a marriage?  If they refuse to do it, does that mean the same-sex couple can’t be together?  No, absolutely not.  The same-sex couple can still be together all they want, what they won’t have is the State/Government’s “blessing” saying “I hereby declare this to be a marriage”.  Why is it so important for the State/Government to declare it so?  There is no compelling argument for the State/Government to recognize a same-sex union as a marriage.  “because it’s citizens say so” or “because the citizens vote for it” is not a compelling argument. 

Round 3
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Forfeited
Round 5
Forfeited
Published:
Guess the we're not debating this anymore?
Added:
--> @SupaDudz
My profile picture does not determine my views.
Countries should be secular and not discriminate against homosexuals based on religions.
Instigator
#7
Added:
Countries can be influenced by religion and such things that outlaw this. We should not give up religion and tradition just for a conservative movement
#6
Added:
--> @TheAtheist
For having Ben Shapiro as your profile, this is not very cash money argument for you to make
#5
Added:
--> @Alec
True, but that is not what the Debate is about. The debate is about whether or not the State (government) should codify and enact legislation to "legalize" same-sex relationships as "marriages". I'm going to argue that the State has no obligation to recognize a same-sex union the same as a man-woman union.
I'm not going to argue and say that the State should outlaw gay marriage. In no way am I saying that. I'm saying the State is not obligated to "legalize" a same-sex union.
Contender
#4
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
If there are no laws against an inflatable Barney, it’s already legal. Many countries, however, do have laws against gay marriage.
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @Alec
This will be revealed as the debate unfolds. My argument is that the State (Gov't) has no reason to formally recognize a relationship between two same-sex individuals. Just because the State doesn't formally recognize it doesn't mean it's illegal and worthy of punishment. I can go out and put a giant inflatable Barney in my backyard-- this harms no one (of course my neighbors may beg to differ). There are no laws that specifically state I can do this-- nor are there laws that prohibit this either. Simply because an activity doesn't "harm any one" is not a good enough reason for the State (Government) to go out and Codify and enact legislation calling this activity (putting up an inflatable Barney) as "legal".
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
Anything illegal ought to have a punishment. What do you think the maximum punishment for homosexuality should be?
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro stars off his case quite straight forward. That there is no harm from Gay marriage, and that most objections are related to religion; which should not be used as a basis for the state to discriminate.
Con argues the state shouldn’t get in the way of some arbitrary behaviour - but this doesn’t mean the state needs to codify it.
Con also argues that homosexuality is harmful via setting bad examples. While I am willing to buy this arguments, con should quantify this.
Cons major argument is that the purpose of the state is to uphold relationships that help the survival of the state.
Pro points out the failure of cons argument - that the states in question aren’t simply allowing it, but not codifying it - they are outright making it illegal.
Secondly, pro rejects cons argument about the role of the state - that the goal of the state should be to serve its citizens.
Finally, cons argument here helps tie this one up for me; as he mostly undermines his resolution.
Con argues that homosexuals will not bring about the downfall of the state - and that its okay for the state to treat different types of relationship differently.
If I accept this; it does not provide any justification of why gay marriage should be illegal. The jump from simply allowing the state to promote one relationship over another to allowing them to make gay marriage illegal is too large not to be supported with justification.
From the second round, pro sets up the reason gay marriage should be legal, by stating the state should be supporting its citizens. From here con must provide a rebuttal showing a clear harm In allowing gay marriage to be illegal. As con doesn’t offer this tangible harm, I have to award this to pro.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro defines legalized as "not illegal" and defined it first in the debate. Con does not object to the definition but still seems to be operating under the belief "legalized" means written into law to allow. It may be because of the confusion about marriage. Marriage does not need to be civil. It can be done with no authorities recognizing it.
Con does not object to the definition of legal or pro's argument that it harms nobody to remove laws making gay marriage illegal. Con argues that gay marriage should not be codified into law but that is not being argued here and pro seems to agree. Obvious win for pro