Against Same Sex Marriage
It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not
make it marriage. Marriage has always
been a covenant between a man and a
woman which is by its nature ordered
toward the procreation and education
of children and the unity and wellbeing
of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex marriage
propose something entirely different.
They propose the union between two
men or two women. This denies the
self-evident biological, physiological,
and psychological differences between
men and women which find their
complementarity in marriage. It also
denies the specific primary purpose of
marriage: the perpetuation of the
human race and the raising of children.
Two entirely different things cannot be
considered the same thing.
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blo
g/10-reasons-why-homosexual-
marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-
opposed
Pro-Same Sex Marriage
AS TO MARRIAGE IS FOR MAN AND WOMAN
Protecting the traditional definition of marriage is too
subjective. Obergefell reminds that traditional definitions
evolve and once prohibited interracial and accepted
arranged marriages, and it is unrealistic to conclude that
an opposite-sex couple would choose not to marry simply
because same-sex couples may do so.
Human liberty necessarily goes beyond physical liberty, and
includes an unwritten right to make fundamental life
choices. Choosing a life partner is one such fundamental
choice and the decision of two people to formalize their
relationship must be accorded utmost dignity.
Oscar Tan, July 6, 2015
Source: http://opinion.inquirer.net/86450/the-best-
argument-against-same-sex-marriage#ixzz4SLNG0cmU
AS TO PROCREATION
The most common argument, procreation, is also the
easiest to refute. Philippine Family Code author Judge Alicia
Sempio-Diy wrote: The [Code] Committee believes that
marriage may also be only for companionship, as when
parties past the age of procreation still get married.
Oscar Tan, July 6, 2015
The best argument against same-sex marriage
Source: http://opinion.inquirer.net/86450/the-best-
argument-against-same-sex-marriage#ixzz4SLNG0cmU
It also is important to note that marriage is not a mere
means in relation to bearing and raising children. The union
of the spouses is in itself good and remains good if
procreation is not possible.
Marriage is not just a means toward procreation, but a
multi-leveled (bodily, emotional, spiritual) personal union
that is fulfilled by expanding into family, but remains good
in itself if in a particular case it cannot do so.
Patrick Lee, 2008
MARRIAGE, PROCREATION, AND SAME-SEX UNIONS
http://www.patrickleebioethics.com/marriage_and_procre
ation.pdf
This does not mean that the right to marry is less
meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children.
Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to
procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on
the capacity or commitment to procreate.
Obergefell v Hodges, 2010
It Violates Natural Law AS TO RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE

Marriage is not just any relationship
between human beings. It is a relationship
rooted in human nature and thus governed
by natural law.
Natural laws most elementary precept is
that good is to be done and pursued, and
evil is to be avoided. By his natural reason,
man can perceive what is morally good or
bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or
purpose of each of his acts and how it is
morally wrong to transform the means that
help him accomplish an act into the acts
purpose.
One cannot solely invoke religious doctrine, even if
thinly veiled as secular morality. Religious groups
may confront this issue but not impose their choices
on others. Their often vindictive tone contrasts
sharply with Kennedys, and increasingly alienates
millennials who revel in individuality. Those criticized
as religious zealots should at least strive to be up-to-
date, more sophisticated religious zealots.
Oscar Tan, July 6, 2015
The best argument against same-sex marriage
Source: http://opinion.inquirer.net/86450/the-best-
argument-against-same-sex-
marriage#ixzz4SLNG0cmU

Any situation which institutionalizes the

circumvention of the purpose of the sexual
act violates natural law and the objective
norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is

universal and immutable. It applies to the
entire human race, equally. It commands and
forbids consistently, everywhere and always.
Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the
Romans that the natural law is inscribed on
the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-
reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-
harmful-and-must-be-opposed

AS TO DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON THE

It Always Denies a Child Either a Father
or a Mother
It is in the childs best interests that he be
raised under the influence of his natural
father and mother. This rule is confirmed by
the evident difficulties faced by the many
children who are orphans or are raised by a
single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children
will be the norm for all children of a same-
sex marriage. A child of a same-sex
marriage will always be deprived of either
his natural mother or father. He will
PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING OF THE CHILD
Even accepting those premises, it is not clear that one
must oppose the legal recognition of same-sex
marriage, because it is not homosexuality that
threatens to destroy families, but rather
homophobia that does so. This fear of
homosexuality destroys families by causing conflict
between parents and children. Nuclear families are
torn apart when children realize that they have same-
sex attractions or that they deviate from commonly-
accepted standards of masculinity and femininity in
any way.
Daniel Morris, 21 Jul, 2016
Natural Law Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage
necessarily be raised by one party who has
no blood relationship with him. He will
always be deprived of either a mother or a
father role model.
Same-sex marriage ignores a childs best
interests.
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-
reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-
harmful-and-must-be-opposed
Break Down In Face of Evidence
SOURCE:
http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/natural-law-
arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-break-down-
in-face-of-evidence/
Fridays Supreme Court decision not only affirms the
right for same-sex couples to get married, but also
squashes any lingering doubts about what that
marriage will do to the children. As scientific studies
have shown for years, the gender composition of
parents has nothing to do with how successfully their
kids will be raised.
In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy
cited recent Census figures estimating that roughly
120,000 same-sex couples are raising more than
200,000 children nationwide. Without the
recognition, stability, and predictability marriage
offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing
their families are somehow lesser, he wrote.
Azeen Ghorayshi, Jun. 27, 2015
Same-Sex Marriage Isnt Bad For Kids And The
Supreme Court Said So
https://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/same-
sex-marriage-is-fine-for-kids?
utm_term=.vhM2edKm6#.rap86wpQj
Gay couples make good parents. A June 2014 peer-
reviewed University of Melbourne study showed that
children raised by same-sex parents score about six
percent higher than the general population on
measures of general health and family cohesion. A
study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found
that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher
than children of heterosexual parents in social and
academic competence and had fewer social problems.
A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers
were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by
heterosexual parents." As former Washington Post
columnist Ezra Klein wrote, "We should be begging
gay couples to adopt children. We should see this as a
great boon that gay marriage could bring to kids who
need nothing more than two loving parents." In the
United States, around 115,000 children are waiting to
be adopted.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
Recent last-ditch arguments alleged harm to children.
No party to Obergefell contested that same-sex
couples may build nurturing families after adopting or
tapping medical advances to produce babies with
related DNA. Prohibiting same-sex marriage harms

It Validates and Promotes the
Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the family, same-sex
marriage serves to validate not only such
unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in
all its bisexual and transgender variants.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's
life in society. As such, they play a very
important and sometimes decisive role in
influencing patterns of thought and behavior.
They externally shape the life of society, but
also profoundly modify everyones
perception and evaluation of forms of
behavior.
Legal recognition of same-sex marriage
would necessarily obscure certain basic
moral values, devalue traditional marriage,
and weaken public morality.
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-
reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-
harmful-and-must-be-opposed
children by making such families unstable, as only one
parent may legally adopt and have rights in relation to
a child.
Oscar Tan, July 6, 2015
The best argument against same-sex marriage
Source: http://opinion.inquirer.net/86450/the-best-
argument-against-same-sex-
marriage#ixzz4SLNG0cmU
Many studies have demonstrated that childrens well-
being is affected much more by their relationships with
their parents, their parents sense of competence and
security, and the presence of social and economic
support for the family than by the gender or the sexual
orientation of their parents. Children living within same-
sex parent households fare just as well as those children
residing within different-sex parent households
Ellen C. Perrin, Benjamin S. Siegel, the COMMITTEE
ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY
HEALTH, March 2013
Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents
Are Gay or Lesbian
AS TO HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE
No law exists to criminalize homosexual behavior or
expressions or parties about homosexual behavior. Indeed,
even if we were to assume that public opinion is as the
COMELEC describes it, the asserted state interest here that
is, moral disapproval of an unpopular minority is not a
legitimate state interest that is sufficient to satisfy rational
basis review under the equal protection clause.
ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY
- versus -
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
April 8, 2010
G.R. No. 190582
Separation of Church and State
It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex marriage, the State
becomes its official and active promoter. The
State calls on public officials to officiate at
the new civil ceremony, orders public
schools to teach its acceptability to children,
and punishes any state employee who
expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will
see their children exposed more than ever to
this new morality, businesses offering
wedding services will be forced to provide
them for same-sex unions, and rental
property owners will have to agree to accept
same-sex couples as tenants.
AS TO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Every church and religious organization is free to
forbid or encourage whatever behavior they choose.
But we cannot dispense with the fact that our
government's role, in the exercise and discharge of
their Police Power is to guarantee the freedom and
equality of every citizen under the law. A church's
teachings regarding the definition and "sanctity" of
marriage have no place in federal law. Let's not forget
what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Religious groups know it would be unconstitutional
for them to openly enact laws expressly for the
purpose of imposing their religious beliefs on others.
Thus, like other political actors who want to enact
laws for constitutionally impermissible purposes-for
example, to disadvantage individuals because of their
race, gender, religion, or political view.
Keith Gunnar Bentele, Rebecca Sager, Sarah A. Soule,
and Gary Adler, Jr., 1995 - 2009
Breaking Down the Wall between Church and State:
State Adoption of Religious Inclusion Legislation
AS TO LEGALITY OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE
The decision of the Supreme Court is no less
democratic than the passing of a law. This is because
the Supreme Court decides the validity of a law based
on the Constitution. If a law violates the Constitution,
the Supreme Court is empowered to strike the law
down. And who empowered the few unelected
justices? The people.
The people themselves ratified the Constitution,
which ordains a division of powers and a system of
checks and balance. Moreover, the people themselves
limited what they as the majority or their elected
representatives can do when they laid down the Bill of
Rights, the part of the Constitution which lists the
basic and fundamental rights which no law can take
away.
In every situation where marriage affects
society, the State will expect Christians and
all people of good will to betray their
consciences by condoning, through silence
or act, an attack on the natural order and
Christian morality.
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-
reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-
harmful-and-must-be-opposed
It Offends God
This is the most important reason.
Whenever one violates the natural moral
order established by God, one sins and
offends God. Same-sex marriage does just
this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to
love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State.
Rather, it was established by God in Paradise
for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we
read in the Book of Genesis: God created
man in His image; in the Divine image he
created him; male and female He created
them. God blessed them, saying: Be fertile
and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.
(Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus
Christ: From the beginning of the creation,
God made them male and female. For this
cause a man shall leave his father and
mother; and shall cleave to his wife. (Mark
10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished
Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of
homosexuality: The Lord rained down
sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
He overthrew those cities and the whole
Plain, together with the inhabitants of the
cities and the produce of the soil. (Gen.
19:24-25)
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-
reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-
harmful-and-must-be-opposed
Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III,July 06, 2015
Best argument vs same-sex marriage is a dangerous
argument
http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/98515-
argument-same-sex-marriage-dangerous
AS TO DIVINE LAW
Many religious leaders and churches support gay
marriage and say it is consistent with scripture. Gene
Robinson, openly gay former Bishop of the Episcopal
Diocese of New Hampshire, stated in Sep. 2012:
"Scripture says where love is, there is God also. And
they [religious people] see that love in our families,
and I think people can't help but be supportive." Lee
Jefferson, Assistant Professor of Religion at Centre
College, wrote that the Bible makes no mention of
same-sex marriage at all, nor does it make reference
to sexual orientation as it is understood today.
Reform Judaism, which comprises about 80% of the
American Jewish population, endorses same-sex
marriage, and the Central Conference of American
Rabbis has supported gay marriage since 1996. The
Episcopal Church stated in Resolution A095, made in
2006, that it "oppose[s] any state or federal
constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex
civil marriage or civil unions." The Presbyterian
Church (USA) voted in June 2014 to allow its pastors
to marry same-sex couples. The United Church of
Christ General Synod voted in July 2005 to affirm
"equal marriage rights for couples regardless of
gender." The 1996 General Assembly of the Unitarian
Universalist Association adopted "a position in
support of legal recognition for marriage between
members of the same sex."
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT TO HEALTH
AS TO RIGHT TO HEALTH
"Cohabiting doesn't seem to give you the same
improvements in health, or protections for health,"
that marriage does, said Dr. Georges Benjamin,
executive director of the American Public Health
Association. "Thanks to this ruling, same-sex couples
can now enjoy health benefits of marriage equal to
those of opposite-sex couples," he said.

The exact reasons why marriage improves people's

health are not known, but it may be due to a number
of factors, including being in a supportive relationship
and having an improved financial status.

Rachael Rettner, June 26, 2015

How Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Could Improve Health
http://www.livescience.com/51368-same-sex-
marriage-health.html

Same-sex marriage should be legal

YES because No because

Minority Discrimination
Every argument raised by the proposition has a
To not legalize same-sex marriage
practical element to it, none more so than their first
is to further perpetuate the
charge - that current legislation is minority
problem of minority discrimination
discrimination. The crucial question that needs to be
that has stained human history.
asked of the proposition is this: What changes will
Both of our countries share
actually occur if same-sex marriages are legalized?
examples of governments
It is simply not sufficient to say 'the time is always
institutionalizing hate and
now to bring about such change'. For this reason it
discrimination by enacting laws
seems peculiar that the debate has been set in 'all
and decrees upon its minority
countries', including those who have condemned
citizens in various forms that aim
'active' homosexuals to death, and so we will limit
to limit and instill inferiority in
our discussion, at present, to those countries where
citizens of minority groups such as
same-sex marriages are a political possibility.
Jim and Jane Crow laws and the
apartheid First and foremost, the opposition recognizes that
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_C
row_laws]]. Once this feeling of this debate is not about the 'rightness' or 'wrongness'
inferiority enters the psychology of of homosexuality. As our positive case substantiates
minorities, a lack of self worth below, there exists reasonable disagreement as to
leads to less economic and social whether or not homosexuality is morally acceptable.
prosperity as well as a denial of
Second, we challenge the proposition to show us
one's own identity as they are
that a refusal to grant homosexuals the right to marry
barraged with the message that
is in any way comparable to Apartheid legislation or
they are lesser
the Jim Crow laws which both limited not only the
occasional 'social' right, but a broad swathe of socio-
The time is always now to end this
economic rights relating to education, association,
vicious pattern of discrimination
public facilities, employment, political emancipation,
against homosexuals citizens. To
and so on. Any psychological and socio-economic
legalize same sex marriage is to
consequences that resulted from these laws are
award the right of marriage to
entirely and absolutely incomparable to the non-
every citizen and having citizens
legalizing of same-sex marriages; these laws were
be viewed as equals in the eyes of
designed to control resource allocation and thus
the government. While same-sex
impair the prosperity and growth of a people, not to
marriage is illegal, anti-gay
'safeguard' a particular cultural institution. The cases
legislation is easily disguised when
are categorically different. Interestingly, the only
laws only pertain to married
serious social science studies of the demand for
persons, as was the case of Mary
same-sex marriage (based on the a variety of
Coughlan's amendment in Ireland.
countries as well as specific states in the USA)
Once it is made legal, government
shows that such demand seems fairly small
attempts to undercut the rights of
[[Gallagher & Baker: 2006]]. It seems unlikely to us
same-sex couples will be
that this rather small issue is having profound
transparent, and thus more easily
sociological, psychological and economic effects on
dealt with.
people's lives.

Finally, while we concede that ideologically driven

legislators will often find ways in which to manipulate
legislation to damage the interests of others, we feel
we should consider the issue realistically. In most
cases homophobic legislators will only feel strongly
that homosexuals should not 'impose' on their
personal cultural sphere by actually marrying. Thus,
we believe, the majority of legislators are not going
to actively snipe homosexuals over and above that
which is required to keep them 'away' from marriage.
It is quite unclear from proposition's argument how
they feel legislators might actually try to undercut
homosexuals' rights, and citing one scandalous
piece of legislation (that can itself be openly debated
as either homophobic or not) is simply not sufficient.

Indeed, we feel that homophobic legislators might be

even more tempted to actively remove the rights of
homosexuals in marriages if they feel that they have
been given no choice in the matter.

Generating buy-in from legislators and citizens alike

will be a central argument in our substantive case.
Importance of Government
Some arguments against gay marriage
hold that they are merely unnecessary:
same-sex couples can live as they please
without social or legal recognition. But this
argument inadequately addresses the
social position of same-sex couples. The
onus falls upon individuals to create
situations of equality, but institutional
barriers provided by the government
discourage citizen action as it feels like an
exercise in futility. The "you're on your
own" attitude 1) makes gay unions seem
like merely a sexual "choice", unwittingly
supporting anti-gay propaganda that
claims that homosexuality is "only a
choice", 2) forces same-sex couples to
constantly explain their relationship and
makes it difficult for them to even refer to
their relationship as a de facto marriage,
because there is no cultural norm or
reference for a same-sex marriage 3)
makes same-sex couples feel
disenfranchised and less willing to
participate socially.
The government displeases citizens
whenever it grants rights to a group that is
seen as an "other," but the discomfort of
some citizens is not reason enough to
deny people any of the rights of
membership of a society.
It is interesting how little time proposition has
committed to the question of Government obligation
and democracy, because we feel that this is a crucial
issue in this debate.
The proposition has a very simple line on
Governmental obligations - a Government should
maximize equality at the cost of partisan groups'
feelings. This is interesting not least because
Governments, in all parts of the world, almost never
behave this way (take redistributive programs for
example - the equality of income is hardly tampered
with by Government). One of the reasons they do
not behave this way is that in democracies we do
grant some value to the interests and opinions of the
majority, even if we try to control the 'rabid-ness' of
these interests and opinions. Similarly, we also try to
make Governmental decisions that produce
acceptable utilitarian outputs.
If it is the case that the decision to legalize same-sex
marriages is actually only margianally beneficial in a
small number of cases but there are costs to the
"homosexual equality" project as well as harms to
social, cultural and religious groups, we wonder
about the legitimacy of legalizing same sex
marriage.
Proposition's argument about the 'importance of
government' does not present ANY evidence for the
harms they claim gay persons routinely and widely
suffer, like the claim that 'same-sex couples feel
disenfranchised and less willing to participate
socially' or the more hilarious suggestion that
existential angst consume gay pesons who do not
know how to 'explain their relationship' (try the
commonly used hetero- and homo-sexual term
'partner'?). It is tempting to guess that these claims
stem from a conservative, homophobic camp (no
pun intended), not a liberal one! We would happily
concede these harms if Team USA can produce solid
evidence of gay persons hiding in their houses, or of
would-be socialites unwillling to 'participate socially'.
Or evidence of the apparently huuuuuuuge burden
suffered around the dinner table when Jim declares
that Tom is his 'life partner' rather than his 'husband'.
For now, these harms are mere parternalistic -
patronising, even - assertions on *behalf* of the gay
community.
Expanding the Right to
Marry Serves the State
It must be understood that marriage is an
instrument toward subsequent rights and
interactions with the state that is being
denied to a group. The state perceives
that it has some benefit from creating
marriage as a legal institution, and it
does, although not to the same degree
that those who engage in marriage
receive benefits.
Marriage decreases legal ambiguity for
individuals in a society, and lessens the
burden upon the state to clarify
ambiguities that result. Marriages are a
mechanism to clarify next of kin,
responsibilities toward children, the
people who are impacted by a legal will
upon the death of a spouse, and many
other interactions that individuals have
between themselves, each other, and the
state.
[[http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/22/
opinion/oew-davidson-lavy22]] Absent
that, the legal system would be strained
beyond belief in an effort to untangle the
messes that would be the result of having
no legal recognition of marriage.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will lessen
this burden further, but it is a secondary
concern when facing the rights and
freedoms of the individuals in question.
Proposition's primary claim here falls because it is
both and exercise in hyperbole and is simply
irrelevant.
The proposition talks of marriage being crucial to the
legal system, and that without marriage we would be
'strained beyond belief' trying to 'untagle the messes'
that would arise. Of course this hyperbole, not in any
way reflected by their source (check it if you don't
believe us!) is (1) false and (2) general to all
marriages, not specifically homosexual ones.
Considering that only around 1% of the US
population is openly homosexual
[[http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html]] (and
let's face it, that isn't going to increase very much if
we control for 'closet' homosexuals) we see that
legalizing homosexual marriages will have a tiny
impact on the state's burden. This point is simply
unsubstantiated and irrelevant.
It is almost laughable to read and re-read the
proposition's serious (?!) contention that "Marriages
are a mechanism to clarify next of kin,
responsibilities toward children, the people who are
impacted by a legal will upon the death of a spouse,
and many other interactions that individuals have
between themselves," Does a gay person in a civil
union - or in a one night stand, for that matter - really
not know who his or her next-of-kin is?! Does a dad
need to be married to another man to know his legal
(and social) parental responsibilities in relation to his
kids from a previous relationship?! These arguments
fall far short of constituting an independent reason to
legalise same-sex marriage.

Besides, many of the potential complications that are

legitimate (e.g. one man living with another - his
partner - over a lifetime, without marriage
recognition) can be dealt with through other legal
instruments, so same-sex marriage is not essential.
The Civil Unions regime in the UK, for example,
distribute *identitcal* beneifts on partners. Similarly,
in South Africa, both gay and straight couples can
choose either civil unions or marriage - there is no
difference, other than symbolism, in the legal
consequences.

We conclude, then, that the legal regimes which

proposition imagine to be at stake in this debate, are
not at stake. This leg of their case falls flat.
More than just gay rights
The transgender and intersex
communities are often legislated into
confusing situations because of mandates
for opposite-sex marriage. Depending on
how "sex" is legislated in a particular
area, these individuals are arbitrarily
prevented from marriage with long-term
partners who may or may not be
intersexed, gay, or transgendered
themselves. Since "[t]here is no one
The argument labelled 'more than just gay rights' is a
complete red herring in this debate, and therefore
should be ignored as a reason to legalise same-sex
marriage.
Yes, there is a lot of confusion around
transgendered, and intersexed, persons' rights,
identities and social status, and entitlements as
human beings. We concede all of that.
But what does that have to do with the debate at

biological parameter that clearly defines hand?

sex," [[http://www.isna.org/legal]], these

The only rational link we can impute to the
individuals are often forced to choose a
proposition team - since it is unclear from their
gender identity that does not reflect their
superflouous entry - is the embedded (but,
biological or emotional reality.
unhelpfully unexpressed) claim that same-sex

In the transgender community in marriage should be legalised in order to help

Australia, the law, previous to Feb. 2003, improve the social and legal status of the

allowed transgender individuals to transgender and intersex communities.

recognize themselves as the gender they

But that is nonsense! For one thing, if same-sex
had become except for in marriage. In the
marriage is legalised, we will still - rightly or wrongly -
famous case of Kevin and Jennifer, it was
not be accomodating persons who do not fit the
found to be unconstitutional to assign
straight-gay dichotomy, or the male-female one, with
someone's gender based upon their
the gay and heterosexual marriage regimes that
designated gender at the time of their
would then be on the statute books. Proposition
birth.
must show evidence, or at least argue why it is
[[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/fa
*likely* that, once same-sex marriage is legalised, it
mily_ct/2003/94.html]] Due to the
will be a mere small step towards marriage regimes
Marriage Act of 1961, legal marriage is
that allow for other genders and sexualities to also
still held to be only between a "man and a
be accomodated.
woman". This means that in Australia
Post-operative transgendered persons At any rate, at best this argument is an extremely
may marry persons of the opposite weak tangential *potential* benefit for a very small
gender to their current gender. Pre- minority - transgendered and intersexed persons -
operative transgendered persons are not and so it is a weak independent reason for legalising
allowed marriage and those who change same-sex marriage.
their gender after marriage are still in a
We reject it as an unconvincing, and
legal gray area. We see that this puts
unsubstantiated, red herring.
undue stress on transgendered persons
to obtain very expensive surgery to
change their gender if they wish to have a
legally recognized marriage.

Intersexed individuals are those persons

whose sexual identity is ambiguous in
relation to legal requirements either
because their genitalia/gonads are doubly
gendered or missing or because they
have mixed primary or secondary sexual
characteristics. Since at least 1 in 1000
births show intersex characteristics
[[http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency]], this
is a problem affecting significant portions
of any society. Mandating gender-
difference for marriage creates significant
problems for these people. in those
places of the world where marriage is
seen as paramount, parents or doctors
may perform surgery to "normalize" the
appearance of genitalia. This is estimated
to be performed for one to two out of
every 1000 live births. The size of one's
clitoris or penis should not be the basis
for a medical procedure without the will of
the patient. Columbia has reflected this in
their decision to prevent such surgeries
from occurring

The fear of not being able to marry off a

child often leads to operations which are
"inadequate" and need to be repeated
later in life.
Inadequacy of Alternative
Categories
Opponents to same-sex marriage often
point to similar institutions, such as civil
unions or domestic partnerships, and
claim that those should be satisfactory for
same-sex couples who wish to receive
some rights from the state when entering
a marriage-like relationship. However,
civil unions and domestic partnerships
rarely have rights on par with marriage,
and reinforce that same-sex couples are
second class citizens. Civil unions are
"neither universally recognized nor
understood" and though they offer some
of the practical advantages of marriages,
the fact that the unions of gay people
must have a different name still
segregates them socially and
symbolically.
In many countries, certain rights are tied
to the recognition of marriage. Often,
same-sex couples cannot sponsor foreign
spouses for green cards
[[http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-
stories/2009-04-15/gay-lovers-in-exile/]].
In the U.S., they lose the tax benefit of
marriage as a status when filing taxes
and losing significant amounts of money
each year, in effect being fined for having
a same-sex partner rather than engaging
in heterosexual marriage. Adoption and
custody rights are often made more
complicated by the restriction on same-
Proposition's argument is mistaken on a number of
grounds.
First, civil unions are not inherently different in the
rights and burdens they distribute, compared to
marriage. This is contingent on the civil union
legislation of a particular country. Civil partnerships
in the UK and in South Africa, for example, distribute
the same benefits and duties as do marriage. So it is
perfectly possible to design parallel legal structures
to those of marriage. This part of proposition's case
is factually false.
Second, it is also false to suggest that questions
around custody, and the like, cannot be equittably
dealt with between straight couples and gay gouples
unless all couples enter into marriage regimes. For
one thing, a lot of administrative and social barriers
to custody persist EVEN WHEN marriage is
extended to gay persons. Gay couples in South
Africa, including married ones, sometimes struggle
to access parental rights due to administrative and
social hurdles. This evidences the fact that same-sex
marriage is NOT the panacea for substantive
equality. Conversely, gay persons' right to adopt
children, by way of example, was legally recognised
before gay marriage was legalised in South Africa.
This speaks to the fact that each of these social
policy issues can be, and tend to be, independently
debated and decided. Proposition is, without
evidence, assuming that there is a necessary
connection between them. Evidence of widespread
cases in which these battles are won AS A
PACKAGE have not been presented.
sex marriage. While married couples can
adopt and convey custody to their partner
when they die, same-sex couples find this
impossible in many countries, from Italy to
Chile. Their children are removed from
their homes because, since they are
denied marriage rights, they have no legal
guardianship. These deficiencies in the
provision or rights to same-sex couples
are only scratching the surface of what is
denied to same-sex couples.
Finally, and perhaps most seriously, is the worry that
gay persons are excluded from the symbolism that
constitutes the label 'marriage'. We do not think that
the symbolism constitutes a serious enough harm - it
is the associated legal benefits of the institution of
marriage that is a more important, tangible issue of
harm. And, as we have argued, these associated
benefits CAN be enjoyed under others bits of
legislation. The right to the symbolic value of the
word 'marriage' is not self-evident, and neither is the
symbolism itself obvious to us - perhaps Team USA
would like to explain what's in a word?!
Lack of legal category
reinforces negative
stereotypes
By denying LGBT couples the right to
marry, the stigma of the unfaithful gay
person is reinforced in a vicious cycle:
"Gays can't marry because they always
fool around, and because they always
fool around, they shouldn't need
marriage." This is despite much evidence
(and common sense) to the contrary
Much of the fervor against same-sex
marriage relates to same-sex adoption.
Stereotypes of gay people as influencing
youth or recruiting them towards a gay
lifestyle have long been part of the
propaganda of the anti-gay movement.
Marriage will ensure adoption rights for
same-sex couples, and the myths will be
debunked as the practice becomes more
common. An excellent example is that of
homosexuals serving in the military;
where it was thought that homosexuals
would not make good soldiers, today they
serve with distinction in dozens of
militaries across the world.
Without the prospect of legal marriage,
society also reentrenches itself in
negative stereotypes of LGBT people as
hypersexual, not interested in anything
social that is not sexual. Marriage allows
a couple that is sexually committed to
have a social category that encompasses
This argument is entirely unsubstantiated. It rests on
two rather vacuous assumptions: First, that at
present there exists a wide spread belief that
homosexuals are hypersexual, infidelious and
promiscuous, and second, that this is, in no small
part, due to their not being able to marry. While we
do concede that there are many negative attitudes
towards homosexuals, we believe, as is reflected in
our positive matter, that these attitudes relate far
more to cultural, religious and social spheres (ie,
'gay people are simply wrong because God says
so'), and not to stereotypes about 'how gays actually
are'.
The proposition presents no evidence for their first
assumption other than an article in the guardian
where two thirds of surveyed people believe that
homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt
children. But the very article they cite does not speak
to the issues the proposition raises. The participants
in the survey suggest that people believe
homosexuals provide imbalanced parental role
models and violate traditional family paradigms. As
wrong as these opinions may be, they are a far cry
from claims that homosexuals lure youths into
homosexuality or participate in unsavoury sexual
behaviour. Marriage will almost certainly not change
the adoptions rights of couples, as the very article
they cite suggests that there exists no current
problem in relation to adoption agencies or
legislation (outside of Catholic adoption agencies
who, being private institutions, would not be
compelled to change their position anyway). A failure
more than their sexual intimacy. LGBT
indivuals are denied this right, and are
forced to categorize their de facto spouse
as a mere "partner". Marriage is important
towards the ultimate goal of equality not
merely because it bestows equal rights
but because it forces traditional mindsets
to reevaluate the nature of homosexual
relationships.
to meaningfully change the already unproblematic
status quo means this point is moot.
The second assumption is that the alleged wide
spread beliefs that homosexuals are hypersexual,
infidelious and promiscuous have formed because
they cannot marry. This is somewhat circular
considering the proposition's earlier claim that
people think "gays can't marry because they always
fool around", and we find no compelling source for
these opinions (the vicious cycle has to start
somehow...) We contend that these opinions simply
don't exist, and even if they did, would relate far
more to hundreds of years of *active* discrimination
(sending Oscar Wilde to jail for homosexuality) and
social, cultural and religious 'norms' than to same-
sex marriages.
Governments should not
discourage people from
their identity
When homosexual individuals are denied
equal rights of marriage as heterosexual
individuals, they are given a choice
between their identity and their desires for
family and companionship, as well as
legal benefits. The moment when a
homosexual individual, more often than
not a vulnerable and confused teenager,
realizes his/her sexuality is a fragile one.
They are split between a choice, come to
terms with their sexuality, a part of their
identity, and follow the 'gay lifestyle.' Or
deny it, and continue living a facade as a
heterosexual man/woman. The sad truth
is, many people choose the second, to
the harm of themselves, their future
spouses, their children and all those who
care about their happiness.
The question is, why? Why do these
people choose to deny their homosexual
desires? Because the society puts too
high a price on coming out of the closet.
You faced by ridicule and stigma amongst
your peers, which while shameful, is still
something people can endure. The higher
price you pay is being forced to give up
your dreams of a family. Its a popular joke
that women start planning out their
weddings when they are 10, imagine 5
years later being asked to sacrifice that
wedding just to accept your own identity
Again proposition misses the point of the debate.
The opposition has never once claimed that
homosexuals are *not* discriminated against at
present.
Our claims were:
(1) The specific issue of the right to marry is a small
and tangential one in comparison to Apartheid or the
Jim Crow laws.
(2) Bringing about formal equality by using top-down
legislation is not the way to encourage substantive
equality. Substantive equality relates to, but is not
limited to, all those things proposition has just
mentioned - equal treatment from the police, from
fellow citizens, and from employers.
(3) That it is incumbent upon proposition to show
that allowing access to same-sex marriage would
have substantial meaningful benefits for
homosexuals.
Further, proposition persists in failing to pry apart
concerns by gay persons that fall outside the debate,
but which are legitimate. For example, raiding gay
bars or limiting gay persons' employment rights, etc.,
are not relevant in this debate, so a mass of
evidence about those discriminatory practises are
impotent in this context.
We challenged Team USA to either show us a) why
all of these gains that gay persons seek must be,
and can only be, won as an irreducible * PACKAGE*,
as a lesbian? Knowing you will be denied
marriage, you have to choose to sacrifice
all you dreamed about for your traditional
wedding, for your quaint family life, your
children, and settle instead for 'the gay
lifestyle' of multiple sex partners, a
bachelor's pad, and disease that society
wrongfully tells you is the inevitable fate
for homosexual.This dichotomy is false,
and no one should feel forced to choose
between these options.
This is possibly why we see so many
stories of married men and women finally
coming out at 50 and leaving in their
wake broken families; or the champions
of the anti-gay movement, the Ex-gays,
who went through conversion therapy and
turned straight so they could have a
family; or even unsatisfied broken
individuals who even until their death live
an unfulfilling lie.
rather than won on an issue-by-issue basis; and/or
b) why legalising same-sex marriage is a
NECESSARY CONDITION for these other ills to
disappear. Not only has this challenge been
responded to with silence, but we in opposition have
given positive evidence and argument to the contrary
(see, again, for example, our entry on the backlash
against gay persons which evidences the non-
obvious link between same-sex marriage and more
substantive equality concerns that gay persons
rightly have - like, indeed, living in safe environments
such as being able to frequent a pub without risk of
becoming a hate crime victim)
So, the connection between same-sex marriage
legalistion and these alleged wider social benefits for
gay persons remains unproven.
Rebuttal: More than gay
rights
The argument is extremely relevant.
Depending on the artificiality of how
gender is determined at birth for intersex
people, how they self-identify may not
conform with how they were "gendered".
For many of these people being asked to
declare a gender so as to judge their
qualification for a opposite gendered
marriage is unfair. With the legalization of
same sex marriage, gender is no longer
an element in the marital equation,
therefore sparing intersexed and
transgendered individuals the trouble of
choosing and declaring a gender to get
married.
This rebuttal misses our original counter-argument:
Legalizing same-sex marriages simply creates a
gay-straight dichotomy in marriage; it does not
legalize 'ungendered' marriages. That is a different
debate.
Indeed, Team USA's confusion about 'sex' and
'gender' issues is starkly revealed when they state in
their rebuttal:
"With the legalization of same sex marriage, gender
is no longer an element in the marital equation,
therefore sparing intersexed and transgendered
individuals the trouble of choosing and declaring a
gender to get married."
- Gender has NEVER been 'an element in the
marital equation'. 'Gender' is a social construction,
while 'sex' is a biological category. Marriage debates
are about which 'sex' groups can get married - males
and females only? Or also same-sex couples?
'Gender' issues would speak to feminitity, masculinity
and other behavioural identity types that overlay the
physical body of a person. The crux of the social
stigma, and legal battles, of intersexed and
transgendered persons stem from wider societal
prejudices around i) whether or not only two sex
categories are ethically acceptable ('natural') and ii)
what genders can be accepted, socially and legally,
etc.
- but NONE OF THESE massive, and legitimate
quandaries facing the transgenedered and
intersexed communities are dependent on whether
same-sex marriage is legal. [ For example, if same-
sex marriage is legal, presumably, if proposition is
right, "...the trouble of choosing and declaring a
gender to get married" would be gone. WHY, if so, in
the 7 test cases - i.e. the countries where same-sex
marriage IS legal - do we NOT have marriage
regimes for intersexed and intergendered persons
who refuse to adopt the tired gender categories
specified by the law? Clearly, these constitute real
world counter-examples to proposition's argument. ]

This proposition argument therefore remains a

jarring red herring and opposition remains surprised
that proposition is persisting in trying to keep it a live
issue. Surely not?
Rebuttal: What's in a
Word... Everything!!
The opposition continually states that
there are other legitimate legal and social
measures that can be given to same-sex
couples that need not be called
"marriage". We don't believe that legally
identical civil union still equals a marriage.
When you hear two people are married,
there is certain socially conditioned
imagery which comes to mind. Their level
of commitment to one another, their love
and respect, companionship, even
married couple jokes. When you hear the
that two people are each others legal
partners, now what comes to mind? Oh
they're gay. Nothing else. You don't
picture them with children or a family. You
don't think of their commitment to one
another. You simply haven't grown up
reading about or seeing 'civil partners'
and lack a knowledgeable example to
relate to. The images most ready-at-hand
are stereotypical ones. The LGBT
community is then given the burden of
constructing a reference frame for this
term used exclusively for them, and since
most of their positive constructions will be
ignored by those opposed to them, the
reference frame will be constructed from
a majority of negative stereotypes.
Furthermore, if the opposition truly
believes that marriage is 'just a word' then
So, proposition does agree, after all, that there really
are no substantive legal differences between
marriage and civil unions, and that the principle
difference between the two is a set of cultural and
religious beliefs and associations.
We agree, firmly, that there are cultural and religious
differences between civil unions and marriages. We
disagree that these differences relate to 'levels of
commitment' or 'strength of the family'. In fact, the
principle difference in terms of association relates to
religious and cultural values, whether or not people
have been 'joined' in 'the eyes of God(s)'.
This symbolic value is tremendous to a great number
people, and it is a symbolic value that is attached to
the entire institution of marriage, not just to specific
cases of marriage.
This opposition to same-sex marriage does not even
have to be predicated on homophobia, but is often
predicated simply on a resistance to altering
religious and cultural conventions. The government
is not condoning homophobia by respecting this
cultural and religious preference.
****
Furthermore, proposition's case is based on a
popular liberal assumption that there is widespread
DEMAND for same-sex marriage *within* the gay
community. If this were true, why have the uptake of
marriages in countries like Canada, Spain and South
Africa been so poor? In places like Canada,
what is the harm in calling it marriage? If moreover, there was very little support within the gay
the reason we deny same-sex couples community itself
the symbolic importance of a marriage is [[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/0712170
because of majority homophobic 8.html]] for same-sex marriage to be legalised in the
sentiment, we are condoning the first instance.
existence of those sentiments. While
What these trends speak to, is not just the reality
governments cannot make people not
that no harm is PERCEIVED/FELT by most gay
homophobic any more than they can
persons themselves, in relation to exclusion from the
make them not gay (as they attempt to do
regime of marriage ... but it all also inadvertently
in Iran with forced sex-change
exposes the fact that the fight to legalise same-sex
operations), the resistance to allowing
marriage stems often from a parternalistic liberal
same-sex couples to marry is significant
assumption, as is committed to by Team USA in the
because the resistance is based upon
adjacent rebuttal, that gay persons must be feeling
non-existent, biased harms, that marriage
aggrieved on the matter, and surely have a deep
will be defiled, that gays will hurt children,
desire for inclusion. On the contrary, many gay
etc.
persons do not recognise the marriage symbolism
Let's elaborate on this using an that proposition is waxing lyrical about, let alone
imaginative paradigm. If we lived in an going on mass protests fighting for inclusion.
majority anti-Semitic country that allowed
So, given that the demand for same-sex marriage
Jewish couples the same formal rights in
within the gay community itself is clearly elusive, and
civil unions as in marriage, but did not
not widespread at all....the proposition's attempt to
allow Jewish unions to be called
project a desire for inclusion onto the community, is
"marriages" on the basis that, in the
based on crystall-ball gazing.
majority view, their unions were somehow
fundamentally different, it is not hard to We conclude the following, here:
see how this would be an anti-Semitic
policy. If the government kowtows to the 1. The symbolism attaching to marriage is not

overweening bias of its citizens, it proven by proposition to be one that is universally

ultimately ends up supporting that bias, accepted; 2. Harm cannot be imputed to the gay

formalizing it, and giving it more power in community when they themselves do not express

society. The anti-Semites can then point widespread desire for inclusion; 3) Team USA's fight

to the legal statues and say, "See? Even to include gay persons in the marriage regime,

here we see a difference between us and despite the lack of demonstrable demand, exposes

them, in the impartiality of the law." the real driver of this proposition - straight liberal
The difference lies in the fact that no one paternalism
tries to go from a marriage to the a legally
identical civil union, but selected
individuals can be forcibly directed away
from a marriage. The opposition
mentioned that South Africa allows for
both Civil Unions and Marriage, we'd like
to ask them how many decide to go for
this 'identical' civil union over the
marriage.
Rebuttal: Democracy or
Majoritarianism
A major portion of Oppositions case rests All modern democracies exhibit majoritarianism. It is
on how problematic it is for a government foolish to even suggest that they do not. We agree,
to go against the wishes of the majority. on team opposition (and we said this earlier), that
But, if we look at the democracies of democracies are designed to 'check' the 'rabidness'
today, we see an ever-increasing trend of majoritarian sentiment (and we never claimed they
towards more and more checks to shouldn't), but we affirm the reality that democracies
prevent the tyranny of the majority that exist to coordinate preferences, and that the
the opposition supports. Presidential preferences that matter most in marginal cases are
Vetos, Judiciaries, and Constitutions, all those of the majority.
provide checks against the majority rule.
The debate at hand is just such a marginal case; a
Most countries' constitutions explicitly
tiny minority demand formal equality in relation to a
forbid legislation that unfairly privileges a
fairly tangential issue, and a large majority reject that
majority group, as seen in the
on the grounds of cultural and religious preference.
enshrinement of equal rights in these
This is precisely the type of case in which the
documents.
majority's preference stands.
Opposition argumentation seems to
We can even see this in a number of less tangential
suggest that the government may only
cases: redistributive practices are restricted by
override the will of the majority in the
majority preferences for low taxes despite the
most extreme circumstances (e.g. the
substantial harm that non-redistributive capitalism
slaughter of twins). A government may
can do to poorer citizens. Private medical aid
subvert the will of the majority when, if it
systems are put in place despite minority groups
did not act, demonstrable harms would
who cannot afford them. Similarly, private insurance
result. We can see this happen
is encouraged in places where the majority can
throughout the history of human rights, be
afford it but the minority is left to suffer. Abortion is
it anti-discrimination laws, affirmative
outlawed in many places because the majority of
action laws, hate crime laws, or any other.
people feel that the issue is not a transparent case of
The insinuation that government 'do what you want' - they are asked to govern for
legislation for same-sex marriage would themselves and they do. Similarly many states
be an unfair imposition on the majority of outlaw stem cell research.
dissenters only stands once government
Is the proposition willing to attack these examples?
starts forcing its citizens to marry
Are they willing to say that the majority's well thought
someone of the same sex. To quote
opposition: "Liberalism is in essence the
preference for self determination at the
most personal level." This would
seemingly make it clear than self
determination at an individual level is the
highest priority. Same sex marriage
allows for self-determination within the
LGBT community, without hindering the
self-determination of those who oppose
same sex marriage. They remain
perfectly free to have a heterosexual
marriage and not associate with anyone
who hasn't got one.
out and clearly expressed preference for a certain
way of being should be trumped because it does
some harm to a minority group? The 'harms', in this
instance, at any rate, have not been proven to be of
a magnitude that would justify disregard of majority
preferences.
Finally, proposition would do well to recall that
opposition is totally ok with legalising same-sex
marriage where preferences of the society DO point
in that direction - hence our opposition clash that we
should all endorse, instead, moral and legal
pluralism on the matter, within the international
community, allowing each country's unique law-
making processes to decide the matter -- as
opposed to liberal fascism which can harm gay
persons' SUBSTANTIVE long term interests...
Rebuttal: The road to true
equality, legal or social??
The Opposition claims that laws should
lag behind societal change, and should
reflect the majority views. The proposition
disagrees. We believe once we see a
growing increase in societal support for
the rights of a minority group, or even just
an acknowledgment that their right are
being violated, the law needs to take the
first step. We see dramatic increase in
support for same sex marriage over
recent
years[[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp
- is a significant problem when the analogies are
dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR200904
3001640.html]], the law needs to reflect
this, in order to not stifle this growing
support.
We see that historically, legal rights
precede social equality for unequal
groups. If the government does not view
LGBTQ persons as true equals, the
pressure for the citizenry to is ultimately
diminished. The women's rights and civil
rights movements of the past counted as
successes those laws which came even
while they were still being challenged by
the majority, such as laws ensuring
suffrage or equal access to institutions.
With the passage of time, we see that
these were true successes as they
became societal norms. The same stands
true in this debate.
This rebuttal effectively argues that the state must
act as a pathfinder for society, leading the way for its
citizenry. As proposition has done here, this
argument, elsewhere, is usually justified by example
- sufferage for women, civil rights for non-
whites...and, wallah, *all social change necessarily
requires new legal norms as 'precursors'*.
We have two responses:
1) The examples used by proposition are
disanalagous. While proposition believes that this
isn't a problem ("all analogies are dis-analagous"), it
county-miles apart.
Consider what is at stake in this debate: the positive
right to access a predominantly religious, socially
symbolic, institution.
Consider what was at stake when the state
previously excluded women and blacks from certain
processes (e.g. voting) or benefits (e.g.
any/equittable social welfare): the negative right to
not be excluded from socio-economic opportunities.
The negative right to not be excluded from decision
making processes.
First, we are talking about different levels of
magnitude (in respect to the consequences of these
rights). The right to deterimine who governs you, and
thereby gain power to make a range of policy
decisions that will affect the fundamental design and
routine of society, etc. ... vs the right to call your
Although culture can create and change
norms, creating a norm can affect culture.
The burden of explaining your relationship
was trivialized by opposition. But if every
time you explain it, if the way you are
forced to socially explain yourself
revolves around your difference, your
gayness, you feel forced to identify
yourself as gay before anything else. This
makes it more difficult to change the
social paradigm that this difference is not
bad.
Proposition agrees that changing social
mindsets is of vital importance, but legal
change is not just a stimulus for this
social change, its a necessary precursor.
Societal mindsets are fluid, a lot more so
than laws. Additionally, mindsets vary,
laws are universal. The problem this
brings is that when faced with
discrimination by the populous you have
ways to deal with it, be it by ignoring it,
tolerating it, or ideally fighting it. There are
support groups, and their are courtrooms.
Discrimination on grounds of sexuality is
illegal in most liberal democracies
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights
_by_country_or_territory]] as are hate
crimes, therefore allowing for legal
recourse in case LGBTQ people are
wronged. But when the law itself is the
one wronging this people, they have no
recourse. They cannot fight it, they cannot
avoid it or ignore it, and it they try to take
their right, they are criminals. This legal
same-sex partner 'husband' or 'wife'.
Second, we are talking about religious/cultural rights
(marriage) versus secular rights (public institutional
rights).
Third, we are talking about different TYPES of rights.
It is not the state's role to 'pathfind' new positive
rights for people to access (the right to X), but rather
the state's role to ensure that, broadly speaking,
people do not have their negative rights (the right to
be free from X) unfairly imposed upon.
2) Pro-active state intervention is often *not*
successful. Proposition cannot claim to have found
causality by looking at cases in which the state
intervened and 50 years later the world is a better
place.
First, there is no meaningful counterfactual at play -
how do we know that universal sufferage wasn't just
around the corner anyway? Ending Apartheid did not
require a pro-active state, just a state-segregated
economy that could no longer function for a citizenry
that was mostly excluded from it. Indeed, Apartheid
came to a crashing end because of EXTRA-LEGAL
measures, such as sanctions, civil disobedience, the
contingent fact of certain leadership changes (e.g.
De Klerk replacing P.W.Botha as last pre-democracy
State President) etc. There were NO LEGAL
CHANGES that were a 'precursor' to the enjoyment
of substantive equality by black South Africans.
Even in proposition's own country, for example, there
is proof that the law cannot fufill this function of
social change effectively. Long after the passage of
civil rights legislation that allowed for formal equality
barrier is far greater than the social
barriers, and needs to be lifted before the
social barriers can be fought.
for African-Americans, African-Americans continue to
experience large-scale social discrimination, in both
seemingly-benign ways (e.g. racial profiling) and
more violent, explicit ways (e.g. differential access to
social welfare, as was evidenced in the wake of
Katrina; higher likelihood of capital punishment; etc.)
By analogy, Team USA is indulging in profound
idealism by imagining that legalising same-sex
marriage is the sine qua non for 'the road to true
equality' for gay persons. True equality stems from
the successful engagement of false or unwarranted
beliefs and attitudes towards gay persons by using
instruments at the coal face of such discrimination
e.g. promoting in-school diversity programmes and
the like.
Legislating homo-tolerance through the oblique
policy of legalising same-sex marriage has not
worked in one country around the world.
The moral is clear: the law is a very poor instrument
of social change.
******
The rest of proposition's argument relates to their
misguided analysis of homosexual people's
identities. Effectively they believe that because
homosexuals constantly have to explain their
relationship status to other people they are
constantly confronted with their 'gayness', and this
becomes the core of their identity.
We still believe that it is perfectly easy to express
your relationship in a casual and uncomplicated way;
if there is any issue that will cause social tension, it
is not what you call the relationship, but the fact that
you and your partner are of the same sex. If we DID
legalise same-sex marriage, for example, why would
there be less social tension at the table when Tom
announces, "Meet my husband, Jim, everyone!"

Team USA is romaticising the impact that the label

'husband' will have in reducing or eliminating social
challenges that same-sex partners face.

We think it will make zero difference - the driver of

that tension is prejudice against same-sex love, not
against same-sex couples being unmarried!!!!!

Let the battle be won first in the minds of people - let

them come to accept that homosexuals are just like
other people. Forcing homosexuals into the lives of
those who resist same-sex marriage, by disregarding
inculcated social, cultural and religious preferences,
is a sure-fire way to force the fight for substantive
equality one step back.
Rebuttal: Stereotypes-
Propagation and impact.
The opposition must be living in a utopia
county, which from their own evidence we
know South Africa is not, to believe that
hyper sexuality is not a common
stereotype attributed to homosexuals.
Furthermore if they bothered to read our
evidence, they would see it indeed clearly
single out this stereotype.
[[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNG1H59R5Q1.DTL]]
We accept that the start of these
stereotypes may be religious, but we
believe even the most religious people
need some evidence, however skewed to
spread such hate. We believe by denying
Same sex marriage this stereotype of the
homosexual who is incapable of
monogamy is only further propagated,
since it puts an official stamp of approval
from the government that there is
something lacking in same sex
relationships which does not qualify them
for marriage.
Possibly more even damaging is the fact
that stereotype dont just affect others,
they affect you too. While growing up in a
social climate where you are getting this
strong stereotypes about what you are
supposed to be, and then you see the
government making legislation denying
you rights, and confirming this ideas, you
The critical question is whether legalizing same-sex
marriage will help to stop the spread of stereotypes.
We concede, on opposition, that there are some
stereotypes that do exist. We reject the notion that
their existence is predicated on whether or not
same-sex marriages are legal.
What the proposition has given us is at best badly
articulated pop-psychology. The public see that gay
people can't be married and thus equate the
'problems' of non-married people to homosexuality.
We see no evidence whatsoever for this
psychological link other than a simple correlation -
maybe; why is it that South Africans, who live with
and know about married homosexuals, still have
strong feelings of 'dislike' towards homosexuals?
The proposition then attempted to show that the fact
that homosexuals*youths* are more likely to commit
suicide relates to the moral quandries they face with
regard to their sexual identity. Funnily enough, the
statistics they cite all related to *youths* (age 12 -
21), not the age group that is likely to be in any way
affected by the legalizing of same-sex marriage. At
the same time, we believe that the quandaries faced
by homosexuals are as a result of the way in which
fellow citizens treat them. It is no surprise that young
homosexuals commit suicide more frequently than
young heterosexuals if we consider the fact that, as
stated in the proposition's own evidence,
homosexuals are treated very badly at schools
[[http://www.gayfamilysupport.com/gay-
statistics.html]].
start believing them to inevitable traits you WHY WOULD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ELIMINATE
must accept. these statistical realities at any rate? Proposition's
linkage of the same-sex marriage debate with other
This is where the additional price added
issues faced by the gay community remains limp.
to homosexuality by the government
comes in. Opposition is right that there
are some individuals who do not face
moral quandaries over their sexuality, but
unfortunately these individuals are few
and far between. We see significantly
higher depression and suicide rates
amongst homosexuals
[[http://www.gayfamilysupport.com/gay-
statistics.html]] No small cause of this is
the dichotomy of choice homosexuals are
faced with. Yes true, you can technically
still married, but I dont think there are too
many cases of a openly gay man who can
go up to a woman, tell her hes gay and
then ask her hand in marriage. That is a
ridiculous justification by the opposition.

So when we take into account the

damaging nature of these stereotypes
that denying same sex marriage spread,
and the probable consequences instead
of Technically possible that the
opposition gives us, we see that legalizing
same sex marriage makes being
homosexual a whole lot less depressing.
Proposition Summary
We understand that there is a religious
mindset that dislikes same-sex marriage.
At no point does the proposition tell you,
however, that by permitting same-sex
marriage we are not permitting people to
believe that. We have contended that
same-sex marriage has no social ill that
spreads to the individual who wish to
believe that same-sex marriage is wrong
other than perhaps discomfort, and we
have established that discomfort at a
government policy is not basis enough to
reject that government policy. In order for
the opposition to make the arguments
stand (specifically, their defense of public
opinion and recognition of pluralism) as
reasons to reject same-sex marriage,
rather than just statements about how
awesome diverse mindset and majority
perceptions are, they would have had to
demonstrate that the opinions of those
who wish to be married to whichever
gender they wish are less valid, in an
absolute sense, than the opinions of the
people who wish to stop them. Opposition
has argued that there is no absolute way
to determine how morally right same-sex
marriage is. That also means there is no
way to determine that it is wrong, either.
So, since this debate isnt about whether
or not homosexuality is good or bad, and
never has been, what has it truly been
about?
This debate, first and foremost, has been
a should debate, not a can debate. We
have recognized that even as we hold a
principle to be universal, its application
can be anything but. However, taking a
principled stance that something ought to
be the case is the first step toward
accepting that maybe, when the stars
align, when governments come to their
senses, when younger segments of the
population finally get voting rights, then
just maybe things can and will be the
case. But should as a consideration of a
principle always needs to precede can,
since our ability to do something is not
useful to consider until we address if its a
good idea at all. We have done significant
work to establish why same-sex marriage
should be legal. When the world finally
agrees with us on that issue, then well
gladly come back and argue whether or
not we can make it legal.

Secondly, this debate has been about the

identification of the groups impacted by
the governments insistence on keeping
same-sex marriage illegal, and the groups
who would be affected if that principle
were to change. Not only are same-sex
couples excluded in societies that choose
to keep them outside of the institution of
marriage by relegating them to domestic
partnerships or civil unions, but the
individuals themselves, absent their
couple-hood, are impacted. A society that
is not inclusive of all of the minority
groups keeps them at a status of less
than the groups which it has let take full
advantage of their social and
governmental practices. This translates to
the reluctance of homosexual individuals
to be freely open about who they are,
since they live in a society that has
implied there ought to be shame in such
an abnormal lifestyle. The society tells
them that if they were normal, then they
would be getting married to someone of
the opposite sex, not the unnatural same-
sex partner with whom they might wish to
make a life. This message from the top
down (as opposition so likes to harp on)
sends a message, reinforced by the
extreme viewpoints who find solace in the
fact that the people they look down upon
arent fully-equal citizens, and ultimately
devalues the individuals within society
who already have existential crises when
addressing the very large question of
what is my sexual orientation?

Next, the impact upon those individuals

who made it to the level of being secure
in their sexual orientation, found someone
else who is also secure in it, and are truly
in love and want to make a life with each
other find that they cannot do so to the
extent that the normal heterosexual
partners can. We have already
established the significant amount of
government provisions that are denied to
homosexual domestic partners or those
who are in civil unions. The only example
provided by the opposition of rights being
equivalent when comparing civil unions
and marriage is in South Africa, where
couples have the free choice to select
either option, even if they are
homosexual. Sure, if both groups have
equal access to both institutions, have
both of them. But when one group gets
access to both (civil unions and
marriage), but another group only gets
access to one (just the civil union, sorry),
we have seen no evidence of legitimate
justification for governments essentially
segregating access to rights and full-
incorporation of minority citizens.

Lastly, the impact upon those individuals

who oppose same-sex marriage, or
homosexuality as a whole. Oh wait, there
is no tangible effect legalizing same sex
marriage has on them.

The opposition seems to have forgotten

how they wish to frame their arguments.
In one breath, they tell us they have a
defense of the status quo in their line of
argumentation. In another, they attempt to
escape each status quo harm identified
by the proposition by suggesting they can
establish civil unions to be the
mechanism by which homosexuals
receive the full rights of government.
Tricky, tricky. It would be nice to operate
from a world in which we could just make
things be the case as well, rather than
find a more effective, yet possibly more
difficult area of analysis from which to
challenge the truth of arguments. But side
opposition decided to evade the most
damning arguments we have against the
status quo by suggesting we should
establish civil unions which have the
same rights as marriage, which is nearly
a concession of the entire side
proposition line. The only difference is to
not call it marriage in itself, which they
cannot fundamentally find a reason not to
do, since the only problem with calling it
marriage they can identify is that people
who hold religious mindsets against
homosexuality will get mad. As was
stated, most extensively in the
propositions refutation to the oppositions
pluralism is super awesome and we cant
make laws that violate it, except when
killing babies is at stake argument, we
have identified many instances when
governments expand access to rights and
treat all citizens as equals, even, and
perhaps especially, when groups within a
society wouldnt like it very much. The
opposition provides nothing but logical
inconsistency and their case is rife with
trivializations, both of the plight of
homosexual individuals and of the right to
marry. Their claims that proposition is
deceptively making a human rights issue
out of same sex marriage, and that
homosexual individuals have no
legitimate expectation to be allowed to
marry is clearly misinformed. Equal rights
in marriage is a acknowledged human
right a per the U.N. deceleration, and as
such homosexual individuals have a
legitimate expectation and right in any
signatory country towards this.

The only tangible harm that has been

identified by the opposition is backlash,
and yet the only evidence they can
provide of it states that homophobic
incidents have not decreased (which
never states they have increased), and
that lobbying against homosexuals has
increased. When these two potential
results of same-sex marriage becoming
legal are weighed against the harms that
exist in the status quo, they do not
translate into great importance. Backlash,
while yes, important and worrisome, is
less significant than how many rights are
denied to homosexuals, how much of a
social barrier to coming out homosexuals
discern, and how much the governments
status quo position actually reinforces the
hate groups which actively work against
homosexuals.

We have taken a stance, as side

proposition, towards equality, towards
inclusion, and towards social harmony by
the inclusion of minority groups.
Fundamentally, even though we are
different as people, we are still equal in
regards to the relationships we have with
our government. This stance might not be
put into action by all world governments
immediately, but we hold firmly to the idea
that if we advocate for equality, we may
actually see it materialize, even in unlikely
scenarios. It is for these reasons that we
beg to propose.
Outline of Opposition Clash: A
defence of the status quo
Opposition's main contention is that a plurality of
legal positions on same-sex marriage, among
countries of the world, is acceptable.

We will argue that such plurality reflects the

legitimacy of each country's unique socio-legal and
political processes that have resulted in a particular
country's policy in relation to same-sex marriage.

In other words, we do not deem the imposition of the

analyses of proposition, on all governments of the
world, acceptable.

Two key positive arguments which we will develop in

support of our contention are as follows:

1. Since the ethical status of homosexuality remains

undecided it is acceptable to have different moral
and, consequently, legal, attitudes towards same-sex
marriage. It is incumbent upon the proposition to
show us that the ethical status of homosexuality is
such that we must derive the 'right' to same-sex
marriage.

2. Even if we were to accept, for sake of argument,

that it is a moral truism that homosexuality is
acceptable, and same-sex marriage derivatively
desirable, the end-goal of persuading those who do
not believe these claims, and thereby improving the
lot of gay persons, can be massively harmed by a
blanket moral demand by the United Nations, or
team USA, that same-sex marriage be legalised
immediately.

[ Of course, Team USA was unclear whether their

case is purely normative - i.e. a wish that some
universe one day be created in which same-sex
marriage is legalised everywhere - or whether it is a
more gutsy proposition that in *our* reality it is
desirable, presently, for all (?) countries to legalise
same-sex marriage. Their outline suggests a
confusing attempt to cover all bases. Absent such
clarity, opposition will reasonably intepret proposition
to regard it desirable that tomorrow most countries
grant same-sex couples the right to marry, and the
rest take very meaningful steps towards doing so.]

It follows from the outline of our clash that we are

NOT going to argue that homosexuality is immoral.
We also do not intend to argue that same-sex
marriage is inherently undesirable.

Our case is simply, in a sense, but critically so, a

defence of legal and moral pluralism, and the
importance of a gradual realisation of liberalism. We
trust that this subtletly will not be mistranslated by
Team USA.
 Forcing change in liberal
democracies is itself illiberal
Good thing we don't make The force of proposition's case is that it is a 'defense'
legislation based upon of liberalism - allowing all people, no matter who they

public opinion polls. are, to access rights and freedoms. We clash with
this directly, and contend that forcing legislative
changes (that bring about marginal benefits to small
numbers of society) on a country that is clearly
averse to such changes is itself illiberal. And it is
precisely those countries in which this debate falls -
we are not contesting whether states that already
have functioning systems for same-sex marriage
should abandon those systems, but whether, in
opposition's words " bob loblaw".

Liberalism is in essence the preference for self

determination at the most personal level. But a state
(and the body of laws encapsulated by that state) is
merely an abstraction of personal preferences and
wills, and hence, in a classical Rousseauian sense
(the same beliefs on which US federalism is
predicated), a liberal state's norms, practises, and
legislation, must be defined from the bottom up
rather than the top down. It is only through
determining the rules that bind one at the level of the
state that one can truly practise liberal self
determination. If we accept proposition's proposal
and force same-sex marriage upon (effectively) all
societies, we are in fact incurring a great cost to the
very liberal project we are intending to promote and
protect, for an as yet unclear benefit. Remember,
this is not, as proposition believes, the profound
disenfranchising of homosexuals by removing their
rights to access economic opportunities or public

We do not reject the opposition's claim
that conflicting ethical theories regarding
homosexuality exist. We do however,
reject the idea that government should
also be conflicted between these ethics.
Religious arguments against
homosexuality have no place in
government legislation, just like the
bible's support for slavery or it's
subjection of women no longer do.
Similarly, while marriage may be
services and utilities.
The reality is that, at present, the majority of people
in the 'contested' countries of this debate do in fact
feel that same-sex marriage should not be allowed
(that's why these countries are the interesting
cases). Gallup polls as recent as 2009 show this to
be true, and show that in those states which have
forced through same-sex marriage legislation
against the will of their population have not seen a
rapid decrease in resistance to same-sex marriage
[[http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-
americans-contine-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx]]. We
advocate precisely the attitude of California's
Supreme Court who refused to overturn a public
referendum (Prop 8) on homosexual marriages that
came down in the negative; it is not the place of
legislators or judges to impose, illiberally, legislation
on the collective.
Moral and legal pluralism in
relation to same-sex marriage is
acceptable
First, it is important to recognise that the explanation
for why different viewpoints exist on whether or not
same-sex marriage should be legal, is because
different people, and governments, have different
intuitions about whether or not homosexuality, per
se, is acceptable. It is hard to imagine that this
debate would be a live one in a world in which
everyone agreed that homosexuality is acceptable. It
would follow with moral ease that legal systems
should, and would, reflect such moral consensus.
religiously derived, it does not stand as a
singularly religious institution today, and
therefore it need not conform to religious
principles. Civil marriages are perfectly
legal, and popular, and have the exact
same status and terminology as ones
done in a religious setting. In fact, civil
registration is necessary for marriage, the
presence of a religious figure is not.
Therefore a secular government has no
choice but to regard homosexuality within
a value ethics, not a religious ethics, and
deem it such. By decriminalizing and
providing safeguards against
discrimination based on sexuality, most
governments have already affirmed this.
No moral ambiguity remains for purposes
of legislation.
Furthermore, we find is ironic that the
opposition would argue for plurality, while
at the same time taking the stance that a
majorities view should be allowed to ban
a minorities rights. By allowing same sex
marriage (but not forcing it upon
heterosexual Christians like opposition
seems to believe), the government allows
for the plurality of action and
accommodate both parties. By restricting
this right, we are not being pluralistic, we
are being majoritarian.
The opposition has yet to define one
demonstrable harm that comes from the
legality of same-sex marriage. Personal
comfort levels and religious norms are
So, even though the same-sex marriage debate is
often articulated without reference to the messy
background debate about homosexuality's moral
status, Team South Africa want to yank that issue out
of the closet, because it is the real driver of
disagreement about same-sex marriage in the first
place.
Two important questions stem from all of this. Firstly,
can there be reasonable moral disagreement on the
status of homosexuality? Secondly, what are the
implications of question one for the debate on same-
sex marriage?
We answer the first question in the affirmative. It
follows from this that a legal plurality on same-sex
marriage is acceptable also.
ON REASONABLE MORAL AND LEGAL
DISAGREEMENT:
STEP 1] Many ethical views on homosexuality exist.
On the conservative end of the spectrum, often
informed by religious textual authority, is the view
that homosexuality offends the prescriptions of God -
or a God-alternative - and since God is the sole
source of moral authority, homosexuality is wrong.
On the liberal end of the spectrum, of course, is the
kind of view that informs Team USA's intuitions no
doubt - that rationality, not God, is the source of
morality. Since no rational justification can be
proferred for distinguishing between gay persons
and heterosexual persons in relation to the
distribution of legal regimes like marriage, it is
irrational, and therefore immoral, to deny gay
persons' right to marry.
violated constantly by legal mandate, but
states stop short of encroaching on
anyone's right to believe that these things
are wrong, disgusting or sinful. The
opposition misses the distinction between
the public results of permitting same-sex
marriage and the private impacts of the
action. There are a multitude of opinions
regarding relationships, but we leave
private individuals to determine for
themselves how to conduct their lives
without government interference.
Recently, the High Court of Delhi in India
overturned a century-and-a-half old anti-
sodomy law, which not only shows
governments can get out of the bedroom,
but that progressive societies can change
their minds about what was once ethically
unacceptable.
[[http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/APS/judgement/02-
07-
2009/APS02072009CW74552001.pdf]]
Similarly, Lawrence v. Texas in 2003
overturned that state's anti-sodomy laws.
[[http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/lawrence-v-
texas.pdf]] In 2005, Fiji overturned its anti-
sodomy laws in response to a conviction
of two gay men.
[[http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-
bin/iowa/article/takeaction/resourcecenter
/366.html]] Also in 2005, on the grounds
of the existing laws being discriminatory,
a judge overturned the anti-sodomy laws
of Hong Kong.
[[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/au
Between these end-points, a range of views exist
between e.g. homosexuality is ok but marriage is an
institution with a unique religious aetiology which
should not extend to homosexuals.
These three positions - there are many others -
constitute proof of opposition's contention that there
is a plurality of moral views on homosexuality.
More importantly, it is ok that these diverse views
exists. We cannot adjudicate between them. The
liberal framework informing Team USA's view is not
based in a universal moral truth that every person
must accept in order to resist a charge of immorality.
We challenge Team USA to justify why their moral
framework should be granted the lofty status of
'moral objectivity'.
It is precisely because moral views reflect the socio-
cultural norms within which they were developed that
moral objectivity is elusive. Some like banana on
pizza (or, indeed, inside them); others don't. Either
way, we cannot adjudicate between these matters of
taste. They are just that - differences in taste.
Similarly, moral intuitions are just reflections of moral
taste between persons, and governments, around
the world. While I may regard your moral taste as
'bad taste', I cannot give mine priority over yours in
determining and ranking moral viewpoints on
particular issues like homosexuality. Thefore, there
can be, and indeed there is, reasonable
disagreement on whether or not homosexuality is
morally acceptable.
STEP 2] Given, therefore, that there is reasonable
disagreement about the ethical status of
g/05082406.html]] The Knesset of Israel,
a state that literally aligns itself with a
religious ideology, is considering making
same-sex marriage legal, and even
including within the legislation a clause of
gender neutrality.
[[http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?
id=3320&MediaType=1&Category=24]]
However, most Israelis still consider
homosexuality an aberration.
[[http://www.angus-
reid.com/polls/view/33967/homosexuality
_an_aberration_for_many_israelis]] We
applaud the lawmaking body of a country
that takes a stance for equal rights of all
citizens, even if some, perhaps most of
the citizens in question are displeased
with the expansion of rights for a minority.
The global trend has been an expansion
of rights, and we see no clear reason not
to take a firm stance and promote the
rights expand further.
homosexuality, it follows that legal pluralism on the
issue is neither surprising nor unacceptable. After all,
there is an important relationship between law and
morality: the legitimacy of a legal system partly
derives from reflecting the social mores of the
citizens who are subject to that legal system. If there
is a gap between the moral norms of a legal system,
and the moral convictions of that society, then the
legal system's credibility is at stake.
This is not to say that law making process is a crude
matter of doing a headcount of the views of citizens.
Not so. Of course if the views of a citizenship is
beyond the pale, then a progressive legal system
could challenge it. If, for example, 90% of a citizenry
thought that twins should be killed, it would be hard
to argue that a legal system should unthinkingly
reflect this wish.
However, homosexuality is not a matter in respect of
which ethical disagreements are so easily solved.
The range of moral attitudes are not 'beyond the
pale' but for the liberal one Team USA is sustaining.
It is ok for a view that regards homosexuality as
immoral to exist. If this is conceded - as it surely
must be - then it is ok for a legal system in a country,
through whatever the law-making processes are that
exist in that country - to reflect this view in its policy
(or not) on same-sex marriage.
It follows that moral and legal pluralism in relation to
same-sex marriage is acceptable.

Corrective rape is not caused by same-
sex marriages. In the links the opposition
posted, we see incidents of rape in school
of outed unmarried individuals. Their
other link attributes the rise in corrective
rape not to a "backlash" but to the highly
publicized rape of Eudy Simelane:
"[S]ince then a tide of violence against
lesbians in South Africa has continued to
rise". The problem is that the SA
government has failed to take sufficient
action against these crimes, not that they
have legalized gay marriage.
The South African government was
clearly aware that there was
"overwhelming opposition to this bill from
people throughout South Africa"
[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/614701
0.stm]] when they legalized same-sex
marriage. It affords same-sex couple legal
stature and recognition in a very
homophobic atmosphere. It is hard to see
how "gradualism" could have prevented
these acts of violence. Indeed, more
immediate legal action continues to be
called for from the gay community in
South Africa.
[[http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/l
gbti/58066]]
It creates a social backlash that
damages substantive equality for
homosexuals
As our clash-outline promised, a second substantive
justification for not meddling intrusively with the
status quo is that Team USA is, ironically, shooting
itself in the liberal foot. The very aim of promoting
the interests of gay persons will likely be harmed by
this proposition.
We contend that substantive equality for
homosexuality is more important than formal
equality. Substantive equality is at risk here & so
gives us yet another basis for siding with opposition.
Here is why.
The proposition's case is an attempt to grant
homosexuals what might be called 'formal' equality' -
nominally equal rights or sameness of treatment on
the statute books. On team opposition we are far
more interested in securing for homosexuals
'substantive' equality - broadly equal treatment with
broadly equal consequences. While the two are not
necessarily mutually exclusive, the former does not
necessarily bring about the latter, nor is the latter
predicated on the former.
As we have already suggested, it is incumbent upon
proposition to show that formal equality brings about
substantive equality; we believe that too progressive
formal equality can actually damage our attempt to
gain substantive equality for homosexuals.
A good case study is, in fact, South Africa. South
Africa was the first country in the world to
constitutionally enshrine gay person's right to not be
discriminated against on grounds of sexual
orientation
[[http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996
/96cons2.htm#9]] . Subsequently, and to little
surprise, the constitutional court declared the
existing Marriage Act invalid
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-
sex_marriage_in_South_Africa#2005_Constitutional
_Court_decision]] and thereafter the South African
parliament enacted legislation that enables gay
persons to be legally married [[http://www.home-
affairs.gov.za/media_releases.asp?id=370]].

Yet, despite this formal equality enjoyed by gay

South Africans, there has been a social backlash.
Indeed, it is fair to describe South Africa as deeply
homophobic, with a huge number of cases of so-
called 'corrective rape' for example [cases in which
lesbians have been raped in an attempt to 'turn them
straight'; some are even killed].

Evidence of this phenomen being widespread has

been documented and publicly reported by very
credible bodies, such as the South African Human
Rights Commission, as well as LGBT pressure
groups, like OUT
[[http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/
1059/0dc26685e8f3408d9c72ffa6d8884992/12-03-
2008-09-13/Corrective_rape_at_schools]]
[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/eudy-
simelane-corrective-rape-south-africa]] According to
Triangle - one of the prominent gay organisations in
South Africa - no less than 86% of lesbian women in
townships around Cape Town live in fear of sexual
assault because of their orientation. Same-sex
marriage has fuelled, rather than stemmed, these
homophobic patterns.

The moral of this case study is clear: despite liberal

constitutionalists - like Team USA - around the world
deceptively using South Africa as an example of
same-sex marriage legislation being enacted, South
Africa showcases both 1) the impotency of using the
law as a blunt instrument for bringing about
attitudinal changes ; 2) more importantly, shows the
social backlash that can happen if a bottom-up
strategy for ethical dialogue is substituted for top-
down legal prescription.

Countries that are even more homophobic - like

Botswana or Namibia, say, both of whom have
constitutional systems and are members of the UN,
and so must fall within the range of countries Team
USA have in mind - are likely to see worse
backlashes against gay persons.

Formal equality is thus a danger to gay persons'

enjoyment of substantive equality, the latter being
more important. Gradualism is much more sensible -
bringing about incremental changes in the lot of gay
persons through securing more uncontentions rights
for now, such as gay persons' right to live in a safe
environment. Same-sex marriage, as our case study
shows, is neither necessary nor sufficient to make
environments safer for gay persons; indeed, same-
sex marriage can militate against that aim in many
contexts, liberal societies included.
Rebuttal 1: In defence of public
opinion
We note that opposition is employing the tactic of
'rebuttal by ridicule' rather than counter-argument.
This threatens to be funny, but in the end simply
leaves a substantive argument of ours wholly intact. [
See, again, 'Forcing change in liberal democracies is
itself illiberal'. ]

The opinion poll showing public views on the

evolution/creationism stand-off does not speak to our
substantive argument about the illiberal nature of
forcing countries to adopt same-sex marriage in the
face of public mores that runs deeply to the contrary.

The principle that opposition defends is that the

moral legitimacy of a legal system depends in part
on taking seriously the moral preferences of its
citizenry, hence our clash of moral and legal
pluralism.

Besides, the debate about evolution vs. creationism

is disanalogous. Evidence in favour of evolution is an
empirical matter, and the creationism claims, though
partly principled, has to answer the empiricism of
evoultion.

The same-sex marriage debate is fundamentally a

normative ethical one. It is not an 'empirical fact' that
same-sex marriage is acceptable. Such an
assumption, which seems to be the motivator for
Team USA's 'rebuttal by ridicule', is circular.

Our argument that law making should take seriously

the moral preferences of those subjected to its laws,
and social policies, stand. Moral and legal pluralism
in relation to same-sex marriage, follows.
Rebuttal 2: Moral and legal
pluralism's rightful place
In response to our second substantive argument -
'Moral and legal pluralism in relation to same-sex
marriage is acceptable' - proposition offers us a
number of responses. These can be whittled down to
the following claims:

1) States can ignore views that have a religious

aetiology when making laws and deciding social
policies;

2) Specifically in relation to homosexuality,

governments need not be morally agnostic as to
whether or not homosexuality - and, hence, same-
sex marriage - is acceptable;

3) Since marriage, in its civil guise, bears no

necessary or important relation to religious marriage
ceremonies, civil marriage should not be exclusive -
at most it is religious praxis that need protection,
which laws already provide for.

After lengthy exegeses by proposition on red

herrings such as the fate of intersexed persons,
Team South Africa is excited by the first, abeit
belated, real argument that speaks directly to the
institution of marriage per se (claim 3 above) rather
than tangential, wider social issues.

Nevertheless, Team USA's analyses is still not

cogent - a case of too little, too late.

We will deal with the three claims in turn. We deal

with the first one below, and list the other two sets of
responses separately, for ease of reading.
1. Opposition is in total agreement with proposition
that religious ethical views should not be given a
*special* place in law making. We never claimed that
to be the case, nor would we do so.

We rehearsed the religious argument against same-

sex marriage, not to own it, but to argue that its
existence, and ownership by many citizens in many
countries, is an ACCEPTABLE social reality.

And, to the extent that views which regard

homosexuality and samse-sex marriage as wrong
exist, it is OK for laws and social policies, IN THOSE
SOCIETIES, to reflect such religious or non-relgious
but conservative, conviction, if such conviction runs
deeply. Particularly given that the harms of exclusion
from marriage have not been established by Team
USA, policies reflecting this kind of religious-inspired
attitude towards homosexuality cannot be seen as a
moral error on the part of lawmakers.

In a sense - and we think that this was done in good

faith - proposition wrongly assumes that opposition is
endorsing the content of religious ethics. We are not.
We are endorsing the right of religious ethical views,
should they dominate the moral dialectic in a
country, to find expression in public policy.

Conversely, the view implicit in Team USA's position

is, in turn, not value-neutral, not unlike other ethical
perspectives. The assumption that liberalism is
devoid of moral content is popular but not accurate.
A state that priorities individual freedoms over the
views of the majority (even where those views do not
lead to demonstrable harms as has been the case in
this instalment of the same-sex marriage debate); a
state that maximises space for as many conceptions
of the 'good life' to be lived as possible; a state that
refuses to express a view on different identities and
lifestyles .... such a state is not morally neutral, since
its principles and ethos amount, in themselves, to
ONE conception of 'the good life' - a liberal,
individualist, secular model of society - that
competes with other political and moral visions of an
ideal society.

The burden Team USA must discharge - alas it is too

late - is not ONLY to dismiss religious ethics'
exclusive place in policy making (with which we
concur), but to give positive argument for why the
liberal individualism that drives their dismisall of ANY
majoritarian input on the same-sex marriage debate,
is ethically correct.

The failure to discharge such a burden entitles

opposition to conclude that the dismissal of religious
ethics' entitlement - or, indeed the entitlement of any
non-liberal ethical doctrine - to find expression in the
same-sex marriage debate has been hastily and
wrongly dismissed by Team USA.

Opposition's contention that the existence of moral

and legal pluralism within the international
community on same-sex marriage is acceptable
therefore remains unharmed by Team USA's
concerns about religion.
Rebuttal 3: Homosexuality and
moral agnosticism
Proposition wants to have their cake and eat it. They
start off accepting that a plurality of moral views on
homosexuality exist but then assert that
homosexuality is acceptable. This assertion does not
engage the pluralism they acknowledge, it simply by-
passes it by fiat.

Opposition is not arguing, as we had said before but

which must have fallen on closed eyes, that
homosexuality is immoral. We are agnostic on the
issue because there is no moral objectivity that can
settle the issue.

Proposition has tried to make their case by framing it

in terms of emotive human rights language. That is
deceptive - clever, but worthy of the label deception.
Of course there is a difference between what should
be state-sanctioned, and what should be allowed to
exist in private. Yes, in private, it is ok for someone
to believe that twins should be killed but no state
should sanction this view. In this kind of case, both
teams would be happy, presumably, to endorse a
disconnect between public policy and private belief.

However, same-sex marriage, in the absence of

more convinving normative analyses, does NOT
constitute a matter on which moral truisms can be
claimed by anyone. Just as it is extremely arrogant
for some religious persons to claim that it is a moral
'fact' that homosexuality - and, so, same-sex
marriage - is a moral sin, similarly, it is an exercise in
arrogance by Team USA to implicitly assert that
same-sex marriage is, as a matter of moral
*obviousness*, acceptable, such that public policy
must reflect this moral truism.

Yes, related issues, such as the right to not be

dismissed at work or ill-treated at work, on the basis
of your orientation, constitute clear cases of human
rights abuses. Same-sex marriage is not a human
rights issue.

In the case of abortion - which Team USA surely

must accept as a good parallel for making sense of
the relation between public mores and public policy,
even if they do not like the twins example - we do not
find it wrong that there is moral and legal pluralism in
relation to the status of abortion rights. Yes, people
passionately debate the issues around abortion, but
REASONABLE [INTERNATIONAL] MORAL AND
LEGAL DISAGREEMENT is accepted as inevitable
and ok.

Remember, this debate is not place-set in a

particular country. This is why opposition need not,
and did not, take a view on homosexuality's
acceptability - or that of same-sex marriage - in that
country. Proposition's case is set up as a desire for
all countries to enact same-sex marriage laws.
Hence, in opposition, as we have done here, and
throughout our rebuttal and positive matter, we are
articulating why a diversity of views between
countries exist, will continue to do so, and why this is
ok
Rebuttal 4: Why it is ok for civil
marriage to be exclusive
Proposition finally came up with a direct piece of
argument to make the letter of the motion come alive
in the dying moments of the debate - civil marriage is
a non-religious institution by its very nature and
therefore moral offence anyone would take at the
thought of allowing gay persons to access the
institution of civil marriage, should be ignored.

Great.

Well, uhm, not really. Here is why.

Ok, so Team USA strategically concedes that

religious praxis could be exclusive. Gays do not
have a prima facie right to a priest's blessing. Both
sides are in agreement here.

But proposition's attempt to move from this

concession, to the conclusion that a civil institution
CANNOT be exclusive, is hazy and hasty.

It seems clear to us that unless there is an overriding

moral reason to change the operation of an
institution, the mere fact of exclusion does not
constitute a reason, surely?

In other words, the exclusion of gay persons from

civil marriage - in some countries - only constitutes a
moral error if that exclusion is tied to a *legitimate
expectation* on the part of gay persons to be
included in the first place. But such an expectation, it
would appear, rests on a demand to access the fruits
and burdens that come with institution. But if those
associated goods can be distributed in equal
measure, and same quality, through another
mechanism, then the putative entitlement to enter
that civil institution, falls away.

This is EXACTLY the case with same-sex marriage.

Arrangements such as civil unions - and Team USA
has now conceded they are factually wrong about
the differences in rights and duties that flow/can flow
from civil unions as opposed to marriage - are
parallel mechanisms that deliver the same goods as
civil marriage.

To argue for inclusion in the institution of civil

marriage, ostensibly a case of inclusion for its own
sake - or merely for the sake of aesthetics, quite
frankly, EVEN WHERE most citizens wish that not to
happen, is simply a case of liberal logic going into
overrdrive.

Mechanism such as civil unions achieve the best of

all possible worlds. On the one hand, they allow laws
to reflect public mores by maintaining marriage as an
exclusive civil institution (in places where that is
desired by the majority). At the same time, they
ensure that gay persons are not - wrongly - excluded
from the associated rights and benefits of marriage.

In sum, then, to answer Team USA's challenge

head-on - to wit, 'If there is nothing in a word, why
exclude gay persons?': Because excluding gay
persons does not cause harm (e.g. civil unions can
be set up) and exclusion ensures that public policies
take seriously the aggregate preferences of citizens
to impute their collective value on that 'word'.

Again moral and legal pluralism comes out sensible,

and the facist imposition of liberal individualism on
all societies in the universe comes out decidedly
illiberal.

Opposition's clash is sustained.

Rebuttal 5: The danger of putting
the liberal cart before the
homophobic horse
In response to our final substantive argument - "
[Same-sex marriage] creates a social backlash that
damages substantive equality for homosexuals" -
proposition points out, firstly, that many homophobic
acts are not related to same-sex marriage. In many
cases this will, indeed, be the case - after all, hate
crimes preceded same-sex marriage in South Africa.
We concede that observation.

But the real points are these: 1) same-sex marriage

has not resulted in a decrease in homophobic
incidents, pace the predictions of Team USA in their
first round argument; indeed, 2) same-sex marriage
has led to stronger lobbying against gay persons'
rights in South Africa by groups that have become
organised *in response to* same-sex marriage being
legalised [[http://www.sacla.za.net/?
component=ddb&operation=page&page=24]]. It is
this latter reality that constitutes the social backlash.

Tellingly, proposition concedes this point (!!) when

they state - correctly - that

" The South African government was clearly aware

that there was "overwhelming opposition to this bill
from people throughout South Africa"[1] when they
legalized same-sex marriage. It affords same-sex
couple legal stature and recognition in a very
homophobic atmosphere. "

We deduce from this quote that Team USA regards

the South African government as having been hasty
to put the liberal cart before the homophobic horse.
They should not - we assume prop to be saying here
- ignore what most people think. It is refreshing that
majoritary views' place in policy design finally gain
relevance from Team USA. Thanks for that!

It - the SA government - would have done gay

persons a much greater favour by focusing on more
substantive gains (like educating persons on the
ground about the illegality and wrongness of
attacking gay persons) before setting out to design
marriage policies that do not speak to the immediate,
substantive needs of the gay community. Once
again, as Team USA's own response to the SA case
studies confirms, it is clear that law as an instrument
of social change is unreliable.

Opposition's analysis on social backlash, remains.