1、There is a speech given on the topic entitled “This House Would NOT Legalize Same-sex Marriage.” Please read it carefully and answer the questions below it. This House Would NOT Legalize Same-sex Marriage （ 1） Mr. Speaker, as the opening opposition we recognize that, the genuine love between a man a
2、nd a man, and the genuine love between a woman and a woman, is as wonderful as the love existing between one man and one woman. But what the government side failed to prove in the debate is that this debate is not talking about whether homosexual loving relationship is legitimate. This debate is tal
3、king about an institution of marriage. All of the argumentation has not really touched upon the nature and the essence of marriage as a social institution, and how marriage, as a social institution, needs to reflect the social conception of the institution in itself. （ 2） From the opening opposition
4、, Im going to talk about two issues. First, Im going to talk about why their proposal actually causes more social backlash against gay right movements, especially in the context of China. Before that, several points of rebuttals: （ 3） The first idea we heard from the prime minister is that the issue
5、 of the LGBT is a social taboo in Chinas society. Number one, if the issue of LGBT is already a taboo, that means the majority of the Chinese people actually have prejudice against homosexual people? By allowing homosexual people to get married, can you remove the prejudice on the mindset that exist
6、s in the majority? Secondly, we say the existing taboo simply reflects that the Chinese society is not ready to accept homosexual relationships. What they are going to do will cause more social backlashes against social minority. He talked about the idea of HIV, if you want to prevent the spreading
7、of HIV, you can simply use condoms when you are having sex. HIV is not a harm inherently attached to the existence of sexual relationship between two men. Secondly, just because they can get married, does that mean they dont have the incentives not to change their sexual partner frequently? Some peo
8、ple are still quite enjoying multiple partners. There is no causal relationship between the spreading of HIV and partners not being able to get married. Last, he talked about that the state needs to recognize the status of homosexual people. We say, yes, we also agree with your statement, but you ne
9、ed to prove why you need to recognize the social status of homosexual people, in the arena of marriage. This is their burden of proof they fail to fulfill. We see in the Chinese society, we already decriminalize homosexuality, we think that has been recognition of the legitimacy of loving relationsh
10、ip between the homosexuals. （ 4） Moving on to the first substantive, why the state has the legitimacy to determine the optimal form of marriage, and respect the social concept of marriage. Because we think we are talking about marriage. Marriage is not equivalent to the loving relationship. We say i
11、n the loving relationship, what really matters is the consent of two parties getting involved. I can love whomever I want to love, but we think marriage as an institution, it is a socially and culturally constructed institution, and it needs to reflect how the society and the state understand what a
12、 good family relationship is. Which means that by nature, marriage is a relationship between two parties and the state getting involved. That is why the state has the legitimacy, to ban polygamy, because the state recognizes that the form of polygamy as marriage will degrade females fundamentally, e
13、ven though all parties getting involved can consent. That is why the state has the interest, to ban incest marriage. And says that a child is not allowed to get married with his mother, even though they consent, because that disrupts the social hierarchy, which is so important to maintain the basic
14、function of the whole society. That is even why the state gives tax exemption, and offer extra social welfare to people who get married, because they recognize the interest in it. （ 5） We think that marriage can be understood in two ways. Firstly, we say marriage is historically and logically unders
15、tood as the heterosexual institution. That is why giving homosexual people the right to get married simply makes the whole institution of marriage meaningless, because it disrupts the whole conception of what marriage is. Secondly we say that marriage is also perceived as an institution that ensures
16、 the creation of the traditional family unit. We think what differentiates a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship is that homosexual marriage relationship is inherently infertile. We think that is really an important issue that we need to consider, because being able to produce a
17、new baby is the utility that a family structure can offer, and the state needs to recognize. That is why the state will give more benefits to people who give birth to many babies in the countries where there is a negative birth rate, because they recognize that being able to produce a baby is the ut
18、ility brought from the family structure. （ 6） The government may argue what is the difference between homosexual relationship and people who cannot give birth to babies. Number one, infertile couples can resort to IVF（试管婴儿） and this kind of technology, and they still have the possibility to give bir
19、th to a baby at the end of the day. Secondly, we say the existence of infertile couples does not cause any symbolic harm to the institution of marriage fundamentally. But as long as you recognize homosexual relationship as a legitimate form of marriage, this will cause symbolic harm to the instituti
20、on of marriage as a whole, because every homosexual relationship is infertile. （ 7） Move on to the second issue of this debate, why will their proposal ultimately cause backlash against gay right movements? Because the opening government told us that it is the right time for us to do this thing. Chi
21、na is more tolerant, well, I guess not. On the opening opposition, we are also happy to say that we should be more and more tolerant with homosexual relationships. We should give them equal rights in terms of education; we should offer them equal important rights, but we say that marriage is not the
22、 best avenue, and not the correct avenue to promote rights of the LGBT. Simply because in the Chinese society, we dont think we have this kind of moral foundation to accept homosexual relationships as a marriage. We say China, it has its own conception on what exactly the most stable family environm
23、ent is, which is a family with children. Because in the Chinese society, parents, to a large extent, depend on their children for their welfare. That is why we have this kind of family values in the Chinese society. We think that the legislation needs to reflect social ethics. Under the status quo,
24、homosexual people already receive sympathy from the society, but under their paradigm, homosexual people will be portrayed as people who cannot be compatible with the mainstream values in the society. And that is why you will strengthen the perpetual homosexual phobia by allowing those people who ha
25、ve this kind of homosexual phobia to say: “Look, homosexual people simply cannot coexist with our mainstream values”. That is why even when the homosexual couples can adopt children, their children will receive discrimination. Because we think that the state needs to maintain the social conception o
26、f marriage, and because we think their proposal will actually cause more social backlash. We are extremely proud to oppose. Questions: 1. What is the fallacy contains in the sentence underlined in Paragraph 3? 2. Which reasoning method did the speaker apply in the mentioning of banning polygamy and incest in Paragraph 4? 文字材料选自 外研社杯全国大学生英语辩论赛精彩视频集锦 ，北京 ， 外语教学与研究出版社 。
