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.
My profile picture does not determine my views.
Countries should be secular and not discriminate against homosexuals based on religions.
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
For having Ben Shapiro as your profile, this is not very cash money argument for you to make
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.
If there are no laws against an inflatable Barney, it’s already legal. Many countries, however, do have laws against gay marriage.
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".
Anything illegal ought to have a punishment. What do you think the maximum punishment for homosexuality should be?