This House Would Legalize Gay Marriage

This.. this motion needs a special mention and really needs to get featured in this website of ours. This motion is the bane for all conservative newbie debaters and liberal experienced debaters alike. Conservative newbie debaters drawing (+) under this motion will be as likely to claw their heads in frustration as liberal experienced debaters are when drawing (-). So it is quite the running gag in our debate circuit (and we think this should apply in other debating communities as well), that, how to know if you have progressed as a debater, is by seeing where you scratch your hairs in frustration when drawing the ballot for this motion. If it has changed, then that means that you have improved. Ha ha.

The main discourse circulating around this motion is around the idea of the scope of influence governments have over people’s interpersonal relationships, through establishments of laws, bodily regulations, including marriage institutions. Remember, always exercise political correctness. No matter how much you think that being a homosexual will land you on a private 1-on-1 session with Satan in Hell after you die, you shouldn’t express that opinion out loud, just because. It’s just wrong. Furthermore, when being faced with a Team Negative who rejects this motion because the holy scriptures say so, affirmative teams can always just concede (for the lulz) that being homosexual is indeed a sin, but they still want to legalize gay marriage because fork religion and because they are atheists and actually there are some religion that glorify homosexual relationships, not all religions frown upon them. And that this motion is about government intervention anyway.

Anyway, just like how the extent of smoking’s harm is not the main topic of discussion in This House Would Ban Smoking in Public Places, the extent of sinfulness in being a homosexual is not the main topic of discussion here. And just like how you don’t expect Team Affirmative to assert that “smoking is harmful” in that motion, you don’t expect Team Negative to assert that “sodomy is a sin” in this motion.

Team Affirmative

1. Because there is this threshold of acceptance for sex, and thus, equality in marriage should be upheld.

What constitutes gender difference? The type of genitals possessed? No. It so commonly happens that some people will often refer to tomboyish girls using male pronouns whilst others still refer to her (or him) using her supposed female pronoun. So goes to queer boys. Sex is a matter of threshold in acceptance, and these thresholds are annoyingly arbitrary. And since there are no fixed boundaries regarding the difference between a male and a female, we might as well as just treat them all equally. Basically, the difference, even if it is supposed to exist (via the differentiation of genitals), matters not when we are talking about equal rights. If we grant people who have a penis and a vagina the right to marry, there are no legal grounds and basis for us to deny marriage between two penises and/or two vaginas whatsoever.

The premise in this argument can then branch out into the source of equal rights, and how the essence of them is absolute, even within the same sex and among different sexes and the interconnection between them. You can then also explore the harms which might manifest if they are not upheld (harms of the status quo).

2. Because this is a form of government protection.

It is unfair for the people who are undocumented to receive unfair treatment; it is unfair for these people to be shunned from society. Not only is it unfair, it is also harmful. Part of the reason that undermines crime committed by illegal and undocumented immigrants are that they “have nothing to lose” – they are already criminals just by existing anyway – might as well as just add more insult to their own injury. But anyway, that’s that, this’s this.

The point of this argument, is that governments have a moral responsibility to account and care for all the components of its own people. Explore the various possible responsibilities a government might be bestowed on, and to which parties those responsibilities have a form of interest vested upon. Also explain the process of how those responsibilities manifest themselves – there has to be a form of take and give involved in the process of the government attaining position of accountability and power over its people, and in that process, the responsibility contained, within the package, alongside with the power, obtained.

Anyway, what about the practicalities? What about the tangible harm, aside from the philosophy behind government having the responsibility to protect?

It is especially dangerous for the homosexuals to be rejected by the society. Dangerous and harmful for the homosexuals themselves, of course. Subtle discrimination is already harmful, not to mention active discrimination. Subtle discrimination deny these homosexuals access and entrance to their neighbors’ parties and other social events. In terms of socialization, these homosexuals will not get any access to any contacts whatsoever, whilst we have to acknowledge the fact that networking is an essential tool to possess in order to survive this world, and that humans are social creatures in essence.

Cohabiting will arise suspicion from their acquaintances, colleagues, and neighbors alike. They are hindered from being able to express affection, because even the slightest exposure found out by the public means that they will forever retain the “faggot” label imprinted on them. The only way out, is by having these people to declare that they really have nothing to hide, that they really are a couple. Marriage. And the only way for these people to marry under the status quo (just for the sake of showing people that they are perfectly “normal”) is if either of the partners perform sex change. Even then, unfortunately the negative social stigma towards transsexuals still alienates these people. Furthermore, these sex changes violate the essence of love these couple initially had when they were still of the same sex.

3. Because government intervention.

Marriage is not “one” thing, let alone it being a “religious” thing. If marriage was a religious thing then you couldn’t (and shouldn’t) get married in court or on a boat. And then Atheists couldn’t marry. So, it’s clear that marriage is NOT a religious thing. A marriage is actually multiple “contracts”:

1. Personal Contract: the people getting married are promising to love/honor/cherish/take care of each other. The government and church really has nothing to do with this. Although, traditionally, this contract is signed before God by most people. So, yeah, whatever.
2. Social Contract: The people getting married are asking everyone around them to treat the couple as an unit, and at the same time promise to act as an unit. Or, in other words, you are asking society to treat both of you as one, and the ceremony is a formal declaration of both of you “polymerizing”. Again, the government has nothing to do with this. The government cannot force other people to treat you as one. Traditionally, the religious institutions represented society — so, you would make this promise to the priest — although it’s becoming less true now.
3. Legal Contract: The government gives you some rights as a married couple (shared property, tax benefits, insurance benefits, etc.) and at the same time gives you responsibilities (child care responsibilities, debt responsibilities, etc.). The Quran and The Bible has NOTHING to do with this. And the government enforces the legal contract only, not the personal and social ones. In any democracy, religion SHOULD NOT have the right or the responsibility to make the law. That’s what elected representatives are for.

Anyway, when we talk about the government allowing gay marriage, we are talking about the legal contract only. In fact, when we talk about marriage in context of the government, it is implied that we are talking about the legal contract. And religion has nothing to do with it. Government has nothing to do with the personal and social contract. It cannot make 2 married people love each other. It cannot force members of society to accept 2 people as 1 body.

Team Negative

We usually murmur to ourselves “inb4 population issues, inb4 population issues..” every time we get motions like this to anticipate against newbies bringing up the “can’t have children” and “extinction of humanity”. Well, don’t do that. It’s a no-brainer that the world is currently suffering from overpopulation instead of underpopulation. However, there might be a clever way to fashion this debate into another direction: by identifying the different parties that will have differing components that undermine the over and underpopulation. You could characterize the differences between these differing parties, along with their own factors and tendencies to overpopulate and underpopulate. You could also characterize the fundamental difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one. Then, afterwards, connect the tendencies that will constitute the absence of a reproduction towards the demand for legalization as being irrational. Remember, tendencies. Not impact. However, a fair warning from us: it might sound smart, but after 2-3 minutes of adjudicators analyzing this kind of explanation, they’re going to find out how full of sheet these pieces of arguments are. So, yeah, your call. If you’re still interested, anyway, head over to Team Negative Argument 2&3.

1. Because the society is not ready yet.

Governments’ affirmative actions do not always end well. Most of the time, there will be a certain part of the society that is against the ideals of the government favoring a certain group. The anti-feminists versus the feminazis, for example. Or the people who believe in meritocracy. In this case, it’s going to be the religious and the conservatives.

All this hinges on to the percentage of population, which ideals constitute how much of the total – and, of course, the likelihood of a destructive discourse happening. So it’s pretty much more or less like a “do not wake up a sleeping giant” after all.

Proposal debates have always been about trade-off analysis. Sacrificing something for another thing because that something being lost is a price one can pay. Well, the trade-off that will happen in this motion is an unrest among the society for the sake of protection and acceptance for the homosexuals. Team Affirmative is willing to pay that price (facing this unrest), you do not. Why? Of course because this unrest happens to be more expensive, both psychologically and economically, when it takes its toll on all of the citizens (and also the government). And, also, on the other hand, the homosexuals living reclusively is a price you can pay, a pitiful situation you can endure. Why are you willing to pay this continuous price? You can say that it’s because it’s only temporary. It’s only for now; wait until situation gets more accommodative for and receptive towards the homosexuals, and then you will legalize gay marriage after that time has passed. Timeframes refer to the time contexts and biases in which this motion would be applicable—preferable. Time challenge, is a prerogative right in the possession of negative teams. Team Affirmative has the burden of always having to interpret the proposal motion as “going to do it straightaway” whilst Team Negative on the other hand can interpret the proposal motion as either “won’t do it no matter what how or when or where” or “okay we agree to do that but wait”. So, what to do for Team Negative next, is to prove how the social condition and phenomenon is not ready yet for gay marriage legalization. Social stigma and tension refers to a condition where not everybody in the society is of the same page. When society is still divided into some still upholding conservative beliefs and others into liberalism, that is when governments are trying to ignite pandemonium by suddenly taking a side (of liberalism) amidst the dispute. Governments therefore will worsen the status quo by inciting chaos, thanks to this motion. Furthermore, the discourse will have the tendency to be destructive since the people who are against gay marriage, the religious groups, will seem to lose faith in their country, and then unleashes their rage, not to only one, but now to two stakeholders: they do not rage to only the homosexuals, but now to the government too.

And then, remember that you still have to explain why “later” is better than “now”. Remember to put explanations about how status quo is progressing to be more progressive and liberal and more receptive towards gay marriage, so it is better to just wait a little bit more, instead of implementing the motion straightaway. Exposure towards the presence as well as the culture of the homosexuals is getting more intense and frequent as we speak. What was once considered as a taboo is now a topic of study in higher education. A subject. In sociology. What was once almost universally accepted as a deviation, now sees some academicians, physicians, and sociologists classifying them as and testifying that they are normal. Society is getting more and more receptive towards the homosexuals. Just give them more time.

2. Because it is unfair.

Really, though, the whole premise in which Team Negative can rely all their arguments upon is only one, and that is your Team Negative Argument 1. Practically, nothing else, other than what is contained in your Argument 1, as possible elaborations (and/or extensions), would make sense.

But, anyway, hey! You’re here! So let’s try our best in fashioning, sugarcoating, and windowdressing this argument in order not to reveal how racist and discriminative we are (or have to be). So, without further ado:

The fact that there are some certain benefits provided by the government upon marriage means that there is a certain take-and-give which is to be expected from this exchange. The exchange of these individuals choosing to pursue this relationship (getting married) and the benefits granted.

What are they? Less tax paid. Maternity leave. And paternity leave, sometimes. And others. The idea behind the provision of these benefits arise from the fact that government has received assurance from the presence of these couples. Assurance that the generation will not die out and that there will be a continuance in the country’s future. Getting married with a person from a different sex increases the likelihood of an offspring being born, and thus future being reassured.

But, then again, there is surrogacy and adoption. So, yeah, there is really no way out from this predicament. Bad luck, Team Negative.

You should auto-concede that even heterosexuals will sometimes adopt instead of reproduce, and that homosexuals can still hire surrogates, if they really want to. But, the point is, remember to assert (and emphasize!) that your burden of proof relies in the statistical probability, the LIKELIHOOD of that happening. Not that homosexuals will “never” bear any offspring or that heterosexuals “will always” reproduce.
Anyway, the point is, look. No religious arguments. All of them are generally accepted and adhere to public principles and philosophy. No partial ones. Not even a single one. Because a Christian might not study homosexualism, and views towards homosexuals might differ from a Muslim to a Buddhist to a Hindu. But, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims alike study economics. That’s for sure. That is why economics-themed arguments are acceptable, Islam-themed arguments are not.

By the way, you can also talk about how this is unfair for the heterosexuals who actually decide to and the single people who choose to live a.. single. Or celibate life.

3. Because in order to protect discrepancy in the components of a society.

Really, though, the whole premise in which Team Negative can rely all their arguments upon is only one, and that is your Team Negative Argument 1. Practically, nothing else, other than what is contained in your Argument 1, as possible elaborations (and/or extensions), would make sense.

But, anyway, hey! You’re here! So let’s try our best in fashioning, sugarcoating, and windowdressing this argument in order not to reveal how racist and discriminative we are (or have to be). So, without further ado:

The likelihood of homosexual marriage bringing about the end of humanity is zero (might even be less than zero, for the sake of hyperbolic expressions, but, you know, it violates the theorem and rule in mathematics). But, look, humanity consists of different races. And among these races are the various tendencies and propensities to be homosexual. Take an instance of this Gallup survey in the US that came up with the results of “out of the 3.4% of U.S. adults identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT), the highest proportion is in the black community, at 4.6%, then followed by Asians (4.3%), Hispanics (4%) and, lastly, Caucasians (3.2%)”.

Supposing a scenario in which gay marriage is legalized, then there would be a further prolonged duration in which Caucasians reproduce more and constitute more of the total society, compared to the blacks. A scenario like this, if perpetuated, will make the Caucasians, already a majority, even more of a majority; and the blacks, already a minority, even more of a minority. Racism and discrimination thus escalates and become even more difficult of a problem to solve.

Or, let’s take things one step further! The dichotomy of ideals: liberal and conservative, most visible in the manifestation of the Democratic and the Republic Party in the US, shows us more of that statistical problem. Still from the same Gallup survey, an astounding 44% of the LGBT community identify themselves as Democratic, whilst only a meager 13% as Republican. What this means, is that there will be a huge potential discrepancy in how the next generation’s political affiliations distribute. That is, after our generation, this current one, fully reproduce (and by fully, we mean “almost everyone”) and educate their offspring. There will be a significant number of next generation identifying as Republican over the ones as Democratic, thanks to the unequal process of reproduction and education in those two.

But, then again, there is surrogacy and adoption. So, yeah, really no way out from this predicament. Bad luck, Team Negative.

But, you could still argue from the viewpoint of possible outcomes. In statistics. The probability of transmitting conservative ideals (from being a Republican) manifest in two possible options: reproduction, and then education. Education thus would serve as a multiplier effect which catalyzes the reproduction potentials. However, liberalism, due to manifesting in the Democrats which happen to have the more homosexuals, can only manifest in only one possible outcome of process as an option: education. Without the existence of reproduction as the base number to multiply, the multiplier effect of education gets lost in the process and is then rendered useless.

Still sounds stupid and full of sheet to us, though.