Bad
argument No. 1
"Gay
marriage is a basic human right."
There
are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such
as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important
restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. We already
recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one
must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and
philosophy—anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons
do not have the right to marriage—children, multiple partners, family members,
and those already married.
Bad
argument No. 2
"Gay
marriage is a civil right."
This
is based on the false assumption that homosexuality is the same sort of human
difference as race. But while the difference between sexual orientations is
profound (one desires the opposite sex and procreates while the other does
neither), racial difference has no intrinsic bearing on love and marriage. This
is why philosophically opposed African American leaders such as Shelby Steele
and Jesse Jackson agree that "gay marriage is simply not a civil rights
issue."
Bad
argument No. 3
"Opposition
to gay marriage is discrimination."
Let's
not mistake rational restriction for unconstitutional discrimination. Just as
we rightly restrict marriage against polygamists, there is no constitutional
reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations
have defined for millennia: the union of a man and woman. This does not deny
anyone the "equal protection of the laws," since this restriction
applies equally to every individual.
Bad
argument No. 4
"Marriage
has changed through the centuries, so gay marriage would be just another
development in its ever-changing definition."
True,
our understandings of sex and the role of women in marriage have grown. While
these changes are important, they are trivial when compared to the agreement
across time and from East to West that the social institution of marriage is
about the union of sexual opposites for, primarily, the procreation of
children, as well as intimate companionship.
Bad
argument No. 5
"Opposition
to gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state."
It
is true that Western marriage and family law stem in part from the
Judeo-Christian tradition, as do many of our other laws. But the separation of
church and state (assured by constitutional law) is different from the enforced
separation of religion and politics, which is forbidden by the First Amendment.
Bad
argument No. 6
"Marriage
is necessary for gays to gain important legal benefits."
Homosexuals
don't need marriage to gain most significant legal benefits. For example,
hospital visitation depends on the wishes of the patient. If families disagree
about medical treatment, even marriage won't solve the problem, as the Terry
Schiavo case has demonstrated. The answer is medical power of attorney, which
is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Another example is Social
Security benefits. Children's benefits are not dependent on the marital status
of their parents, and the only certain benefit is a one-time death benefit of
$255. A wife can access her deceased husband's Social Security, but if she has
had her own work history, her Social Security benefit would usually be higher
than the survivor's benefit—and she must choose one or the other. Most other
benefits are based on work history.
Bad
argument No. 7
"There is
no proof that gay marriage would change the marriages of heterosexuals."
If
marriage is all about fulfilling human desires and not parenting (as many
proponents of gay marriage argue), it makes sense to dissolve marriages that
don't seem fulfilling. Recent experience in Scandinavia suggests that when a
society reduces marriage to this minimalist definition, families dissolve more
quickly. British demographer Kathleen Kiernan has shown that since gay marriage
came to Scandinavia in the early '90s, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has leaped
significantly, and the family dissolution rate has risen. Only where the gay
marriage movement had little success has the out-of-wedlock birthrate remained
low. Marriage has virtually disappeared in the most gay-friendly districts of
Norway, formerly the most conservative of the Nordic countries.
Bad
argument No. 8
"Social
science shows that gay parenting is no different from heterosexual
parenting."
Many
studies have claimed this, but, according to University of Chicago's emeritus
professor of ethics and social sciences Don Browning, none of these studies was
rigorous or large-scale. Stephen Nock, scholar of marriage at the University of
Virginia, writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting
"contained at least one fatal flaw," and "not a single one was
conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific
research." Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were
more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more
frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their
families (Adolescence, 1996; Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 1986; American Sociological Review, 2001).
Bad
argument No. 9
"The fact
that many married couples do not have children proves that marriage is not
intrinsically related to procreation."
Yet
the fact remains that most married couples either have had or will have
children. The exceptions prove the rule: Being married tends to prevent a
person from having a child with someone other than his or her spouse. In all
cultures, even if some couples are childless, marriage as an institution is
principally concerned with children and, therefore, society's future.
Bad
argument No. 10
"Heterosexuals
have done a terrible job at marriage. Who are they to speak?"
It
is true that half of all new heterosexual marriages end in divorce. But far
more than half have succeeded, if you count marriages established before the
divorce boom of the '70s and '80s. Yet the point is not how many are
successful, but what marriage means. To accommodate gays, marriage would have
to change into something it has never been: an institution for same-sex love
without the biological possibility for children. It will probably not require
sexual fidelity, which even the majority of unfaithful heterosexuals have
conceded is the ideal. Some of the most prominent proponents of gay marriage,
such as Andrew Sullivan, say the ideal needs to change, since gay understanding
of fidelity includes other sexual liaisons.
Bad
argument No. 11
"The
resistance to gay marriage is motivated by fear and loathing for
homosexuals."
While
no large group is free of hate-mongers, the vast majority resist because they
strongly believe in the positive features of traditional marriage. They have
experienced the benefits of the lifelong union of two persons who are
complementary in many important ways—biological, psychological, temperamental,
and spiritual—and who, because of this complementarity, have a unique capacity
to bear and nurture children. It is appreciation for the unparalleled success
of this complementarity—not fear or hatred for gays—that motivates most
Americans to oppose gay marriage.
Bad
argument No. 12
"Those who
resist gay marriage are irrational, Neanderthal, and bigoted."
The
gay marriage movement is only a few decades old. Could it be that billions of
people who for millennia upheld traditional marriage were really irrational and
bigoted? On the contrary, we would argue that a common-sense understanding of
life leads in the direction we have argued. Further, it seems clear that reason
without religious vision misses the depth dimension of human life. It tends to
dissolve basic human institutions into contracts between persons who make
whatever they want of them, to the detriment of children and society.
Bad
argument No. 13
"The legal
issue of gay marriage ought to be left up to the states."
Quite
the opposite, we need a national definition of marriage. Without a public
definition embodied in a constitutional amendment, activist judges at various
levels will undo the conviction of the vast majority of Americans. Some already
have, in defiance of state defense-of-marriage acts. Precedent for a national
definition is ample—the federal government outlawed polygamy in the 19th
century and the Supreme Court has ruled in the 20th century on many cases
regarding marriage.
In
sum, there are many bad reasons for supporting gay marriage. In contrast, there
are many good reasons for protecting historic understandings of marriage, a
public institution whose fate will determine the future of our society.
# these arguments came from somewhere...
In a contest between the desires of
some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we cannot allow the children to
lose.
To the honourable adjudicators, to
the moderator, the time keeper, to our opposing team, friends, ladies and
gentlemen, a pleasant afternoon. The first speaker of the negative side has
discussed to you our first two arguments. Now, I will be discussing our third
argument, enlightening you that marriage isn’t only about adults but most
especially, the welfare of the children.
3. Same sex marriage confuses
children about gender roles and expectations of society.
Children
can`t entirely succeed in life without a male and a female role model at home.
The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the
traditional family of man, woman, and children. In fact, we`ve proven this for
almost a lifetime. Aren`t we raised in a family where the composition is
heterosexual? The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is
the weakening of families since family is the basic social institution of the
society. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the
situation worse. Not only this, but it confuses children about gender roles and
expectations of society.
Since parents are always the
primary basis of life hood learning and development for young children,
gradually more and more children will adopt their parent's views on same sex
marriage. As they grow older, they will inevitably be choosing the same path as
their parents did. So, the confusion
between what is right or wrong then comes. Because during the psychosocial
stages of children`s development, they
start to face different psychosocial crises like the identity diffusion and ask
who are they. They will start asking their parents as to why they differ in the
normal construction of family and start to be confused as to who is the mother
and the father. And even if same-sex parents would introduce as who the father or
mother is, still what children hear from the environment cannot possibly be
taken for granted. Since a child`s mind is a blank slate, known as tabula rasa,
the combating information and explanation of both their parents and the
environment provides will confuse them more.
Take this into consideration ladies and gentlemen, the most vulnerable
are children. Same-sex marriage may be in the best interest of adult
homosexuals who yearn for social and legal recognition of their unions, but it’s not in the best interest of
children. Proponents of same-sex marriage believe love is all children really
need, but children need more than love. They require the distinctive qualities
and complementary natures of a male and female parent.
The ideal family structure for children is a two-parent, mother-father
family. This structure consistently shows that children raised in such families
are more likely to thrive- psychologically, mentally, and physically—than
children reared in any other kind of family configuration. Mothers and fathers simply aren’t interchangeable. Two women can both be
good mothers, but neither can be a good father. One-sex parenting, whether by a
single parent or a homosexual couple, deprives children of the full range of
parenting offered by dual-sex couples. Only mother-father
families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent
of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early
in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes
later in life.
According to Mark D. Pena and
I quote, the society we live in is a prison where the hearts of the people are
the judges, and their eyes are the cold bars. Let us not defy reason and logic
ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, I am now ready to entertain questions.
