# data[].attributes.headline
Luís Teodoro Fonseca - argument against Marcella's argument

# data[].attributes.subject
Luís Teodoro Fonseca - argument against Marcella's argument

# data[].attributes.body
While the arguments for the legalization of gay marriage are compelling, it is important to consider several counterpoints that challenge this perspective.

Firstly, the notion that the legalization of gay marriage directly aligns with human rights and equality can be debated. Critics argue that marriage, traditionally viewed as a union between a man and a woman, carries specific cultural, religious, and societal significances that might not be universally shared. Therefore, they contend that altering this definition could infringe upon the religious freedoms and cultural values of those who hold traditional views on marriage.

Secondly, while research indicates that legalizing gay marriage can have positive effects on mental health and social inclusion, there is ongoing debate about the long-term societal impact. Some argue that the benefits observed in countries that have legalized gay marriage might not be universally applicable, and other factors such as cultural attitudes and existing social policies also play crucial roles in shaping societal outcomes.

Additionally, the economic benefits reported in countries like the UK are often contested. Critics argue that economic growth attributed to same-sex marriage could be overstated and that other factors, such as overall economic conditions and tourism trends, might contribute more significantly to economic impacts than the legalization of marriage itself.

Moreover, while the reduction in bullying and discrimination against LGBTQ+ youth in some studies is noteworthy, skeptics point out that these outcomes might be influenced by broader anti-bullying policies and educational reforms rather than marriage legalization alone.

In summary, while the benefits of legalizing gay marriage are well-documented, there are valid concerns and counterpoints regarding cultural values, economic impacts, and broader societal changes that should also be considered in this complex debate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Marcella Braga - Argument against Felipe Andrade's response

# data[].attributes.subject
Marcella Braga - Argument against Felipe Andrade's response

# data[].attributes.body
Although biological procreation is one way couples can form families, marriage is not limited to this purpose. Heterosexual couples who choose not to have children or who are unable to have children are also not excluded from the right to marry. In addition, homosexual couples have several alternatives to form families that contribute to the stability of society.

Artificial Insemination and Reproductive Technologies: Advances in reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization (IVF), allow same-sex couples to have biological children. A study published in the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics showed that lesbian couples who use these techniques can achieve high success rates in conceiving healthy children. These children are raised in stable and loving homes, demonstrating that the sexual orientation of the parents does not negatively affect the development of the children.

Adoption: Adoption is another way in which homosexual couples can contribute significantly to society. Instead of “can lead to the end of society,” these couples help provide stable, loving homes for children who might otherwise grow up in foster care or institutions. Research from the American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that children raised by same-sex couples in adoptive families have the same emotional, social, and academic outcomes as children raised by heterosexual couples. The 2013 study also highlighted that family stability and the presence of love and care are the most important factors in a child’s well-being, not the sexual orientation of the parents.

Marcella Braga

# data[].attributes.body
The legalization of gay marriage is a matter of human rights and equality before the law. The constitutions of several countries, including Brazil, ensure that all citizens should be treated equally, without discrimination based on characteristics such as sexual orientation. Denying the right to marriage to same-sex couples constitutes a violation of this principle of equality.

Studies show that the legalization of gay marriage brings significant benefits. Research from the American Psychological Association (APA) indicates that same-sex couples who have access to marriage experience better mental health outcomes, such as lower incidence of depression and anxiety. A 2016 study from Columbia University found that the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US was associated with a 13% reduction in anxiety disorders and depression among LGBTQ+ individuals.

In countries where gay marriage has been legalized, such as the United States and much of Europe, there has been no significant negative impact on the social structure. On the contrary, society becomes more inclusive and progressive. In the Netherlands, which was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, legalization has contributed to widespread acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community.

Countries such as the United Kingdom, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2014, have also seen economic benefits. A 2019 report by the Office for National Statistics revealed that the UK economy received a significant £3.6 billion boost in the first five years after legalization, thanks to spending on weddings, honeymoons and related services. In addition, the normalization of same-sex marriage has contributed to an increase in LGBTQ+ tourism, making the UK a more attractive destination for LGBTQ+ couples and families.

In addition, the legalization of same-sex marriage helps reduce social prejudice and creates a safer and more inclusive environment for future generations. A national survey conducted by the Environics Institute in 2017 showed that support for same-sex marriage in Canada has increased significantly since legalization. Around 74% of Canadians support same-sex marriage, demonstrating that legalization not only directly impacts civil rights, but also helps to break down prejudices and promote greater social inclusion.

Finally, the American Journal of Public Health published a study in 2017 that found that, in American states where gay marriage was legalized, there was a significant decrease in the rates of bullying and discrimination against LGBTQ+ youth in schools. The study highlighted that legal recognition of marriage helps to reduce social prejudice and creates a safer and more inclusive environment for future generations.

Marcella Braga

# data[].attributes.body
Gay marriage cannot be legalized because it is wrong in several aspects. Firstly, the institution of marriage has a long history and a tradition deeply rooted in the union between a man and a woman. This configuration is seen as the basis of family stability and procreation, fundamental aspects for the perpetuation and development of society. Changing this would be a destruction of the traditional values ​​that sustain a family and would thus weaken the family institution and affect social cohesion.

But the main point is that the legalization of gay marriage will have a significant impact on religious freedom. Many religious institutions and individuals hold deeply held beliefs about marriage between a man and a woman, and imposing laws that recognize same-sex marriage may force these institutions to violate their practices and beliefs. For example, churches and organizations that oppose gay marriage could face legal pressure to celebrate such unions or provide related services, creating a conflict between civil rights and religious freedom.

Finally, the most obvious and simplest argument. Marriage was meant for one man and one woman, not two people of the same sex. Releasing gay marriage would only destroy this law of nature and make the issue of procreation only worse as two people of the same sex cannot have children and if they adopted a child it would be extremely affected.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Homosexual “marriage” is not marriage Calling something a marriage does not make it a marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman, ordained by its nature to the procreation and education of children, as well as to the unity and well-being of the spouses. Proponents of homosexual “marriage” propose something completely different. They propose the union of two men or two women. This denies the obvious 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 education of children. Two completely different things cannot be considered the same thing. 2. Homosexual “marriage” violates Natural Law Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and therefore governed by natural law. The most elementary precept of natural law is that “good must be done and sought, and evil must be avoided.” Through natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad. Thus, he can know the objective or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him to perform an act into the end of the act. Any situation that institutionalizes the defrauding of the purpose of the sexual act violates the natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, the natural law is universal and immutable. It applies in the same way to the entire human race. It commands and prohibits consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, teaches that the natural law is written in the heart of every man (Rom 2,14-15). 3. Homosexual “marriage” always denies the child either a father or a mother The best thing for a child is to grow up under the influence of his or her natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the obvious difficulties faced by many orphaned children or those raised by only one parent, a relative, or adoptive parents. The lamentable situation of these children will be the norm for all “children” of homosexual “couples.” These “children” will always be deprived of either their natural mother or their natural father. They will necessarily be raised by a party who has no blood relationship with them. They will always be deprived of a paternal or maternal role model. So-called homosexual “marriage” ignores the interests of the child. 4. Homosexual “marriage” validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle In the name of the “family”, homosexual “marriage” serves to validate not only the aforementioned unions, but the entire homosexual lifestyle in all its variants, bisexual and transgender. Civil laws are principles that structure human 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 they also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. The legal recognition of homosexual “marriage” necessarily obscures certain basic moral values, devalues ​​traditional marriage and weakens public morality. 5. Homosexual “marriage” transforms a moral wrong into a civil right Homosexual activists claim that homosexual “marriage” is a civil rights issue, similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman seeking marriage may differ in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich and the other poor; or one tall and the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still a man and a woman, and therefore the demands of nature are respected. Homosexual “marriage” is contrary to nature. Two people of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, learning, or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Second, inherited and immutable racial characteristics cannot be compared with non-genetic and mutable behaviors. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two people of the same sex. 6. Homosexual “marriage” does not create a family, but a naturally sterile union Traditional marriage is generally so fruitful that those who want to frustrate its purpose have to do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children, using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, homosexual “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want to have a “child,” they must circumvent nature by expensive and artificial means or employ surrogate motherhood [“surrogate mothers”]. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call the union of people of the same sex marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage. 7. Homosexual “marriage” distorts the reason why the State grants benefits to marriage One of the main reasons why the State grants numerous benefits to marriage is that, by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions of a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere, which is beneficial for the education of children, the fruits of the mutual affection of parents. It helps to perpetuate the nation and strengthen society, which is an obvious interest of the State. Homosexual “marriage” does not provide these conditions. Its main purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two people whose union is sterile by nature. It is therefore not entitled to the protection that the State grants to true marriage. 8. Homosexual “marriage” imposes its acceptance by the whole of society By legalizing homosexual “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The state requires civil servants to perform the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach children about its acceptance, and punishes any employee who expresses disapproval. In the private sphere, disgruntled parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality”; companies that offer wedding services will be required to provide them to same-sex unions; and property owners will have to agree to accept homosexual “couples” as tenants. In every situation where marriage affects society, the state will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences, condoning, by silence or action, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality. 9. Homosexual “marriage” is the vanguard of the sexual revolution In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all types of immoral sexual relations between men and women. Today we are witnessing a new sexual revolution, in which society is being asked to accept sodomy and homosexual “marriage.” If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present stage of sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next stages of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain avant-garde subcultures are already advocating these aberrations. The insistence on imposing homosexual “marriage” on the American people makes it increasingly clear that homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press: “The gay movement, whether we admit it or not, is not a civil rights movement, nor even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution designed to change people’s views on homosexuality.” 10. Homosexual “marriage” offends God This is the most important reason. Whenever the natural moral order established by God is violated, a sin is committed and an offense is committed against God. Homosexual “marriage” does just that. Therefore, anyone who professes to love God must oppose it. Marriage is not the creation of any state. On the contrary, 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 own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:27-28). The same was taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ: “In the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife” (Mk 10:6-7). Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah because of the sin of homosexuality: “Then the Lord rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. He destroyed those cities and the entire plain, all the inhabitants of the cities and the vegetation of the ground” (Gen 19:24-25).

# data[].attributes.headline
lucas- argument agains Helena's argument

# data[].attributes.subject
lucas- argument agains Helena's argument

# data[].attributes.body
Gay marriage should not be legalized because it fundamentally alters the traditional definition of marriage, which has always been understood as a union between a man and a woman. This institution was designed not just for companionship but also for the purpose of procreation and the raising of children in a stable environment. Changing this definition undermines the very foundation of marriage and its role in society.

Allowing same-sex marriage could have long-term consequences on family structures, as children ideally need both a mother and a father. The legalization of gay marriage sends the message that these traditional family dynamics are irrelevant, potentially harming the institution of marriage and weakening its importance in raising future generations.

Additionally, many people hold deeply rooted religious beliefs that view marriage as a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Legalizing gay marriage could infringe on their religious freedoms, forcing them to recognize or even participate in ceremonies that go against their faith. Society needs to respect and protect these values, which have guided civilizations for centuries. Legalizing gay marriage risks creating division and eroding the values that have long supported strong family units.

Lucas Nepomuceno Coelho

# data[].attributes.headline
Felipe Andrade - Argument against Bruno's reply

# data[].attributes.subject
Felipe Andrade - Argument against Bruno's reply

# data[].attributes.body
According to a study carried out by Science research, genetics may be responsible for up to 25% of behavior between people of the same sex, when the entire genome is considered, in addition to that only five genetic variations are "significantly" associated with homosexual behavior, and that together, they explain less than 1%. Therefore, it cannot be said that people are born this way.

Another interesting fact is that the legalization of gay marriage may not be a big problem at the moment, however, given the growth in gay marriages which was four times greater than in 2013 and 2022 and the future predictions that have been made by the reporting vehicle Brasil de Fato, we believe that it will be impossible to escape the end of the objective of marriage between people, the perpetuation of humanity, in this way, which could cause the end of society.

# data[].attributes.headline
No to legalizing gay marrige -  Argument against felipe's Argument

# data[].attributes.subject
No to legalizing gay marrige -  Argument against felipe's Argument

# data[].attributes.body
People are gay because they are born this way, and it is a natural part of their identity. A small portion of society is born this way.According to a global survey, approximately 3% of the world's population identifies as gay, this will not lead us to the end of society. It doesn't make sense to treat something so small as such a big problem.

Bruno Vieira

# data[].attributes.body
If straight couples have the right to marry, then gay couples should have the same right, ensuring equality and non-discrimination. Making gay marriage illegal not only undermines the constitutional equality but also restricts the freedom of queer individuals to love and marry whom they choose. Additionally, religious beliefs about queer people should not interfere with laws, as the constitution guarantees a separation of church and state, ensuring that all citizens are treated equally under the law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations supports this, stating that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Legalizing gay marriage upholds these principles, fostering a more inclusive and just society. By ensuring that everyone has the freedom to marry who they love.

Making Gay marriage illegal would also violate the Brazilian Constitution, which states that "all persons are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever." This fundamental principle ensures that every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation, is entitled to the same rights and protections under the law.

Bruno Vieira

# data[].attributes.body
Should gay marriage be legal??

Certainly!

---

Ladies and Gentlemen,

First and foremost, legalizing gay marriage aligns with the core principle of equal protection under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) reaffirmed that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. The Court recognized that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was grounded in the principle that all citizens deserve equal treatment and respect under the law.

Moreover, there is significant empirical evidence showing that legalizing gay marriage has positive social outcomes. According to a study published in the American Economic Journal (2019), states that legalized gay marriage experienced a reduction in suicide rates among LGBTQ+ youth. The study suggests that legal recognition of same-sex relationships helps to reduce the stigma and discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, leading to improved mental health outcomes.

Legalizing gay marriage also promotes economic benefits. A 2014 report from the Williams Institute at UCLA estimated that the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S. would generate approximately $2.5 billion in economic activity, driven by wedding-related spending. Furthermore, research from the Human Rights Campaign indicates that same-sex couples contribute significantly to the economy through wedding expenditures and associated activities.

Internationally, the trend toward legalizing gay marriage reflects a growing recognition of LGBTQ+ rights as fundamental human rights. Countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany, which have long embraced marriage equality, have not only seen positive social impacts but have also demonstrated that the institution of marriage is strengthened by inclusivity and equality. These nations serve as exemplars of how embracing diversity can lead to a more harmonious and just society.

In conclusion, legalizing gay marriage is not merely a matter of legal reform but a crucial step toward ensuring human dignity and equality. It promotes mental health, economic prosperity, and aligns with international human rights standards. As we move forward, let us continue to uphold the principles of fairness and equality, ensuring that all individuals have the right to love and marry whomever they choose.

Thank you.

At.

Helena Santos

# data[].attributes.body
One of the objectives of marriage is to produce children to maintain the stability of society, with this in mind, gay marriage cannot achieve this objective and can lead to the end of society if practiced on a large scale.

Felipe de Carvalho Andrade

# data[].attributes.headline
against legalizing gay marriage based on the idea that politicians should not alter longstanding traditions

# data[].attributes.subject
against legalizing gay marriage based on the idea that politicians should not alter longstanding traditions

# data[].attributes.body
The preservation of traditional marriage as defined by historical and religious norms is crucial for maintaining the integrity of cultural and religious practices that have existed for millennia. Advocates for this view argue that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples could undermine these established traditions, which many believe provide a foundation for societal values and norms.

Evidence and Analysis: Proponents of this view often cite historical precedent, arguing that traditional marriage has been a cornerstone of many societies for thousands of years. They believe that altering this definition could lead to unforeseen consequences and disrupt the social fabric that has been built around these long-standing practices.

Lucas Nepomuceno Coelho

# data[].attributes.body
IN FAVOR:

- Marcella

- Bruno

- Helena

AGAISNT:

- Luís Teodoro

- Lucas Coelho

- Felipe Andrade

- João Pedro