You are on page 1of 2

Hendrik Hertzberg once said, Marriage should be between a spouse and a spouse, not

between a gender and a gender.

Ladies and gentleman, esteemed opponents, Mr. Neri. Goodmorning.

Since I am the first speaker, allow me the privilege of defining the parameters of this
debate.

This debate will only be about the legality and morality of same sex marriage. Other
matters pertaining to such topic will be dealt with accordingly in another time. For
reasons of objectivity and fairness, we shall refrain from using religious views in our
arguments.

Same sex marriage is defined as a marriage of two individuals of the same sex. Going
by this definition, same sex marriage is marriage of two people possessing the same
biological sex regardless of their gender identification and whatever operation or
procedure they might have undergone as in the case of transsexuals.

What is marriage? A broad definition by Oxford is The legally or formally recognized


union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as
partners in a relationship. We might note that this definition is quite liberal as this
includes same-sex marriage in its definition.

The main source of the argument regarding same-sex marriage can be traced back to
homosexuality. The argument for the unnaturalness of homosexuality is that it is an
aberration and that it doesnt exist in nature. While there are many that will argue this,
the truth is that about 1500 species in nature that exhibit homosexual tendencies and
practices (source: Against Nature?, 2006).This research proves that contrary to what is
believed, homosexuality does occur even in non-rational beings such as animals, which
have no concept of society and culture, thus disproving the notion that homosexuality is
caused by exposure to the wrong society and culture.

Therefore, if homosexuality is natural, then we must consider it as an integral part of


human nature. Thus, to deny marriage based on the bigoted idea that homosexuality is
unnatural would be to deprive homosexuals a basic human right- the right to marriage.

Our concept of marriage is very fluid nowadays. Marriage is no longer for procreation
and the creation of a family. Indeed the reasons for marriage range a whole rainbow of
reasons. To claim that same sex marriage harms the institute of traditional marriage is
ignorant. Is it because same sex marriage couples cannot conceive a child the usual
way? Going by this argument, then the marriage of sterile couples also threaten the
traditional concept of marriage for it would mean a failure to procreate. Furthermore,
just because the state will allow the legalization of same-sex marriage doesnt mean
that the right and privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples would be
infringed. I dare you to name a single tangible effect, direct or indirect that would affect
the functioning of a heterosexual couple should same-sex marriage be legalized.

If we legalize same-sex marriage, then married same sex couples would be able
to file taxes jointly, own conjugal property and enjoy the other rights and privileges given
to married couples.

Now, on to the argument that same-sex marriage is immoral. For most of us,
morality is shaped by tradition and culture- in fact many people say that same-sex
marriage is not normal because there is no historical precedent for it. And to them I
reply: there have been many historical precedents for atrocious things such as racism
and the lack of human rights. Just because something is rooted in history, it doesnt
make it automatically right. And just because a wrong (in this case, the denial of
marriage to same-sex couples) is rooted deeply in tradition doesnt mean we will should
allow concessions to correct this wrong. And isnt the denial of same-sex marriage
wrong?

Lastly, with regards to the children of same-sex marriage couples. There is an


assertion that the children of a heterosexual marriage are more emotionally well-
adjusted and stable. However, there is zero research to back up this assertion. In fact,
there are studies disproving it. Studies conducted by the Australian and American
governments and the American Academy of Pediatrics all point out to the fact that (and I
quote) children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with
regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities
and social stigma.

The other arguments shall be tackled by my other team mates. In the meantime,
I leave you this quote by Simone de Beauvoir, considered a pillar of feminism. In itself,
homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of
loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or
obligation.