EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1233

That Even Outside of Religion, Gay Marriage is Wrong

(PRO)
WINNER!
2 points
(CON)
0 points
DTinfinityDTinfinity (CON)
I. Human Rights

A. UDHR

My first argument will be that the UDHR, or the United Unions for Human Rights, shows that gays should have equal rights and are an equal part of society. There are a few articles in the UDHR that propose the idea that gay marriage should be accepted by society. Article one states:

Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

This article means that anyone, no matter what race or sexuality, should have equal rights. This means gays should have right of choice and marriage, something they are denied. Straight couples have both the right of choice and the right of marriage, so it is not moral to deny someone a right just because of their sexual orientation. Furthermore, it is even more immoral to deny someone a right over what they can not control (being gay.)

One may argue that being gay simply isn't a choice (to refute the argument above.) However, studies on the human brain have shown that a gay man's brain is more similar to a straight woman's brain than a straight man's brain which shows us it is perfectly reasonable for a person with that type of brain to be attracted to a person of the same gender.

Before I conclude this argument, I would like to state another UDHR article that clearly states that gays should have the right to get married, as should anyone.

Article 16: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."

This statement concludes that no one should be denied marriage, not even gays. The article prohibits discrimination against people. We can not morally (according to the UDHR) deny gay and lesbian marriage, as it would be discrimination.

B. ICCPR and Constitution

Now, we need to look at how gay marriage is legally accepted. The ICCPR is a legally-binded document that states what rights humans should have. This document, also, supports gay marriage. Article 23:2 states:

"The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized."

Notice how the article states "of men and women." This does not mean it has to be marriage between a man and woman, but rather both between a man and a woman and between same sexes. Also note that the article states that we shall recognize the gay's- and everyone's- rights to marry. I ask you, can we really disobey a legally binded document just for religious reasons?

And if one article is enough, Article 26:1 more clearly states that gay marriage should be accepted under law.

"All persons are equal before the law... ...The law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination."

Equal under law. Protection against discrimination. These are two things that are not being done for the gays. They are not equal under law, as not all gays are allowed marriage. They are being discriminated against for something they can't control. Technically, not letting gays have the right of both choice and marriage is a direct violation of a legally binded document. Before I come to an end, the Constitution:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

The basis and foundation of the U.S.A finds gays equal (and therefore should have equal rights). Do you really need more than a document that founds a country to prove my point?

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-01 22:55:06
| Speak Round
18Karl18Karl (PRO)
1. Choice or Nature?
This is the question that we are faced with everyday; homosexuals argue that their condition (I can find no other word to describe it) is natural. However, if we are to gather all the evidence, it wouldn't be sufficient enough to say that homosexuality is a choice; for example, Chicago University Sociologists found out that urban males, at the age of 14, were more likely to become homosexuals than their rural counterparts; apart from this, "gay conversion" camps have been proven to be highly successful, as 9 out of 10 participants in that camp were "converted" to being hetereosexuals again.

The opponent then brings up two articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; I would like to pay special attention to the wording of the first article.
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"

The dispute here is whether homosexuality is a choice or a condition; when the opponent states that homosexuality is a condition, he has ignored all the evidence that proves the contrary. This subject has been a controversial subject in the world of psychology, and conclusions are much disputed. The opponent then brings up the point of morality, and how denying homosexuals rights is immoral. However, what can we define as moral? Morality is subjective; if one is to say that it is moral to eat meat, then vegetarian might object this, because morality is subjective. We have similar case here; to deny homosexuals the right to marriage is immoral, but immoral to what standards? To atheism? To Christianity? To what?

I would also like to pay special attention to the second article that the opponent has stated; Article 16. At no point in that clause did it state the equal rights for people with different sexualities to engage in such actions like marriage; the opponent then goes on about discrimination. At no point in the clause, or in the article itself, was discrimination even mentioned; the purpose of this article is to define who has the rights to marry. It states nothing about marriage equality for homosexuals.

The opponent then goes on to describe two more important documents in the defining of the rights of the common man; the US Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I would like to put your interests on Article 23:2, which states that "The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognised." The opponent has interpreted this in a rather abnormal way; he has stated that this clause includes both hetereosexuals and homosexuals. However, there is, again, no mention of sexuality anywhere in the clause, or article. If this document wanted homosexuals to be given the same rights as hetereosexuals in the respects of marriage equality, then clearly sexuality must have been stated somewhere in the article. In fact, the word "sexuality" is not stated at all in the whole document.

I would now like to introduce my points:

I. Traditions are harmed by Gay Marriage
An example of this would be Thailand. Thailand has been one of the most tolerant countries, in regards to homosexuality, in the world. Homosexuals were first given equal rights in 1956. The untold effects of gay unions in Thailand has been largely one of traditions; while gay marriages are not recognised by law, they in return, have a de-facto marriage. Gay marriages in Thailand have had diverse affects upon the traditions of Thailand; over the last years, traditional Thai marriages have decreased in number, and the number of homosexual marriages (although this is an estimate) has increased over the last three years. We can see a correlation between the number of both; homosexual marriages in Thailand have been more Western Inclined in many ways, because traditional Thai ones would require a women and a man. To think that gay marriage is correct in this sense would be to encourage the eradication of Thai culture and traditions, and in a sense, the identity of the Thai people. Although I am using an example of only one culture, in a sense I am doing so with all far-eastern and Sub-Indian cultures. Recently, the Supreme Court of India deemed homosexuality illegal and criminalized it; it was also largely on the basis of cultural preservation. The massive weddings of far-east and Sub-Indian cultures require a husband and a wife; by introducing gay marriage, we would be eradicating these traditions and ritual, and in a sense, eradicating the national and cultural pride of these nations subliminally. Marriage plays an important role in the development of identity.

II. A Natalist Approach to Gay Marriage
The very institution of marriage if for reproduction and the continuing of the bloodline of the particular family, and in a sense, of a whole entire people. The only way reproduction can be achieved is by hetereosexual sexual intercourse, as apart from homosexual sexual intercourse; although the opponent might use the classic argument of adoption, an average family in the United States of America has 2 children. However, if the homosexual population gets married and decides to adopt one children, the population growth would significantly decline; for example, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had to announce to the population "please have more children" due to the decline and stabilisation of population growth in his country. This might be due to the legal status of lesbians to have sexual intercourse; although there is a law preventing gay sexual intercourse in Singapore, that law isn't enforced. I would also like to bring our attention to the health threats of unregulate homosexual intercourse; up to 20% of all gays have HIV/AIDs, although this varies throughout each region. Again, marriage leads to intercourse, and this is the problem we are faced with right now. We can therefore conclude that homosexual marriage, which leads to having homosexual sexual intercourse, would lead to serious population declines and lead to problems that we have never faced before.

III. Religion Condemns It
The motion we are faced here states that "even outside religion". This quote is inclusive of religion; therefore, we can use religious sources in calling gay marriage wrong. As apart from traditions, which religion is so closely tied with, religion itself condemns it. The opponent states that we shouldn't sacrifice human rights for religion. But in reality, religion has played a huge role in history, and eradicating it would make humanity a bunch of nihlists and pessimists who have no meaning in what they do everyday. Christianity defines marriage as the "union of man to women", not the "union of spouse to spouse". Christianity affirms that a hetereosexual family was natural, because it was created by god, and cites a story now known as "Sodom and Gommorah", in which "sodomites" were killed by god for attempting to have an unagreed sexual intercourse with angels. In the New Testament, Romans I, states that homosexuality is unnatural because for god created males to love females. Apart from Christianity, some sects of Buddhism condemns homosexuality as a lack of control over one's sexual desires; the most notable critics come from the Therevada sect. Just recently, the priesthood of all homosexuals were revoked, although this law is not enforced in rural temples.

These arguments I have put forth are important aspects of humanity's survival for the last 2 milleniums. Gay marriage presents a very, I repeat, very complex problem towards us humans. We as humans need a religion to guide us and to make us diverse; we humans need to reproduce to keep our blood going; we humans need culture to provide a sense of identity. By giving certain people, the minority, rights in the sacrifice of these three things is a sacrifice that I am unwilling to make; many people are unwilling to make this sacrifice too. Gay marriage must be outlawed for the good of humanity.






Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-12 14:40:28
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
18Karl18Karl
I hope that gave you some challenges and made this debate more entertaining for you DTinfinity. Good luck!
Posted 2014-04-12 14:41:03
nzlockienzlockie
Don't give up bro, there's still two more rounds! Go out swinging at least!
Posted 2014-04-11 20:18:26
18Karl18Karl
:)

I'm dead
Posted 2014-04-11 13:04:40
nzlockienzlockie
There's only two more rounds to go... nobody has pulled off the win after forfeiting the first two rounds... nobody!
I'm not going to lie, the thought of seeing it for the first time has me creaming myself right now - but there's no way! There's just no way!

Kc1999 is DONE!
Posted 2014-04-11 09:48:30
ADreamOfLibertyADreamOfLiberty
No way, Kc1999's brilliant double forfeit can't be beat.
Posted 2014-04-10 06:48:06
nzlockienzlockie
Nice strategic move in round two DTinfinity! I don't want to speak out of turn here, but that might just have been the game-clencher there!
Posted 2014-04-09 06:51:35
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-04-28 17:20:13
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: 18Karl
Reasoning:
This was a tough one to judge, because of the vast numbers of forfeits. Ignoring the forfeits, pro had an unrefuted substantive case, thus met their BOP. I felt pro's rebuttals were particularly weak, however, they were ultimately better than no rebuttals.

Feedback:
DON'T FORFEIT. Goes without saying.

Pro needs to work on their rebuttals (more comprehensive - choice or condition doesn't really answer his brain studies, for example, but is just an appeal to uncertainty by simply ignoring the substance of his point) and structure (more clear, especially around rebuttals).

Con - in general I don't think a legal line of attack is very strong in this kind of motion. Moral cases work better because then you can draw out a much more personal message. "Imagine if you woke up, age 13, and found out you were gay..."
0 comments on this judgement
2014-05-02 04:24:16
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: 18Karl

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • No HTML formatting
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: 1 day