Motion: THW allow for same-sex marriage unconditionally, changing all existing legislation at one fell swoop
Role: Minister (govt.)
Date: Dec 20th, 2014
In this speech as the govt’s minister I’m going to to defend and champion homosexuals’ right to a same-sex equal and legally binding marriage. I try to list as many reasons as I can in the 7 minutes I’m allotted just like everyone else (8 people in this case).
First of all, I have a number of proper or per-se reasons for allowing this ”unholy” union between man and man or woman and woman. The first one of them is cynical: marriage is already, by now, a ”broken toy” that does not interest the majority of sane heterosexuals. It provides two people with juridical shackles that have ramifications beyond the wedding vows in Las Vegas. Common-law marriage is virtually as good, and children are a nuisance. So, if gay people want to have that kind of trouble, let them have it. Young heterosexuals are going in the opposite direction, rather adopting lifestyles that remind of old gay San Francisco, such as ”fuck buddies” and Grnder (→ Tinder).
Second, being gay is not a crime nor an illness. This was established as early in this country as 1971, and 1981, respectively. If gay people have all the other signs and trappings of ”free citizens”, they should have the rest as well. Otherwise, it would look queer and perverted, from God’s perspective. The Christian God is not as vengeful as that of the Ottomans, Muslims or Jews. Remember that early Christians were killed as a sideshow to Roman gladiator battles in antiquity, for they were so ”soft”.
Now I’ll hop over to to the instrumental reasons or utilitarian reasons, but at this point I’ll allow questions on what I’ve just been preaching about, two at the maximum.
— (allowing questions for a minute) —
Third, we in the Christian part of the world have already seen how two other pillars of the world of the cloth have fallen; namely, male priests have been allowed to marry (not so in the past) and female priests have been allowed in the first place (not so in the past). Consequently, what could solve it for the church would be that the three were brought to interact with each other. Let us have gay weddings officiated by female Reformist priests or grateful, married male Catholic priests. Since they have seen the mercy in the church, they’d be likely willing to pass it on to the liberal wing of the church in the absence of conservative forces. Gay weddings could be modest affairs, and little-attended events, but within the confines of the church nevertheless.
Fourth, I see gay couples as part of the adoption solution. There are far more children in need of great parents in the world than there are unfit adoption parents waiting in line. Waiting in itself tells about an earnest attitude towards the thing, as opposed to making babies on one’s own in the rush of the ”moment”. Children left out in the cold are far more likely to die and suffer than any given to functional adults of any shape or sort. I’m all for a ”machine” that receives babies from dysfunctional hetero adults at one end and gives them to all and sundry parents-to-be at the other end of its conveyor belt. In the past, it was often grandparents that raised kids into adulthood, so nowadays their place could be taken by gay non-relatives. Gay people may be promiscuous, but they would have to take care of an adopted child, anyway. It’s a commitment, and they understand that, like they understand their monetary commitments to their lenders and landlords. For all that, if gay parenthood failed, the child would be passed on to straight parents after a failed try.
I rest my case is here, and I hope that it convinced you. Thank you.
Puheen kesto: 5 min 7 sek
Arvio: * * * * ½. Puheessa mennään liberalismin nimissä erään ihmisryhmän ihmisoikeuksien täydellistä normalisointia kohti. Tätä kohti on menossa läntinen maailma, siinä missä muut laahaavat ajatuksineen perässä. Pisteitä ropisee kuitenkin ensisijassa hyvästä kappaleajaosta ja puheen pituudesta, joka jättää tilaa puheesta varmasti versoville kysymyksille, sekä selkeästä argumenttijaosta, jonka voi esittää vaikka nyrkki pystyssä sormiaan lasketellen.