1.

THIS HOUSE WOULD ALLOW GAY COUPLES TO MARRY

INTRODUCTION
It is now a widely accepted fact that homosexuality is naturally made, not only viewing from scientific
studies that prove its apriority [1], but also viewing from homosexual behaviors that are documented all the way
back from ancient Greece to today. Homosexuality is also seen in 1,500 species of animal including mammals,
birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects and other invertebrates [2]. Being proven to be innate, homosexuality
seemingly should not be debatable or discriminated. But due to human race’s unfamiliarity with same-sex having
affectionate bond, gay marriage debate become one of the most common debating topics around the world. The
main essence of gay marriage debate is if abandoning this social stereotype is necessary when there are
organizations and peoples who renounce homosexuality.
In this debate, I argue that gay marriage should be legalized. Under the definition, the argument will not
extend to region where homosexuality is criminalized for it is very unreasonable to extend the debate to those
regions. My burden of proof will be to show that tolerance towards homosexuality is not enough but legalization
of their marriage should happen.
I will present my case from two different aspects: individual and social benefits of legalization of gay
marriage. By individual, I represent the homosexual couples themselves and by social benefit, I represent the
general community. I will elaborate my individual argument on this round and social argument on my next round.

Pro & Con Arguments: "Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?"

PRO Gay Marriage CON Gay Marriage

1. Denying some people the option to marry is discriminatory and 1. The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as
creates a second class of citizens. On July 25, 2014 Miami-Dade
County Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled Florida's gay
marriage ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban "serves only
to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their
families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class
citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the
fundamental institutions of our society." [105] Christine Gregoire,
former Washington governor, said in Jan. 2012: "Throughout our
history, we have fought discrimination. We have joined together to
recognize equality for racial minorities, women, people with
disabilities, immigrants... [Legalizing gay marriage] is the right
thing to do and it is time." [139] US Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals Judge Richard Posner, in overturning same-sex marriage
bans in Wisconsin and Indiana in Sep. 2014, wrote that the bans
"discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable
characteristic." [40] As well as discrimination based on sexual
orientation, gay marriage bans discriminate based on one's sex. As
explained by David S. Cohen, JD, Associate Professor at the Drexel
University School of Law, "Imagine three people—Nancy, Bill,
and Tom... Nancy, a woman, can marry Tom, but Bill, a man,
cannot... Nancy can do something (marry Tom) that Bill cannot,
simply because Nancy is a woman and Bill is a man." [122]
Same-sex couples should have access to the same
benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. There
are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married
couples in federal law alone, according to a General
Accounting Office assessment made in 2004. [86] Benefits
only available to married couples include hospital visitation
during an illness, the option of filing a joint tax return to
reduce a tax burden, access to family health coverage, US
residency and family unification for partners from another
country, and bereavement leave and inheritance rights if a
partner dies. [6] [95] Married couples also have access to
protections if the relationship ends, such as child custody,
spousal or child support, and an equitable division of
being between a man and a woman. In upholding gay marriage
bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee on Nov. 6,
2014, 6th US District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton
wrote that "marriage has long been a social institution defined by
relationships between men and women. So long defined, the
tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So
widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by
all governments and major religions of the world." [117] In the
Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of
Minnesota found that "the institution of marriage as a union of
man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing
of children within a family, is as old as the book of
Genesis." [49] John F. Harvey, MA, STL, late Catholic priest,
wrote in July 2009 that "Throughout the history of the human
race the institution of marriage has been understood as the
complete spiritual and bodily communion of one man and one
woman." [18] [109]
2. Marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to
same-sex couples because they cannot produce children
together.Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the
purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult
gratification. [19] A California Supreme Court ruling from 1859
stated that "the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature
and society, is procreation." [90] Nobel Prize-winning
philosopher Bertrand Russell stated that "it is through children
alone that sexual relations become important to society, and
worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal
institution."[91] Court papers filed in July 2014 by attorneys
defending Arizona's gay marriage ban stated that "the State
regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling
potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring unions
for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their
father... Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both
 property.[93] Married couples in the US armed forces are
offered health insurance and other benefits unavailable to
domestic partners. [125] The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
and the US Department of Labor also recognize married
couples, but not domestic partners, for the purpose of
granting tax, retirement and health insurance
benefits. [126] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York
Times estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage
benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in
expenses over their lifetimes compared with married
heterosexual couples. [7] A Jan. 2014 analysis published by
the Atlantic concluded that unmarried women pay up to one
million dollars more over their lifetimes than married women
for healthcare, taxes, and other expenses. [94]
2. The concept of "traditional marriage" has changed over
time, and the definition of marriage as always being
between one man and one woman is historically
inaccurate. Harvard University historian Nancy F. Cott stated
that until two centuries ago, "monogamous households were a
tiny, tiny portion" of the world's population, and were found
only in "Western Europe and little settlements in North
America." Polygamy has been widespread throughout history,
according to Brown University political scientist Rose
McDermott, PhD. [110][106] Interracial marriage was once
illegal in a majority of US states, and was still banned in half of
US states until the 1950s. [108] Official unions between same-
sex couples, indistinguishable from marriages except for
gender, are believed by some scholars to have been common
until the 13th Century in many countries, with the ceremonies
performed in churches and the union sealed with a kiss between
the two parties. [106]
3. Gay marriage is protected by the US Constitution's
commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court
ruled 7-2 in the 1974 case Cleveland Board of Education v.
LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of
marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the
Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote
on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage
was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses." [41] The Due Process Clause in both the
Fifth and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution states that
no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law." [111] The Equal Protection Clause in the
14th Amendment states that no state shall "deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [112]
4. Marriage is an internationally recognized human right for
all people. Since 1888 the US Supreme Court has declared 14
times that marriage is a fundamental right for all, according to
the American Foundation for Equal Rights. [3] Article 16 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees "men and
women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
nationality or religion... the right to marry and to found a
family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during
marriage and at its dissolution." [103]Amnesty International
states that "this non-discrimination principle has been
her biological mother and her biological father." Contrary to the
pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex couples
cannot have children or don't want them, even in those cases
there is still the potential to produce children. Seemingly infertile
heterosexual couples sometimes produce children, and medical
advances may allow others to procreate in the future.
Heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children are still
biologically capable of having them, and may change their
minds.[98]
3. Children need both a mother and a father.Girls who are
raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for
early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. [52] Children
without a mother are deprived of the emotional security and
unique advice that mothers provide. A 2012 study by Mark
Regnerus, PhD, Associate Professor of Sociology at the
University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by
parents who had same-sex relationships suffered more
difficulties in life (including sexual abuse and unemployment in
later life) than children raised by "intact biological
famil[ies]." [133] Doug Mainwaring, the openly gay co-founder
of National Capital Tea Party Patriots, stated that "it became
increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else
exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would
still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom... I
don't want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples
where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing."[53]
4. Legalizing gay marriage could lead down a "slippery slope,"
giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other
nontraditional relationships the right to marry. [10] Glen
Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued
in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times op-ed, "The movement for
polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-
sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing
marriage." [11] In Apr. 2013 Slate writer Jillian Keenan wrote:
"Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than
homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults
is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three
(or four, or six) consenting adults." [71] James C. Dobson,
Founder and Chairman of Focus on the Family, predicted in
2005 that legalizing same-sex marriage will enable "group
marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," and
"marriage between a man and his donkey." [136]
5. Allowing gay couples to wed could further weaken the
institution of marriage.Traditional marriage is already
threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%), and
40.7% of babies were born to unmarried mothers in 2012. [50]
[51] [116] Former US Senator (R-PA) and presidential candidate
Rick Santorum stated that "Legalization of gay marriage would
further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-
being of children and our society. Do we need to confuse future
generations of Americans even more about the role and
importance of an institution that is so critical to the stability of
our country?" [137] Ryan T. Anderson, William E. Simon
Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage
Foundation, said "In recent decades, marriage has been
 interpreted by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-
governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination
based on gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on
grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become an
internationally recognized principle." [104]
5. Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The NAACP (National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May
21, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil
rights struggles of our time." [61] In 1967 the US Supreme
Court unanimously confirmed in Loving v. Virginia that
marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man." [60] The
White House website lists same-sex marriage amongst a
selection of civil rights, along with freedom from employment
discrimination, equal pay for women, and fair sentencing for
minority criminals. [118]
6. Marriage is not only for procreation, otherwise infertile
couples or couples not wishing to have children would
beprevented from marrying. Ability or desire to create
offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. From
1970 through 2012 roughly 30% of all US households were
married couples without children, and in 2012, married couples
without children outnumbered married couples with children by
9%. [96] 6% of married women aged 15-44 are infertile,
according to the US Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. [97] In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey, both
married and unmarried people rated love, commitment, and
companionship higher than having children as "very important"
reasons to get married, and only 44% of unmarried people and
59% of married people rated having children as a very
important reason. [42] Several US presidents never had their
own biological children, including George Washington, often
referred to as "the Father of Our Country." [9] [12] As US
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan noted, a marriage license
would be granted to a couple in which the man and woman are
both over the age of 55, even though "there are not a lot of
children coming out of that marriage." [88]
7. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal,
state, and local governments and can help boost the
economy. Government revenue from marriage comes
from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some
circumstances (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and
decreases in costs for state benefit programs. [4] In July
2012 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
announced that gay marriage had contributed $259 million
to the city's economy since the practice became legal
there in July 2011. [43] In 2012, the Williams Institute at 8.
the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) found
that in the first five years after Massachusetts legalized
gay marriage in 2004, same-sex wedding expenditures
(such as venue rental, wedding cakes, etc.) added $111
million to the state's economy. [114] A 2014 series of
reports also by the Williams Institute estimated that
legalizing same-sex marriage would boost the economies
of the 11 US states studied by a total of $723 million over
three years. [87]The Congressional Budget Office
weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires
than children’s needs... Redefining marriage to include same-sex
relationships is the culmination of this revisionism, and it would
leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage
apart from other bonds." [70]
6. Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. J. Matt Barber,
Associate Dean for Online Programs at Liberty University
School of Law, stated that "Every individual engaged in the
homosexual lifestyle, who has adopted a homosexual identity,
they know, intuitively, that what they're doing is immoral,
unnatural, and self-destructive, yet they thirst for that
affirmation." A 2003 set of guidelines signed by Pope John Paul
II stated: "There are absolutely no grounds for considering
homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely
analogous to God's plan for marriage and family... Marriage is
holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral
law." [147] Former Arkansas governor and Republican
presidential candidate Mike Huckabee stated in Oct. 2014 that
gay marriage is "inconsistent with nature and nature’s
law." [148]
7. Gay marriage is contrary to the word of God and is
incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of
many religious groups. The Bible, in Leviticus 18:22, states:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination," thus condemning homosexual
relationships. [120] In Islamic tradition, several hadiths
(passages attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) condemn gay
and lesbian relationships, including the sayings "When a man
mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Sihaq
[lesbian sex] of women is zina [illegitimate sexual
intercourse]."[121] The Catholic Church, United Methodist
Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and
American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex
marriage. [119] Two orthodox Jewish groups, the Orthodox
Agudath Israel of America and the Orthodox Union, also oppose
gay marriage, as does mainstream Islam. [13] [119] According
to a July 31, 2003 statement from the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II,
marriage "was established by the Creator with its own nature,
essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the
human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a
man and a woman…" [54] Pope Benedict stated in Jan. 2012
that gay marriage threatened "the future of humanity
itself." [145]
Legalizing gay marriage often leads to an end to
domestic partnership benefits for gay and straight
couples, which disadvantages couples who choose not
to get married. Maryland ended health insurance
benefits for new domestic partnerships after same-sex
marriage became legal in the state in
2013. [124] [135]The state of Washington automatically
converted domestic partnerships to marriages when they
legalized gay marriage in 2012, providing no option to
retain domestic partnerships or civil unions unless one
 estimated in 2004 that federally-recognized gay marriage
would cut the budget deficit by around $450 million a
year. [89]
8. 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. [92] 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. [45] A July 2010
study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted
as those adopted by heterosexual parents." [46] 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." [68] In the United
States, around 115,000 children are waiting to be adopted. [44]
9. Gay marriage bans cause humiliation and uncertainty for
children being raised by same-sex couples. In ruling Texas'
gay marriage ban unconstitutional, San Antonio-based federal
judge Orlando Garcia stated that the ban "causes needless
stigmatization and humiliation for children being raised by the
loving same-sex couples being targeted." [138]Children of
unmarried same-sex couples are denied the stability that comes
with having married parents, including the guarantee of child
support in the case of divorce and an automatic legal connection
to both parents. [107] If no legal relationship is established, the
child cannot be sure of receiving financial support from the
non-biologically related partner, and is not guaranteed an
inheritance if that partner dies without leaving a will.[151]
10. Marriage provides both physical and psychological health
benefits, and banning gay marriage increases rates of
psychological disorders. [5] The American Psychological
Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others
wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex
couples to marry would give them access to the social support
that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages,
with all of the psychological and physical health benefits
associated with that support." [47] A 2012 study by researchers
from UCLA, San Francisco State University, and the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst found that same-sex married
couples were "significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and
bisexual persons not in a legally recognized
relationship." [113] A 2010 analysis published in the American
Journal of Public Health found that after their states had banned
gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37%
increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use
disorders, and a 248% increase in generalized anxiety
disorders. [69]
11. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm the institution of
marriage, and same-sex marriages may even be more stable
than heterosexual marriages. A study published on Apr. 13,
partner is at least 62 years old. [134] [123] The US
Defense Department announced in Aug. 2013 that it
would grant health insurance and other benefits to same-
sex married partners of US troops, but that domestic
partners would no longer be granted the same
benefits. [125] The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and
the US Department of Labor recognized same-sex
married couples for the purpose of granting tax,
retirement, and health insurance benefits after the US
Supreme Court declared part of the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA) unconstitutional in 2013, but they did not
include domestic partnerships or civil unions. [126]
9. Gay marriage will accelerate the assimilation of
gays into mainstream heterosexual culture to the
detriment of the homosexual community. The gay
community has created its own vibrant culture. By
reducing the differences in opportunities and
experiences between gay and heterosexual people,
this unique culture may cease to exist. Lesbian
activist M.V. Lee Badgett, PhD, Director of the
Center for Public Policy and Administration at the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, stated that
for many gay activists "marriage means adopting
heterosexual forms of family and giving up
distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay
and lesbian culture." [14] Paula Ettelbrick, JD,
Professor of Law and Women's Studies, wrote in
1989, "Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary
goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the
affirmation of gay identity and culture and the
validation of many forms of relationships." [15]
10. Marriage is an outmoded, oppressive institution that should
be weakened, not expanded. LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender) activist collective Against Equality states that "Gay
marriage apes hetero privilege... [and] increases economic
inequality by perpetuating a system which deems married beings
more worthy of the basics like health care and economic
rights." [84] The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New
York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage
as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system.
The family is the microcosm of oppression." [16] Self-described
queer activist Anders Zanichkowsky stated in June 2013 that the
campaign for gay marriage "intentionally and maliciously erases
and excludes so many queer people and cultures, particularly
trans and gender non-conforming people, poor queer people, and
queer people in non-traditional families... marriage thinks non-
married people are deviant and not truly deserving of civil
rights." [127]
11. People should not have their tax dollars used to support
something they believe is wrong. Peter S. Sprigg, MDiv, Senior
Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, said
that if gay marriage were legalized, "[t]axpayers, consumers, and
businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual
relationships... One of the key arguments often heard in support
of homosexual civil marriage revolves around all the
 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting
same-sex marriage or civil unions haveno adverse effect on
marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of
children born out of wedlock."[48] A Nov. 2011 study by
UCLA's Williams Institute reported that the rate at which
legally recognized same-sex couples (in marriages or civil
unions, etc.) end their relationships is 1.1% on average, while
2% of married different-sex couples divorce
annually. [115] The Executive Board of the American
Anthropological Association found that more than a century of
research has shown "no support whatsoever for the view that
either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage
as an exclusively heterosexual institution.Rather,
anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast
array of family types, including families built upon same-sex
partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane
societies." [8]
12. Gay marriage legalization is correlated with lower divorce
rates, while gay marriage bans are correlated with higher
divorce rates. Massachusetts, which became the first US state
to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in
the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between
2003 and 2008. Alaska, which altered its constitution to prohibit
gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate
over the same period. The seven states with the highest divorce
rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions
to gay marriage. [2]
13. Legal marriage is a secular institution that should not be
limited by religious objections to same-sex
marriage. Religious institutions can decline to marry gay and
lesbian couples if they wish, but they should not dictate
marriage laws for society at large. As explained by People for
the American Way, "As a legal matter, marriage is a civil
institution... Marriage is also a religious institution, defined
differently by different faiths and congregations. In America,
the distinction can get blurry because states permit clergy to
carry out both religious and civil marriage in a single ceremony.
Religious Right leaders have exploited that confusion by
claiming that granting same-sex couples equal access to civil
marriage would somehow also redefine the religious institution
of marriage... this is grounded in falsehood and
deception."[132] Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v.
Schwarzenegger that "[c]ivil law has always been supreme in
defining and regulating marriage." [41]
14. 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." [128] 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. [129] Reform
Judaism, which comprises about 80% of the American Jewish
government 'benefits' that homosexuals claim they are denied.
Many of these 'benefits' involve one thing–taxpayer money that
homosexuals are eager to get their hands on." [146] Gay
marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits
including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social
security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a
spouse’s health insurance policy, largely at taxpayers' expense.
On Dec. 17, 2009 the Congressional Budget Office estimated
that the cost to the federal government of extending employment
benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal
employees (making no mention of additional costs such as
Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in
mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending
between 2010 and 2019. [37]
12. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. The US Constitution
contains no explicit right to marry. [99] The European Court of
Human Rights ruled on June 24, 2010 that the state has a valid
interest in protecting the traditional definition of marriage, and
stated that the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms "enshrined the traditional concept of
marriage as being between a man and a woman." [101]
[102] Society can choose not to allow same-sex couples to
marry, just as it does not allow a person to marry more than one
partner or allow minors or close relatives to
marry. [100] Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty
University School of Law, explained: "The unifying
characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread
discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable
characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the
three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil
rights categories." [62]
13. Legalizing gay marriage advances the "homosexual agenda"
and unfairly paints opponents as bigots. The Illinois Family
Institute states that if gay marriage is legalized, "Children will be
taught that homosexuality is morally equivalent to
heterosexuality... that children do not have any inherent rights to
know and be raised by a mother and a father... [and] that
opposition to the legalization of 'same-sex marriage' was
equivalent to opposition to the legalization of interracial
marriage. They will be taught that opposition to both was
motivated by ignorance and hatred." [85] Lou Sheldon, Founder
of the Traditional Values Coalition, warned of the influence on
children of the "homosexual agenda," writing that "[o]ur little
children are being targeted by the homosexuals and liberals... To
be brainwashed to think that homosexuality is the moral
equivalent of heterosexuality. We can't let that hap
 population, endorses same-sex marriage, and the Central
Conference of American Rabbis has supported gay marriage
since 1996. [130] 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." [119] [141]
[142] [143]
 It's All About Choices Anyone can have a romantic
and/or sexual relationship with anyone they choose.
No one is forced to be with anyone. In order to get
married, you need to be with someone of the
opposite gender. If that's not something you want to
do, then realize you aren't going to get married
either instead of demanding the government needs
to change to fit your choices.
 Homosexuality is a Life Choice
Due to the fact that homosexuality has been proven
to sometimes be a life choice (not always genetic),
it would be hypocritical to allow gay marriage, but
then not allow incest-marriage, or polygamy, since
these are obviously both life choices also. A lot of
people simply support something because it sounds
nice and seems humanitarian, this can lead to
ignorance, hypocrisy, and a detrimental/self
destructive policy.

2. THIS HOUSE BELIEVES CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SHOULD FOCUS MORE ON
REHABILITATION.
The criminal justice system comprises many distinct
stages, including arrest, prosecution, trial,
sentencing, and punishment (quite often in the form
of imprisonment). Rehabilitation can take place in
any of these phases as the police for example can
impose on the spot penalties and cautions but these
are not controversial it is in the last two of these
many stages that there is debate over whether the
criminal justice system should focus more on
rehabilitation than on retribution.
Rehabilitation is the idea of reforming a prisoner so
that they can reintegrate back into society upon their
release. This process involves various programs
including anger management, education programs
and even creative workshops to form another outlet
for expression. It is hoped that through this process
they will become less inclined to commit crimes in
the future. It seeks to prevent a person from
reoffending by taking away the desire to offend.
This is very different from the idea of ‘deterrence’
(which is the idea of making him afraid to offend,
though he may still desire to), and the idea of
‘incapacitation’ (which is the idea of taking away
his physical power to offend, though he may still
desire to and be unafraid to) however even under
these theories the assumption is that after the
offender has spent their time they will be much less
of a threat to society, can be released and will not
reoffend.
The retributive idea is that punishment should be
determined chiefly (possibly even only) by the
seriousness of the crime itself, and not by
consequentialist factors, such as whether the
punishment is enough to scare (i.e. deter) the rest of
society. The term ‘retribution’ is therefore
unfortunate because its everyday meaning connotes
‘revenge’; it is better described as ‘desert’, ‘just
deserts’ or ‘proportionality’ theory.
Crimes such as murder or other equally severe
crimes do deserve imprisonment as a punishment,
rehabilitation should be considered for lesser
crimes, for example those caught looting during the
August riots in the UK. For these offenders,
 particularly for those who were first time offenders,
imprisonment would only add to their anger against
the government and police. Whereas rehabilitation,
it the form of education and helping rebuild
houses/businesses damaged by the riots, this would
work on reforming their attitudes and perceptions of
the UKs legal system and therefore they would
more easily integrate into society. Almost all non-
violent and crimes against property would be better
met with rehabilitation rather than lengthy
imprisonment.
POSITIF
a. Rehabilitation Is A Better General Justifying
Aim for Punishment
Rehabilitation is the most valuable ideological
justification for imprisonment, for it alone promotes
the humanising belief in the notion that offenders
can be saved and not simply punished. Desert
(retributive) theory, on the other hand, sees
punishment as an end in itself, in other words,
punishment for punishment’s sake. This has no
place in any enlightened society.
An example can be taken from the aftermath of
the London rioters, where 170 riot offenders under
18 are now in custody without firstly understanding
the causes of the riots nor the reasons of why these
people offended.[1]
The rehabilitative ideal does not ignore society
and the victim. In fact it is because retribution
places such great value on the prisoner’s rights that
it tries so hard to change the offender and prevent
his reoffending. By seeking to reduce reoffending
and to reduce crime, it seeks constructively to
promote the safety of the public, and to protect
individuals from the victimisation of crime. The
public agrees; a 2008 poll of British citizens found
82% ‘thought rehabilitation was as important, or
more important than punishment as a criterion when
sentencing criminals’.[2] Such a model of
punishment is therefore a more enlightened
approach in a modern day criminal justice system.
Our current system which focuses more on
retribution does not have the possibility of seeking
to prevent reoffending by curing the offender of
their desire to reoffend.
[1] Malik, Shiv, ‘UK riots cause 8% rise in jailed
b. Rehabilitation Has Greater Regard for Offender
children’, guardian.co.uk, 8 September 2011.
[2] Directgov. Rehabilitation versus punishment -
judge for yourself. 1 July 2008.
COUNTERPOINT
A sanction should not merely be helpful – it should
treat the offending conduct as wrong. The purpose
of punishment is to show disapproval for the
offender’s wrongdoing, and to clearly condemn his
criminal actions. This is what was and is being done
with the offenders of the August riots, the most
common example is of an the two men who
attempted to organise riots using Facebook, both
were sentenced to four years and shows societies
disgust in the events of the riots and acts as a
message for future.[1]
A prison sentence is as much a punishment for the
offender as a symbol of the reaction of society.
Society creates law as an expression of the type of
society we are aiming to create. This is why we
punish; we punish to censure (retribution), we do
not punish merely to help a person change for the
better (rehabilitation). We still have to punish a
robber or a murderer, even if he is truly sorry and
even if he would really, really never offend again
and even if we could somehow tell that for certain.
This is because justice, and not rehabilitation,
makes sense as the justification for punishment.
Why is justice and censure (‘retribution’) so
important? Because unless the criminal justice
system responds to persons who have violated
society’s rules by communicating, through
punishment, the censure of that offending conduct,
the system will fail to show society that it takes its
own rules (and the breach of them) seriously. There
are other important reasons as well: such as to
convey to victims the acknowledgement that they
have been wronged. Punishment, in other words,
may be justified by the aim of achieving ‘justice’
and ‘desert’, and not by the aim of rehabilitation.
[1] Bowcott, Owen, Haroon Siddique and Andrew
Sparrow, ‘Facebook cases trigger criticism of
‘disproportionate’ riot sentences’,guardian.co.uk,
17 August 2011.
Rehabilitation has another important value – it
recognises the reality of social inequity. To say that
some offenders need help to be rehabilitated is to
accept the idea that circumstances can constrain, if
not compel, and lead to criminality; it admits that
we can help unfortunate persons who have been
overcome by their circumstance. It rejects the idea
that individuals, regardless of their position in the
social order, exercise equal freedom in deciding
whether to commit a crime, and should be punished
equally according to their offence, irrespective of
their social backgrounds. Prisons are little more
than schools of crime if there aren't any
rehabilitation programs. Prisons isolate offenders
from their families and friends so that when they are
released their social networks tend to be made up
largely of those whom they met in prison. As well
as sharing ideas, prisoners may validate each others’
criminal activity. Employers are less willing to
employ those who have been to prison. Such
circumstances may reduce the options available to
past offenders and make future criminal behaviour
more likely. Rehabilitation becomes more difficult.
In addition, rates of self-harm and abuse are
alarmingly high within both men’s and women’s
prisons. In 2006 alone, there were 11,503 attempts
by women to self-harm in British prisons.[1] This
suggests that imprisoning offenders unnecessarily is
harmful both for the offenders themselves and for
society as a whole.
[1] Women in Prison. Statistics. Retrieved August
4, 2011, from Women in Prison.
COUNTERPOIN
Crime is not pathology, it is not the product of
circumstance, and it is certainly not the product of
coincidence. As the case of Husng Guangyu shows,
despite being Chinas richest man he still committed
crimes involving illegal business dealing, insider
trading and bribery and was then sentenced to 14
years. This was rightly given in order as a just
punishment for the cost of the crimes he had
committed and to deter others from such
practices.[1] Crime is the result of choices made by
the individual, and therefore the justice system must
condemn those choices when they violate society’s
rules. To say otherwise (i.e. to say that criminals are
merely the product of their unfortunate
circumstances) would be an insult to human
autonomy - the liberalist idea that our judicial
system is based on, in saying that individuals are
given the power to make their own decisions freely
and this should be interfered with in as little as
possible. It would be to deny the possibility of
human actors making good decisions in the face of
hardship.
Retributivism alone best recognises the offender’s
status as a moral agent, by asking that he take
responsibility for what he has done, rather than to
make excuses for it. It appeals to an inherent sense
of right and wrong, and in this way is the most
respectful to humanity because it recognises that
persons are indeed fundamentally capable of moral
deliberation, no matter what their personal
circumstances are.
[1] Jingqiong, Wang and Zhu Zhe, ‘Former richest
man gets 14 years in prison’, China Daily, 19 May
2010.
NEGATIVE
a. Rehabilitation does not serve need
the need of society
The primary goal of our criminal justice system is
to remove offenders from general society and
protect law abiding citizens. Many criminals are
repeat offenders and rehabilitation can be a long
and expensive process. In Jamaica, police claim
repeat offenders are responsible for over 80% of
local crime despite rehabilitation programmes in
prisons.[1] Ideally therefore, retribution and
rehabilitation should work hand in hand to protect
citizens in the short and long term. There are some
successful examples of this happening, where
prisons encourage inmates to take part in group
activities such as football. Some prisons have
started cooking programmes where inmates learn
to cook in a professional environment and leave
with a qualification. However the first priority is
the removal of the convicted criminal from society
in order to protect the innocent. Rehabilitation
should be a secondary concern. The primary
concern of the criminal justice system should be
the protection of the non-guilty parties. The needs
of society are therefore met by the immediate
removal of the offender.
In addition a more retributive approach serves
society through the message it conveys. Most
 modern defences of retribution would emphasize its
role in reinforcing the moral values of society and
expressing the public's outrage at certain crimes.
Rehabilitation therefore weakens the strong
message of disgust as to the offender’s actions that
a traditional prison sentence symbolises and the
deterrent that it thus provides.
[1] Chang, K. O. ‘Lock up repeat offenders for life’.
Jamaica Gleaner, 17 September 2006.
COUNTERPOINT
The needs of society are not being met by those
who reoffend due to lack of rehabilitation. The fact
that two thirds of offenders subsequently re-offend
with two years[1] suggests that the prison system
does little to encourage people to stay on the right
side of the law. Clearly, the threat of prison is not
enough alone and needs to be supplemented by
other schemes.
While some rehabilitative programmes work with
some offenders (those who would probably change
by themselves anyway), most do not. Many
programs cannot overcome, or even appreciably
reduce, the powerful tendency for offenders to
continue in criminal behaviour. In Britain, where
rehabilitation has long been purported to stop re-
offending, 58 per cent of those over-21 find
themselves in trouble with the law within two years
of release.[1] The rehabilitation programs simply do
not work. ‘Rehabilitation’ is therefore a false
promise – and the danger with such an illusory and
impossible goal is that it is used as a front to justify
keeping offenders locked up for longer than they
deserve and sometimes even indefinitely (‘if we
keep him here longer maybe he might change’). We
cannot justify passing any heavier or more onerous
a sentence on a person in the name of
“rehabilitation” if “rehabilitation” does not work.

Prisons can provide an opportunity to develop
important skills: it is especially clear in the case of
non-violent offenders that criminal behaviour often
stems from a perceived lack of alternatives.
Offenders often lack educational qualifications and
skills. Prisons can provide an opportunity to
develop necessary skills for future employment
through the provision of courses and education. The
UK offers courses in bricklaying, hairdressing,
gardening and teaching sport and fitness.[2]
These people can then contribute back into society
rather than a purely retributive model which just
takes from a system.[3]
[1]Souper, M., ‘Principles of sentencing
reoffending rates’, Sixth Form Law.
[1] Stanford, P., ‘The road to redemption: Does the
rehabilitation of prisoners work?’,The Independent,
23 August 2007.
COUNTERPOINT
If we had the opportunity to stop some offenders re-
offending why do we not seize this opportunity?
Rehabilitative programs provide such an
opportunity. Such programs include cognitive-
behavioural programs (say, trying to get a violent
offender to think and reach differently to potential
‘trigger’ situations), pro-social modelling
programmes, and some sex-offender treatment
programs. Of course, certain styles will suit some
better than others, but this is someone that will have
to determined case by case. As some methods with
– work better than others depending on attitudes,
values etc.

[2] Directgov, ‘Education, training and working in
prison’.
[3] Jonathan Aitken wrote an opinion column for
‘The Independent’ website in which he criticised
the current legal setup for criminal prosecution and
suggested that reforming the system of
rehabilitation in the UK would help to reduce rates
of re-offending. This if of the greatest importance
not only to the individual but for the safety of
society.
b. Rehabilitation does not work
The most credible research (done by a technique
called meta-analysis) demonstrates that the net
effect of treatment is, on average, a positive
reduction of overall recidivism (reoffending) rates
of between 10% and 12%, which would promote a
reduction in crime that is, by criminal standards,
massive.
Rehabilitation is a concept. It is not a definite
technique whose effectiveness can be precisely
measured. So yes some forms of rehabilitation may
not work, others however might. What the
opposition to this argues is what we've deemed
 rehabilitation is what we will utiize going forward.
However, this is illogical; as we speak, new
methods of rehabilitation could be concocted. Such
an indefinite ideal cannot be proven as ineffective.
For example, if somebody proves that high-speel
monorail transportation is ineffective, this does not
mean that transportation is absolutely and
fundamentally flawed. One simply cannot disprove
an infinite set of hypotheses.
c. How would one know a system of rehabilitation is
really working
The question “does it work” must be joined by the
second question: “even if it does work, how can you
tell, with each individual offender, when it has
worked?” How would we check if this system is
really working? Tagging prisoners? Free
counselling for the prisoner for the rest of their life?
These measures would require huge administration
costs and then the question follows would it even be
feasible to enforce such a system?
The root of criminality exists before exposure to the
prison system; otherwise criminals would have no
reason to be there in the first place. What may be
more sensible is to analyse the root causes of what
makes criminals offend in the first instance and
introduce reform to counteract it, for example the
economic crisis.[1]
Some have cited the education system as failing to
instil a sense of morality in people. Others suggest
that a lack of welfare leads individuals to lose faith
in society and therefore be unwilling to follow the
law. Assuming that the right time to change
people’s outlook on society is after they have
offended is naïve – criminal urges are better ‘nipped
in the bud’.
It could be argued that criminal mentalities are
inherent within certain individuals, either due to
their inborn psyche or their upbringing. If one
accepts this, then basic rehabilitation into society is
going to do little to stop re-offending, whereas
incarceration will keep them in a position where
they cannot offend. Allowing them easy passage
back into the world, with minimal supervision,
could provide a gateway for them to commit more
serious crimes.
[1] Dodd, Vikram, ‘Police face years of public
disorder, former Met chief warns’,guardian.co.uk, 6
December 2011.
COUNTERPOINT
The expense of re-offenders re-entering the system
is also an expense that our prison system cannot
afford. A system such as counselling for released
prisoners would prove to be inexpensive when
weighed against the benefits of decreased crime,
and all the costs involved in that (public damage,
judicial costs and prison costs). Given that many
organisations work in rehabilitation programs in
prisons for very little, if any, payment such a system
could easily be established for counselling.
A complete system of rehabilitation and post-
release counselling, to access these programs,
should be paired with increased awareness
programs in schools and welfare support. However,
this system of combating crime is not complete
without a comprehensive system of rehabilitation. If
we truly want to protect society and reform
criminals then we must invest more time, effort and
funding into a system that can achieve this.
Incarceration on its own is not working and it is
time for change. An addition to the rehabilitation
programme was aired on the UK television in
November 2011, a new scheme where the offender
meets their victim(s) in order to understand their
actions have consequences. This type of programme
can show visible changes or responses of the
offenders as they agree to talk about their feelings
and show remorse.
d. Rehabilitation Constitutes an unjustifiable further
expense
The evidence from all over the world
suggests that recidivism rates are difficult to reduce
and that some offenders just can’t be rehabilitated.
It therefore makes economic sense to cut all
rehabilitation programs and concentrate on ensuring
that prisoners serve the time they deserve for their
crimes and are kept off the streets where they are
bound to re-offend. As it can be seen that some
deserving of a longer sentence only receive short
sentences due to lack of time and space and some
who have committed shorter sentences are given
 long sentences aimed at making a point or sending a
message.
Currently, the government will continue to
be gambling tax payers’ money on programs that
will not give anything back into the society that it
took from. Britain spends £45,000 a year on each of
its prisoners and yet 50% will go on to re-offend,
‘which translates into a dead investment of £2
billion annually.[1]Rehabilitation programs should
be scrapped and taxpayers asked only to pay the
bare minimum to keep offenders off the streets.
They can’t harm society if they are behind bars.
[1] Bois, N. D., ‘Retribution and
Rehabilitation: A Modern Conservative Justice
Policy’. Dale & Co. 20 July 2011.
COUNTERPOINT
Philosopher Peter Landry believes that it takes a
whole group of specialists to determine what kind
of punishment to mete out to criminals.[1] There is
no hard and fast rule. Money spent on rehabilitation
may cost a lot, but is well worth it, when you
consider cuts to the rate of reoffending, leading to
reduced expense related to those who reoffend and
less crowded prisons. In Britain, it costs £140,000 a
year to jail a young criminal, imagine if that money
was spent on his or her rehabilitation instead?[2]
Furthermore, in America, where measures like the
‘three-strike policy’ were introduced and
rehabilitation discouraged, ‘more than four out of
ten adult American offenders still return to prison
within three years of their release’.[3] Retribution
simply does not work, and it is certainly not saving
the government any money.
[1] Landry, P. ‘On The Theory of Punishment’.
Blupete, 2011.
[2] Doyle, J., ‘£140,000: the annual cost of jailing a
young criminal’. The Guardian, 1 March 2010.
[3] Pew Center on the States. State of Recidivism.
The Pew Charitable Trusts. 2011, Washington,
D.C., P.2.
3. This House would legalize the sale of human
organs
As our knowledge of surgical and diagnostic
techniques has increased with time, so has the
success rate of organ transplants. However, the
number of patients who require organ transplants
exceeds the number of organs available, particularly
if the patient has a rare blood type[1] or belongs to
an ethnic minority where organ donations are even
lower than normal[2]. For example, although black
people are three times more likely than the general
population to develop kidney failure, and the Asian
community has a particularly high demand for
organs, organ donation within these groups is
relatively low[3]. It is important for the donor and
recipient to have the same blood type and similar
genetic make-up in order to minimize the change of
the receiver’s body rejecting the organ[4]. More
than 10,000 people in the UK currently need a
transplant, and 1,000 people die every year while on
the waiting list[5]. In the US, over 100,000 people
are still on the waiting list[6]. Although these
figures are astonishing in themselves, the genuine
figure is probably higher, inflated by the deaths of
patients who are never waitlisted for a transplant.
Some patients are never placed on the waiting list
because they have certain habits – such as
smoking[7] – and the precious few organs available
are prioritised for patients who fit recipient
categories.
The sale of human organs offers a possible solution
to this crippling shortage of organs. There is already
an established black market trade in organs[8][9].
Entrepreneurs offer British and Western patients the
opportunity to receive privately financed transplants
in countries such as India and Malaysia[10]. In
2006, investigators discovered that Chinese
hospitals were providing organ transplants using the
organs of executed prisoners[11]. In 1983, Dr.
Barry Jacobs requested that the US government
should create a fund to compensate the families who
donate the organs of their deceased
relatives.[12] He also proposed a business plan to
buy kidneys from living donors to transplant to
American patients[13]. However, these is still
plenty of opposition to these ideas, and the National
Organ Transplantation Act of 1984 still prohibits
the sale of human organs from both dead and living
donors[14].
The proposition line could argue that organs are the
property of the donors, and so they have a right to
do with them as they wish. In this case of buying
human organs, it is much easier to argue that the
profits would go to the donor rather than (for
example) hospitals or governments which may not
have a vested interest in those concerned. It would
be useful to outline in the mechanism that these
organs will be transferred through a unique medical
group or business which has the technology
available to match up donors to potential recipients
and so avoid potential medical complications as far
as possible. After this, it would be like any other
financial transaction. This debate will focus on the
United Kingdom, but the arguments would be
relevant to most countries considering this policy
change.
[1] Comprehensive Transplant
Center,http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/transplant/
Programs/InKTP/blood_type.html, accessed
19/08/11
[2] Blood and Transplant. “Black and minority
ethnic
communities.”http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/h
ow_to_become_a_donor/black_and_other_minority
_ethnic_communities/black_and_other_minority_et
hnic_communities.jsp, accessed 19/08/11
[3] Ibid,http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to
_become_a_donor/black_and_other_minority_ethni
c_communities/black_and_other_minority_ethnic_c
ommunities.jsp, accessed 19/08/11
[4] American Association of Kidney
Patients, http://www.aakp.org/aakp-
library/transplant-compatibility/index.cfm, accessed
19/08/11
[5] Blood and Transplant. “Organ
Donation.” http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/defa
ult.jsp, accessed 19/08/11
[6] United Network for Organ
Sharing. http://www.unos.org/ accessed 19/08/11
[7] Cleveland
Clinic.http://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/lung_tr
ansplantation/hic_lung_transplant_your_commitme
nt_to_good_health.aspx, accessed 19/08/11
[8] MacKinnon,
2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7493466.s
tm, accessed 19/08/11
[9] Havoscope: Black
Markets. http://www.havocscope.com/black-
market-prices/organs-kidneys/, accessed 19/08/11
[10] Kram, http://www1.american.edu/ted/prisonorg
ans.htm, accessed 19/08/11
[11] BBC News,
2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5386720.stm,
accessed 19/08/11
[12] Goodwin, http://law.slu.edu/healthlaw/journal/
archives/Goodwin.pdf, accessed 20/08/11
[13] Ibid, http://law.slu.edu/healthlaw/journal/archi
ves/Goodwin.pdf, accessed 20/08/11
[14] 98th Congress,
1984, http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL
98-507.pdf, accessed 20/08/11
POSITIVE
a. We already recognize the benefits of individuals
who are able to pay for their health care doing so
The ethics of private healthcare are not in question
here; indeed, the UK government has stated that as
many people as possible should be encouraged to
pay for private healthcare in order to relieve the
strain on national resources[1]. Critics have
understood this as the government prolonging
waiting lists until the patients ‘remove themselves’
either by going private, or dying[2]. There is,
however, a general understanding that the NHS in
the UK is overburdened and that increased private
healthcare would help to balance this[3].
Meanwhile, in the US, private healthcare is the
norm[4]. Allowing the sale of organs is merely an
extension of this principle and provides utilitarian
benefit. Not only would those who are able to pay
for an organ enjoy a much better chance at
recovery, but there would be more time, space, and
resources for the people who could not afford to do
this privately.
[1] On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing [blog],
2011http://www.onaquietday.org/2011/07/29/nhs-
news-review-94/, accessed 20/08/11
[2] 98th Congress,
1984http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL9
8-507.pdf, accessed 20/08/11
 [3] Lister,
1999http://www.bmj.com/content/319/7203/191.1.f
ull, accessed 20/08/11
[4] BBC News
2009,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8201711.stm,
accessed 20/08/11
COUNTERPOINT
If payment-for-organs is introduced as a general
norm, this will extend to the state-financed hospitals
which are so burdened in the first place. Few
families would turn down the opportunity to receive
‘compensation’ or payment for the families of their
loved ones which could ensure financial stability,
particularly if the family member who died was the
sole or main earner. Therefore, either these families
will charge the hospitals the same prices, or they
will refuse to donate the organs, and turn to a
private market instead. Given that the black market
price for organs can reach tens of thousands of
pounds[1], it seems unlikely that struggling health
systems would be able to afford it, and this would
only encourage an incredibly harmful disparity
between the wealthiest and the poorest. Unless the
proposition case wants to argue that a rich person
inherently has a greater right to an organ than a poor
person, their point falls.
[1] Suddath and Altman, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,191
2880,00.html, accessed 20/08/11
c. Legalising the sale of organs will eradicate the
b. Legalising the sale of organs will eradicate the
black market and ensure safer transplants.
Legalisation can help to eliminate the corruption
currently associated with the organ market. It can
also make it easy to regulate, and so safer. Given
the mystery of the black market, medical
complications are much more likely; it is necessary
to match the donor and recipient together[1], but
this cannot be easily done when every step of the
organ collection and donation must be hidden for
fear of prosecution. Legalisation could also stop the
‘theft’ or organs and abuse of people like Chinese
prisoners[2] who are currently exploited for their
organs[3] – authorities will become accountable to a
publicly recognised and enforced system.
[1] American Association of Kidney Patients,
http://www.aakp.org/aakp-library/transplant-
compatibility/index.cfm, accessed 20/08/11
[2] Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun
Gong in China.
http://cipfg.org/en/index.php?news=59, accessed
20/08/11
[3] BBC News, 2006,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5386720.stm, accessed
20/08/11
COUNTERPOINT
If payment-for-organs is introduced as a general
norm, this will extend to the state-financed hospitals
which are so burdened in the first place. Few
families would turn down the opportunity to receive
‘compensation’ or payment for the families of their
loved ones which could ensure financial stability,
particularly if the family member who died was the
sole or main earner. Therefore, either these families
will charge the hospitals the same prices, or they
will refuse to donate the organs, and turn to a
private market instead. Given that the black market
price for organs can reach tens of thousands of
pounds[1], it seems unlikely that struggling health
systems would be able to afford it, and this would
only encourage an incredibly harmful disparity
between the wealthiest and the poorest. Unless the
proposition case wants to argue that a rich person
inherently has a greater right to an organ than a poor
person, their point falls.
black market and ensure safer transplants.
Legalisation can help to eliminate the corruption
currently associated with the organ market. It can
also make it easy to regulate, and so safer. Given
the mystery of the black market, medical
complications are much more likely; it is necessary
to match the donor and recipient together[1], but
this cannot be easily done when every step of the
organ collection and donation must be hidden for
fear of prosecution. Legalisation could also stop the
‘theft’ or organs and abuse of people like Chinese
prisoners[2] who are currently exploited for their
organs[3] – authorities will become accountable to a
publicly recognised and enforced system.
[1] American Association of Kidney
Patients,http://www.aakp.org/aakp-
 library/transplant-compatibility/index.cfm, accessed
20/08/11
[2] Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of
Falun Gong in
China.http://cipfg.org/en/index.php?news=59,
accessed 20/08/11
[3] BBC News,
2006,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5386720.stm,
accessed 20/08/11
COUNTERPOINT
If certain people are already risking punishment by
harvesting and transplanting organs illegally, it
seems unlikely that they will suddenly become
accountable to a system that recognises that organs
can be bought and sold arbitrarily. If Chinese
officials are already suspected of these activities, it
would be very difficult to ensure that profit from the
donated organs did go to the donors or their families
rather than corrupt authorities. Finally, legalizing an
action that is currently carried out in appalling
conditions essentially legitimizes appalling human
rights violations, and allows human sacrifice.
d. People should have rights over their own body
and body parts.
e. The donor should be able to benefit financially,
The proposition is not concerned with live people
trying to donate their hearts, or other vital organs
which they cannot live without. No matter how
impoverished that person might be, they will not
choose certain death for a cash payoff. However,
organs like kidneys, and sections of liver, can be
and often are donated from a live donor without
significant lasting damage[1][2]. It is patronising to
forbid an individual to sell or donate an organ when
it is possible for them to live without it. Similarly,
the family of a deceased relative, as next of kin,
should have the right to receive financial
remuneration from their organs.
[1] Guillen,
2005,http://www.emedicinehealth.com/liver_transpl
ant/article_em.htm, accessed 20/08/11
[2] Blood and Transplant. “Could I be a living
kidney
donor?”,http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to
_become_a_donor/living_kidney_donation/living_k
idney_donation.jsp, accessed 20/08/11
COUNTERPOINT
The state often denies individuals the right to do
certain things with their bodies. For example, the
state makes hard drugs illegal[1][2] because it
recognizes that sometimes individuals do not make
the best decisions for their health or lifestyle
choices, and that the physical damage to their
bodies is often lasting and life-changing in ways
which that individual did not apprehend.
Furthermore, somebody who is selling an organ to
try and pay off debts or to relieve financial pressure
is unlikely to be thinking entirely rationally; this is
an incredibly extreme measure, and allowing
individuals to take control over it for a cash reward
is a dangerous way to create an incentive to cause
bodily harm.
[1] In the UK: Narconon.
http://www.drugrehab.co.uk/illegal-drugs.htm,
accessed 20/08/11
[2] In the US: U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/dextroproxyphe
ne.html#drugclasses, accessed 20/08/11
rather than being expected to donate organs with
no reward.
Given that the doctors, nurses and surgeons who
work around organ transplants are all paid, it is
nonsensical that the donor, the most important
figure in the organ transplant, should be left out.
The United States already allows markets for
sperm[1], blood[2], human eggs[3] and surrogate
wombs[4]. There is no good reason why organs
should be excluded when these other human
products are not; there is no moral difference
between a kidney and an ovum. Moreover, organ
donation is a lifesaving process, whereas sperm and
egg donation are not. Simply put, incentivizing
donations through payment will save the lives of
many patients in need. The payment from these
organs could also hugely improve the quality of life
of the donors by lifting them out of debt, or
allowing struggling individuals, such as students, to
improve their career potential by paying for their
university fees.
[1] Sperm Bank,
Inc.http://www.spermbankcalifornia.com/buy-
sperm-online.html, accessed 20/08/11
[2] Kennedy,
1978,http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/3
/1/5, accessed 20/08/11
[3] BBC News,
2001,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1172616.stm
, accessed 20/08/11
[4] Surrogate Mothers,
Inc.http://www.surrogatemothers.com/, accessed
20/08/11
COUNTERPOINT
It is exactly because organs are potentially life-
saving that it would be dangerous to legalize their
sale. Sperm and egg donations are a last resort for a
couple struggling with infertility[1][2][3]; they have
had time to weigh their options. Similarly, when
sperm, blood or eggs are donated, they regenerate –
kidneys do not. When an organ is the only and final
chance for the patient’s recovery, the patient loses
rationality and becomes desperate to obtain one[4] –
to the point where the donors can essentially name
any exploitative price he or she likes. Not only are
these individuals then exploited, and the poorer
patients left to die, but hospitals will be unable to
afford them – so the overall chance of a patient
receiving an organ will plummet for the majority
without the money to pay for it.
[1] Center for Human Reproduction.
http://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/, accessed
20/08/11
[2] Kaycoff-Manos and de Brito,
http://www.parentsviaeggdonation.org/v2/overseas_
eggdonation.html, accessed 20/08/11
[3] Couple’s Guide to Jewish Fertility Challenges.
http://www.jewishfertility.org/egg-donation.php,
accessed 20/08/11
[4] Businesswire, 2011,
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/2011051
2006179/en/Americans-Desperate-Organ-
Transplants-Find-Black-Market, accessed 20/08/11
NEGATIVE
a. Allowing the sale of organs will harm state-
financed health services and create a two-tier
system
There is almost no chance that a state-financed
health service will be able to afford the prohibitive
cost of purchasing organs under this model. While it
is difficult to track the exact price of organs on the
black market, they often reach many thousands of
pounds[1] and there is no reason to believe that the
proposition’s model would suddenly reduce this
price. In effect, this would turn essential organs into
luxury items which the state cannot afford to
provide, and so the poorest and neediest would be
left to die. This would condone the most gross
discrimination between rich and poor where a rich
life, perhaps even despite a previously neglectful
lifestyle (for example drinking and smoking), could
be prioritised over a poor person’s life where their
medical condition may not have been caused by
their lifestyle choices.
[1] Carney,
2007,http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2
007/05/india_transplants_prices, accessed 20/08/11
COUNTERPOIN
It is just as bad to forbid those who can afford to
buy an organ from taking a life-saving action as it is
to allow poorer people to die. In an ideal world,
there would be unlimited organs; but as organ
shortages continue, if anybody can afford to skip
the queue by buying an organ – whether they are
generally rich or poor – we should allow them to do
so.
b. Allowing the sale of human organs in the First
World will impact negatively on the Third World.
The existing black market already shows a firm
flow of organs in one direction; from the Third
World to the First. Those who battle with poverty in
poor countries will see the opportunity to sell their
organs to the wealthy West; however, current
disparities between how much donors are paid for
their organs and how much these are then sold on
for shows that the donors are already
exploited[1][2]. Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, a New
York City resident, was accused of paying poor
donors in Israel $10,000 for a kidney but charging
up to $160,000 to recipients[3]. There is no reason
to believe, even if we legalize and regulate the
organ trade within Western countries, that people in
poorer countries will not continue to be exploited in
 this manner when they do not share the same
legislation as us.
[1] Suddath and Altman,
2009http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,859
9,1912880,00.html, paragraph 5, accessed 21/08/11
[2] Carney,
2007,http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2
007/05/india_transplants_prices, accessed 21/08/11
[3] Suddath and Altman,
2009http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,859
9,1912880,00.html, accessed 21/08/11
COUNTERPOINT
Given the necessity of a close match between donor
and recipient blood types, and a higher rate of
transplant success within the same race rather than
between races[1], it is a huge exaggeration to imply
that people in poor countries, such as African states,
will be scavenged for organs. Donors from these
countries simply will not always match the medical
requirements of Western recipients. In fact, if the
organ did match, the balance of harms still falls in
favour of donation. While the donor should
obviously be paid the amount (or very close to,
given administration and surgical costs) paid by the
recipient, $10,000 to a struggling family in an
impoverished country could literally be a life-
changing opportunity to lift them out of poverty. In
this case, while there may be financial pressure to
donate, it is still a reasoned and logical trade-off for
financial security for a family, and could greatly
improve quality of life for both donor and recipient.
[1] Science Daily, 2009,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/0910
30125042.htm, accessed 21/08/11
c. There are better solutions to the problems of organ
shortages, such as the BMA system of ‘presumed
consent’.
The British Medical Association (BMA) is pushing
to introduce a policy of ‘presumed consent’,
whereby organs may be taken from a patient who
has died unless they expressly registered their
objection to this before their death[1]. Given that a
far larger percentage of people indicate that they
would be happy to donate than the percentage who
actually do donate[2], this scheme could combat
apathy on behalf of the general society and
encourage them to act rather than ignoring or
forgetting the option to donate their organs. This is
particularly true in the categories of people who
said that they ‘didn’t know how to register’, ‘had
never thought about joining’ or who ‘hadn’t got
round to it’ – comprising a total of 53% of the
participants in the NHS nationwide survey[3]. This
scheme could have an enormous impact in saving
the lives of others through a much greater number
of available organs. Several countries, including
Spain and Austria have already adopted an opt-out
system, and studies have shown that this policy has
caused a dramatic increase in the number of
donations.[4] We can solve the organ shortage
without all of the problems inherent in the
proposition’s proposal.
[1] Blood and Transplant. “Opt In or Opt
Out.”http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/newsroom
/statements_and_stances/statements/opt_in_or_out.j
sp, accessed 21/08/11
[2] Imperial College of
London. 2006,http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/medicine
/news/donors/, accessed 21/08/11
[3] Blood and Transplant. “Survey shows huge
support for organ
donation.”http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/ne
wsroom/news_releases/article.jsp?releaseId=47,
accessed 21/08/11
[4] Johnson and Goldstein,
2003,http://webs.wofford.edu/pechwj/Do%20Defau
lts%20Save%20Lives.pdf.
COUNTERPOINT
Would the idea of ‘presumed consent’ stand up in
any other area of the law, particularly in cases
considering a drastic action performed on the body?
The BMA system completely undermines the UK’s
current conception of consent, particularly that you
‘must be given enough information to enable you to
make a decision’[1]. There is no way to assess if a
patient who has not opted-out of a system like the
BMA proposes has truly had enough knowledge of
the subject to make an informed decision –
especially considering that 36% of the nationwide
survey conducted by UK Transplant ‘were unaware
the NHS Organ Donor Register existed’[2]. Until
the general public has a much, much better
understanding of the donor system – in which case
most citizens would likely opt-in anyway – this
system is inherently flawed. Moreover, the potential
impact on a grieving family, if they find out that
 their relative’s organs had been ‘presumptively’
taken, is very serious. Family objections are already
a problem even in cases where the relative actively
opted-in[3]; this would continue to cause greater
outrage if the BMA system were implemented.
[1] Department of Health.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_
digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4
066993.pdf, accessed 21/08/11
[2] Blood and Transplant. “Survey shows huge
support for organ donation.”
http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/newsroom/ne
ws_releases/article.jsp?releaseId=47, accessed
21/08/11
[3] Blood and Transplant, “How to become a
donor”,
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_becom
e_a_donor/questions/answers/answers_15.jsp,
accessed 21/08/11
over the use of their physical body, just as we must
gain consent from a patient to allow a medical
procedure[1], or allow him or her to refuse it[2].
There is a huge tangible benefit in this motion –
namely that fewer people will die when there is the
option for them to receive organs – and this should
take precedent over complicated legal theory which
is often inconclusive one way or another. Just
because law and philosophy do not definitively
grant a right of property over the body, they do not
definitively deny it either. The balance of harms lies
firmly in favour of the motion because more people
benefit, either financially or medically.
[1] Wheeler, 2006,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC196
3696/, accessed 21/08/11

d. Individuals do not have an inviolable right of

property over their organs.
The notion of property over body parts is very
complex, both legally and philosophically.
Generally, judges have shown ‘abhorrence’ at the
idea of defining human bodies or parts of, whether
living or dead, as ‘goods or materials’[1]; if a right
to property over the body could ever be exercised, it
appears most strongly where the individual shows
‘no intention of abandoning or donating it’[2].
While this continues to be an incredibly complex
issue, it essentially demonstrates that there is no
absolute right of property over an individual’s own
body parts; it is open to interpretation in each case.
A proposition line that grants authority to any
potential donor over the selling of organs assumes a
right of property which does not, in fact, exist. As
such it can, and should, be prevented.
[1] Woodcock,
2001,http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice-
clinical-research/body-parts-and-the-
law/206118.article, accessed 21/08/11
[2] Ibid,http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-
practice-clinical-research/body-parts-and-the-
law/206118.article, accessed 21/08/11
COUNTERPOINT
Even if there is not an ‘absolute’ right of property
over organs, we still grant individuals to actively
choose organ donation, or to refuse to. In this way,
we do accept that each individual has a practical say