query: On issues such as gay marriage, human rights activists have taken the line that the right to marry is nobody else’s business. That principle of privacy should work both ways.  Many have argued that issues relating to homosexual relations are, fundamentally, a matter of privacy. That we should respect the rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit without having the views, actions and opinions imposed upon them. [1] It’s a reasonable position but must surely relate to viewers and readers as much as it does to the subjects of news stories.  If gay men and women have the right to live their lives free from the intervention of other traditions and beliefs then so do those communities – religious and otherwise – that find some of their demands offensive or objectionable.  If the rights to privacy and self-determination are supported by those who support gay rights, then it would be inconsistent to suggest that this does not generate a right to avoid offence on behalf of those receiving news.  [1] Human rights campaign, ‘Should gay marriage be legal?’, procon.org, updated 10th August 2012,

positive: bate living difference international middle east house believes news This is really not an issue about the reporting of gay marriage or the opportunities to host a pride march. In many of these countries gay men and women face repression, imprisonment and violence. Regardless of the victims of such actions, it says something fundamental about the perpetrators of those actions – governments, security services or religious groups – that they perform the actions at all. Privacy is an argument to be used to prevent discrimination, not cover-ups of discrimination and abuse; those who are offended by such reporting can invoke their privacy simply by tuning out.  Equally it is questionable that proposition would make such an argument based on the view that certain racial, ethnic or religious groups were less than human and it might trouble bigots of another stripe to see their interests of those communities mentioned in the media. It is difficult to find a definition of Human Rights that would not condemn the suppression of individuals on the basis of sexuality that does not also have to argue that gay men and women are less than human. Such an argument is as offensive as it is palpably untrue.

negative: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Silencing views that are considered offensive is self-defeating and would be detrimental to those attempting to advance gay rights.  If freedom of speech is to mean anything then it needs to be a principle that is universally applied. Unless speech represents a direct and immediate threat to public safety then it should not be curtailed. The overwhelming majority of the world would agree with Hammond. Globally this is a significant, possibly a majority, view. Certainly the 24% of people in the UK who believe that homosexual sex should be illegal [1] could be assumed to be sympathetic. These people might well consider gay pride marches to be offensive and a threat to public order but these are allowed to go ahead and so should Hammond’s protest and those like it. The freedom of expression must be allowed equally in both cases.  [1] The Guardian. “Sex uncovered poll: Homosexuality”. 28 August 2008.

negative: All individuals have a legitimate right to privacy  Privacy is a fundamental human right that is universal, a right that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people get up to in their private lives is by and large their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. While some people may think their politicians owe them a special duty and thus have to give up certain privileges like privacy, the covenant between citizen and representative cannot be justified on such stringent grounds. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. If this was justification for scrutiny into the private lives of elected officials then why should it not also be justification for intrusion into the private lives of unelected civil servants? Both these groups are doing a job for the public, but undertraining this job does not give the public the authority to intrude into their privacy beyond questions about whether they are qualified for the job. The duty of an elected politician is not so special as to demand an abrogation of his or her ability to enjoy a private life. If a right is to have meaning, it must apply to everyone with a semblance of equality. Making politicians fair game for reporters only serves to undermine the rights all citizens enjoy.  [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68.

negative: marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries The state should not be allowed to intrude in such personal matters  Matters relating to how individuals conduct themselves in a private and consensual environment are arguably not the concern of the state. This extends to how people get married and within which tradition, religion or denomination. European states are increasingly allowing non-traditional marriages such as gay marriages [1] so not allowing arranged marriages for those who want them would be a perverse step backwards. Given that arranged marriages in themselves do not have any proven harms, and that, as it has already been asserted, the harmful side of arranged marriages, like forced marriages have already been outlawed, the state cannot keep regulating something with such an arbitrary and wide-ranging definition that includes so many consenting adults.  Were EU states to do this, the harm caused would risk infringing on the very rights of the people the proposition claims they are meant to be protecting in the first place.  [1] ‘Countries Where Gay Marriage Is Legal: Netherlands, Argentina & More, The Daily Beast, 9 May 2012,

negative: It is completely circular to argue that Marriage should be only between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman. First it is based upon a false assumptiuon as there is a strong historical and religious precedent for polygamy, so marriage between one man and one woman can not be considered a singular historical or religious norm. Second it assumes that things should stay the way they are because they have been that way for a long time which precludes any idea of progress ever being made.  Marriage describes an emotional relationship, it does not refer to the gender make-up of the couple. It is a commitment to love and care for your spouse till death does you part, an obligation that is no more difficult for a gay couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, if gay couples wish to make such marital commitments to each other, 'why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so?1' It is clear discrimination to deny to one sub-set of the population the right to marry based purely on traditional and out-dated notions of what constitutes marriage.  1 The Economist. (2004, February 26). The case for gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Economist

negative: By creating celebrities in the first place the media is often creating artificial demand for such stories; it is too simplistic to suggest that such stories are what the public wants in light of this. There will, however, always be a fascination in learning intimate details about the lives of the powerful and famous, but this should not be a reason to deny public figures the right to privacy that the rest of us enjoy. The media likes to portray itself as an important pillar in society and democracy, and while in some respects it is, by undermining the law by disregarding the right to privacy the newspapers are in fact damaging their own justification for their existence. The argument that many celebrities have courted the media for their fame is a misnomer, it can often be a bi-product of their career, why should their lives be necessarily punished via having their private lives scrutinized by the public just because it’s what the public may want?

negative: Gay adoption bans amount to state sponsored discrimination against gay people.  Discrimination is the practice of treating people differently based not on individual merit but on their membership to a certain group. The adoption bans are a clear example. Rather than assessing gay couples individually, it is simply assumed that they would all make bad parents because they are gay, while straight couples are assessed based on their individual merit. This breaches the fundamental right of all people to be treated equally under the law and it should be stopped. This principle is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; article 1 "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."1 And also many other national and regional legal texts (e.g. The US Constitution,2 The European Convention on Human Rights).  1 United Nations General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights , (accessed 2nd August 2011)  2 James Madison et al., Constitution of the United States ,(accessed 2nd August 2011)

negative: Gay relationships do not contribute to the interest of the state in propagating society, therefore they should not be granted access to the legal and economic benefits of marriage. Furthermore, as David Blankenhorn argues, 'for healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other'1. In addition, Susan Shell believes that 'most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement can be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage'2. The presence of civil partnerships, potentially celebrated with the same festivities that surround weddings, could provide many of the same legal and fiscal benefits that gay couples currently do not have access to.  1 Blankenhorn, D. (2008, September 19). Protecting marriage to protect children. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Los Angeles Times:  2 Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Interest:

negative: Marriage is most certainly about raising children and has always been regarded as the predominant means of creating a conducive environment in which children can be brought up. As gay couples are unlikely to have children, there is no real necessity for the right to marry to be extended to them. It is true that many heterosexual marriages do not result in offspring, through choice or infertility, however the male-female relationship preserves the general rule of marriage: only between those with the potential for procreation1. 'Children have a valid claim to be raised by their own biological parents', to encourage otherwise is to undermine long-held perceptions about the right way to bring up our youth.2  1 Shell, S. M. (2004). The liberal case against gay marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Interest:  2 Somerville, M. A. (2003, April 29). The Case Against 'Same-Sex Marriage'. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law

negative: It is not discriminatory, for marriage is an institution designed for the union of men and women alone. It is intrinsically about the ‘values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation’ 1; to deny gay couples the right to marry is merely, and obviously, to admit that they have no reproductive capacity. The public recognition that is so vital to the institution of marriage ‘is for the purpose of institutionalizing the procreative relationship in order to govern the transmission of human life…that results’ 2. So long as reproduction requires a man and a woman, marriage will necessarily remain the domain of heterosexual couples to protect the reproductive human relationship that fosters future generations.  1.Somerville, 2003, p.1  2.ibid.

negative: Marriage is not a religious institution, but an institution that has been co-opted by religion as the means by which couples declare themselves to each other for an indefinite period. As such, marriage has always complimented contemporary attitudes and institutions. Traditional beliefs regarding the 'sanctity' of marriage are now out of touch both with contemporary opinion on the matter and concurrent advances in human rights elsewhere. In Australia a recent poll found that 75% of the population felt gay marriage was inevitable, leading marriage equality advocates to claim 'the tide of history is running toward equality and nothing can turn it back'1. Furthermore, the fact that atheists and agnostics are free to get married, but homosexuals are not undermines claims that marriage is a derivative organ of religion.  1 Wockner, Rex (2011, June 16). Australians accept marriage equality. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from the Bay Area Reporter

negative: There is not universal endorsement of full homosexual rights in the West  The adoption of gay rights is by no means universal in the West, so why should Africa have to change their policies? US Christian evangelical groups have opposed the Obama administration’s policy towards homosexual rights in Africa. The Justice for Gay Africans campaign group claim that these groups have worsened hostility on the continent through action that they have taken in Africa [1] . Domestically there is opposition to gay rights as well. The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was signed into law by a Democrat President and a Republican congress, enabled states to refuse to recognise same sex marriages [2] and demonstrates the opposition to gay rights in donor countries. One in six homosexuals and bisexuals have been the victims of hate crime in the UK, with only one in ten cases resulting in a conviction demonstrating homophobic attitudes in the UK [3] . The lack of consensus in the West therefore makes it hard to morally justify the imposition of homosexual rights abroad.  [1] Gay Rights: Africa, the new frontier Chothia,F. 07/12/11  [2] Defence of Marriage Act  [3] Ellison,G., Gammon,A. & Guasp,A. ‘The Gay British Crime Survey 2013’ Stonewall

negative: bate living difference international middle east house believes news Where there is a clear objection to discussing a certain subject, insisting on doing so is not news, it’s propaganda.  Ultimately all news outlets report that which is of interest to their viewers. Where there is no interest or, more frequently, an active lack of interest, news outlet do not - and should not – impose a particular set of judgements or interests on their customers. Doing so would arguably be patronizing and certainly be financial suicide [1] .  As a result they report what is both interesting and acceptable to those who consume the news and, for the vast majority of news outlets, the companies that advertise on the station, website or in the paper. Expecting news outlets to ignore those simple realities is asking them to self-destruct by ignoring their market. It is a clear example of sacrificing the good in the name of the best – in the example given, the writer mentions that Al Jazeera covers stories relating to gay rights but does so on its English language channels. [2] This exactly shows the market in action; Al Jazeera English broadcasts mostly to a European audience who are not offended by reports on gay rights whereas “Al Jazeera Arabic is geared towards a Middle Eastern audience and does not challenge cultural values or orthodox religion”. [3]  [1] For example the actions of advertisers and readers killed the News of the World.  [2] Pellot, Brian, 2012, ‘(Not) reporting homosexuality in the Middle East’, Free Speech Debate,   [3] Krajnc, Anita, ‘Al Jazeera Arabic ignores gay news’, Toronto Media Co-op, 2 August 2010,

negative: There has yet to be an international consensus forged around LGBT rights and state treatment of sexual orientation.  Many countries around the world are not secular Western Liberal Democracies and operate on a completely different moral standard than the West does. Many religions, and in fact state religions, do not recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and specifically see it as a sin and a crime against the religious authority they uphold. It is not the West’s role to tell the rest of the world what their morality should be.  There is not even consensus amongst Western Liberal Democracies on this issue. The United States of America still does not recognize homosexuals as deserving of equal rights to heterosexuals and many states do not allow gay marriage or gay adoption as a result [1] . The west cannot circumvent the laws of other countries when they themselves do not even hold themselves to the legal and moral standard they would like to impose on others.  [1] Law, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness." American Political Science Review. 103.3 (2009): Print.

negative: While there are those who oppose gay rights in the West, there are many which support them and government policy does not have to run along the lines of consensus constantly. 2013 saw victories for gay marriage in the UK with the royal assent of the Marriage (same sex couples) Act [1] and in the USA with the removal of key elements of DOMA by the Supreme Court [2] . Those who still oppose homosexual rights are becoming the political periphery in these Western states. The current legislative success demonstrates that unity on same-sex rights is growing, and that it is not hypocritical to export this to the international stage.  [1] Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013’ Parliament of the United Kingdom 17/07/13  [2] US Supreme Court in historic rulings on gay marriage BBC 27/06/13

negative: The alternatives presented do not satisfy the rights of gay couples to equality. Gay couples can in many countries, where gay marriage is banned, register their unions officially however they would still not enjoy complete equality with married heterosexual couples in society. If they did, their union would be deemed marriage. As Theodore Olson points out, 'a civil union reflects a second-class status that fails to protect committed same-sex couples who choose to be married'1. Moreover, this would also fuel the idea that registered gay couples enjoy an inferior status to married heterosexual couples, thereby giving rise to discrimination all over again.  1 Olson, T., & Schneiderman, E. (2011, May 16). The civil union bait-and-switch: Compromise is far from true marriage equality. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from NY Daily News:

negative: Many of the fiscal benefits enjoyed by married couples (e.g. child support payments) are not geared towards encouraging marriages in itself, but to promote the existence of the conventional family and procreation. Gay couples, unable to propagate society, should not be provided access to the benefits of marriage which are, implicitly, the state's reward for reproductive couples. 'Collecting a dead spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy' are just a few of the benefits a state provides to married couples 1. The aforementioned benefits should not be applicable to couples who are unable to provide anything in return.  1 Kolasinksi, A. (2004, February 20). The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Tech

negative: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Issues of sexuality tend to raise great passion but to accept that people should be harangued, threatened or intimidated for just getting on with their lives, quite legally and posing no threat to others is absurd. A liberal society should be free to defend that liberalism, if people wish to change that reality then there are democratic ways of doing so that do not incite hatred on the streets. Homosexuality has been legal in the UK for over forty years; it is absurd that gay people should still have to face this kind of barracking on a regular basis.

negative: Persecution of homosexuals is morally wrong  From a moral perspective, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for their sexuality. Everyone should have equal rights; Hilary Clinton stated that ‘gay rights are human rights’ [1] , the derogation of such rights is a serious moral affront. There is evidence that homosexuality is not optional [2] . Discriminating on sexual orientation is therefore the same as discriminating upon factors such as race and ethnicity. Even if changeable it would be the same as discrimination on the basis of identity or religion.  Same sex relations are victimless which calls in to question whether it could ever be defined as something to be criminalised. Whilst some may point to male on male rape, these figures are low compared to male on female rape. In the U.S. where homosexuality is legal, only 9% of rape victims were male and only a small proportion of those being male on male [3] . Criminalising and institutionally embedding hatred against homosexuality has served to alienate many Africans from their families and communities [4] . Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality is not something any donor would want to endorse even implicitly it is therefore morally right to cut the aid.  [1] The Obama Administration’s Bold but Risky Plan to make Africa Gay-Friendly Corey-Boulet,R 07/03/12  [2] Kingman,S. ‘Nature, not nurture? New Studies suggest that homosexuality has a biological basis, determined more by genes and hormones than social factors or psychology, says Sharon Kingman. 04/10/1992  [3] Wikipedia Gender by rape  [4] The Guardian Persecuted for being gay. 13 September 2011

negative: bate living difference international middle east house believes news The job of a journalist is to report the world and events as they see them. Cultural sensibilities do not alter the fact that these events have happened.  It is difficult to see how a matter that is undeniably controversial on the international stage and impacts on the perception of the perpetrating government around the world could not be deemed newsworthy [1] . It should not be the responsibility of journalists to determine whether or not viewers and readers might find something of interest but, rather, to report events that have happened and that may have an impact on the lives of consumers either as individuals or as a nation. By that standard, these matters are clearly news.  News organisations and individual journalists do not report on military, political, financial or terrorist actions because they agree with them but do so because of their impact on the world in which their consumers live. Often the very stories which are the most important to report – and do so impartially – are those very stories that evoke strong feelings on both – or all – sides. Al Jazeera gained its reputation by being willing to go where other Arabic channels had not gone such as showing Israeli guests speaking Hebrew which shocked the Arab world. [2] It should be willing to do the same with gay issues.  [1] CNN. Hala Gorani. The Struggle for Gay Rights in the Middle East. June 02 2006.  [2] Yeginsu, Ceylan, ‘Al Jazeera English Fresh outlook from the Middle East’, Global Media Wars,

negative: edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests  There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem.  Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact.  Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Cameron’s position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed [1] , Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a “distraction” [2] , where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis.  [1] ‘Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom’, Wikipedia, accessed 10 September 2012,   [2] Telegraph editor, ‘Gay marriage: A pointless distraction’, The Telegraph, 26 July 2012,

negative: marriage society gender family house would ban arranged marriages eu countries Integration and the acceptance of Western values are important  Arranged marriages have not been a part of the cultures of most European countries for many years now. Part of the reason for this is because ideas about marriage have become more progressive, with people accepting that men and women of any orientation should be allowed to choose their own partners. This was even the case during the socially conservative era of the 1950s, when it was generally accepted in countries like Britain that people would court and meet their partners independently of their parents. [1]  Arranged marriages also conform to a view of women in particular which regards them as chattel. This does not fit in with the type of egalitarianism many European countries seek to practice, and thus does not conform to Western notions of individual rights. [2] It is also hypocritical to adopt a double-standard with diaspora communities, turning a blind eye to practices which many other majority groups find reprehensible. The rights and norms of a country of block of countries such as the EU must apply to all.  [1] Cook, Hera, ‘No Turning Back: Family forms and sexual mores in modern Britain,’ History & Policy -  (accessed on 19 September 2012)  [2] ‘Human Rights with Reference to Women,’ UKEssays.com -  (accessed on 19 September 2012)

negative: If ministers were visiting the shrine as part of their private lives then they should visit anonymously not publically as part of the large events at the shrine. If an individual is going under the glare of the media to take part in a formal event then it is clearly they are not doing so just for their own private and domestic reasons because it is a public event. As a public event then the position of the person in question becomes important.

negative: Privacy is a right but it is not sacrosanct, and certainly should not be for people who serve the public. Freedom of speech is considered sacred in a free society, but anyone reasonable would agree that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is not given such protection, showing that even the most treasured rights are curtailed in the public interest. Both the special position of politicians as the effective embodiment of the people’s will, and the special power they wield, which is far vaster than that of any private agent, demands a higher level of scrutiny into their backgrounds, which means looking into their financial records, which can divulge much about their competence and character.

negative: A right to privacy – even if you are famous  Just because somebody chooses to be an actor, singer or an entertainer of any kind does not mean that they lose their right to a private life. In the context of the UK (the Scope of the Leveson Enquiry) it’s worth mentioning that this right is guaranteed under both the Human Rights Act of 1998, which in turn is predicated on the European Convention of Human Rights [i] .  The people who are having their private lives splayed over the tabloids and gossip magazines are not politicians or judges taking bribes, they are not police officers beating up suspects, they are not teachers offering grades in exchange for sexual favours or any other area of sensible journalistic investigation. They are people who happen to work in the entertainment industries and their lives are being interrupted for the sake of prurience and curiosity that has nothing to do with a meaningful news agenda.  If, as some of those mentioned in the introduction suggest, the worst that happens as a result of such a register is that celebrity magazines vanish, then the proposition is quite relaxed about that.  [i] Article 8 of the ECHR and the UK HRA (1998). Outlined here .

negative: International discourse on this issue has not been working.  When society is the one persecuting the LGBT community, the governments have plausible deniability in the matter and thus can skirt their responsibility in negotiations. This means that all talk and “dialogue” is meaningless as the government’s can claim a lack of responsibility or agree to protection for the LGBT community, but then not offer it because they are “unable” to.  Many times discrimination against sexual orientation is a religious one, and when it is not, it is a moral one. These views are not reconcilable with alternative moral claims as they are absolutist forms of thought. They are not negotiable or a matters of opinion; they are simply right. This will never lead to consensus-building through friendly dialogue.  Even if the leaders of these countries have made laws against certain forms of sexual orientation on a calculated political level, it will be because of the religious/moral views of the citizens within their country. This is important because, given the option of disagreeing with an international community that has no power over them or angering their domestic constituents that either keeps them in power through democratic support or the avoidance of violent unrest, leaders will pick the former. Thus, international consensus-building is bound to fail  These people need protection now. Regardless of any international dialogue about the future, real people are in real danger now. The reason asylum was created was to protect individuals in immediate danger when no immediate solution to the persecution is in sight. This is a perfect fit for the criteria of asylum.

negative: It is discriminatory to refuse gay couples the right to marry  One of the last bastions of discrimination against gays lies in the fact that gay couples in many countries are at present not allowed to marry. Such discrimination should be eradicated by permitting gay couples to marry as a means of professing their love to each other. The contemporary views of society ought to change with the times; as recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some Americans could not marry, no-one would defend such a law now 1. Gay marriage is possibly, as Theodore Olson, a former Bush administration Republican suggests, ‘the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed 2’. To permit heterosexual couples to profess their love through the bonds of marriage, but deny that same right to homosexual couples ultimately devalues their love, a love that is no weaker or less valid than that of straight couples. As New York State Senator Mark Grisanti admitted when voting in favour of a 2011 bill, ‘I cannot deny a person…the same rights that I have with my wife’ 3. It is clearly discriminatory and reflects an out-dated view of homosexuality.  1.The Economist, 1996  2.Olson, 2010  3. Black, 2011

negative: Where same-sex households exist, they should have equal rights as opposite-sex households.  There are still many ways for gay people to become parents. Some of them are able to pay for a surrogate; some may have a natural child from a previous (heterosexual) relationship and then raise the child with a gay partner. In effect, what this law does is make it impossible for two gay people to have legal rights over a child they may already be raising together. These kids deserve the security of two legally recognized parents. If being raised by gay parents is really that harmful, why would the law allow two gay people to raise a child together as parents but refuse to legally recognize them as such?

negative: The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum  The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum.  Asylum was created as a direct protection of Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) 1948 [1] which states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” [2] This article was created in order to protect the third article of the declaration “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” [3] This concept of asylum was created to develop a separate category of migration that would allow its applicants to breach normal immigration protocol and application procedures [4] on the basis that these people were in immediate danger and that without creating a specific bypass for them, they would endure great harm or death. The point of asylum as a specific and emergency measure and, indeed a moral necessity, was two-fold:  1) The immediate nature of the threat/danger to their person  2) That this threat was persecutory in nature  What is important to note is that “persecution” is fundamentally different than prosecution. The difference lay in the acceptability and justice of the punishment someone may or will endure. Persecution is a term used for a punishment that is unjust or morally abhorrent. Asylum has emerged as a category of protection we grant to people who we believe that we are morally obligated to help, because if we do not, they will receive a punishment they do not deserve and will severely harmed for something they deserve no harm for.  We, the proposition, believe that both of these criteria are filled by those fleeing persecution for sexual orientation and thus we are morally-obligated to grant them asylum. First, it is clear that they are facing immediate danger. Whether it is death penalties in places like Uganda [5] or vigilante justice against homosexuals such as the murder of David Kato [6] . In places like Uganda, local tabloids often publishes “Gay Lists” of individuals they believe are gay so that the community can track them down and kill them for their sexual orientation, which is how and why David Kato was murdered [7] . It is clear that whether by the state or by their neighbour, there is a clear and immediate danger to many LGBT people across the world.  The second criteria of the unacceptability of this persecution is also clear. We as Western Liberal democracies have in recent years become increasingly accepting of the LGBT community with the granting of gay marriage, application of anti-discrimination laws and even allowing of gay-adoption in many countries. The sexual orientation of an individual is in no indicative of one’s worth as a human being in the eyes of the Western Liberal Democracy and can never possible be a death sentence. It is inconceivable for us to consider sexual orientation a reason to not allow a person to raise a child, never mind view it as an acceptable reason for death.  [1] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [2] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [3] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [4] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [5] Dougherty, Jill. "U.S. State Department condemns 'odious' Ugandan anti-gay bill." CNN International. 12 May 2011.  [6] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.  [7] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

negative: living difference house would penalise religious hate speech Religion simply justifies reactionary views which many find offensive. There is no reason for vitriol to be tolerated just because it presents a mask of religion.  Views on issues such as abortion, women, and what constitutes an acceptable family expressed by those who are extremely religious are simply bigoted views which are given credibility by being wrapped in a cassock.  It is in the nature of religious belief that any set of views can adopt a religious justification and there is no objective measure against which to hold the views. For example the homophobic views which have common currency in many churches can be contrasted with a gay liberation trend discernible in others. In the light of this, it makes sense to judge the views on their own basis, regardless of the religiosity surrounding them.  The views expressed by Harry Hammond, and others [1] , need to be stripped of their religious veneer and shown that at their heart they are simply offensive. There is absolutely no reason why LGBT people should have to endure vitriol and condemnation as they go about their daily lives. It is a useful exercise to consider how we would respond to a secular speaker saying that the actions of two people who were in love with each other should condemn them to torment and suffering. Oddly however, the moment this is done in the name of God, it somehow becomes acceptable.  [1] Blake, Heidi. “Christian Preacher Arrested for Saying Homosexuality is a Sin”. The Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2010.

negative: Gay couples should be able to take advantage of the fiscal and legal benefits of marriage  To allow gay couples to marry would enable them to take advantage of the various fiscal benefits accorded to married couples in general. As Scott Bidstrup argues, a gay couple together for 40 years can still be compelled by law to testify or provide evidence against one another, something married spouses cannot be forced to do 1. Such antiquated laws take the discriminatory view that the love between homosexuals is artificial and extend it to encompass legal benefits. As Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in a Supreme Court ruling, 'homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint'1. A gay couple's inability to reproduce should not prevent them from obtaining the benefits of marriage, benefits granted not to encourage or reward child birth but to recognize the bond between two loved ones.  1 Bidstrup, S. (2009, June 3). Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Bidstrup:

negative: Many politicians in their campaigns make an explicit or implicit point out of emphasizing their family values and other aspects of their “private” life, for example by being photographed with their loyal family and through taking a stance on such issues as divorce, single mothers, sex education or drugs. If the public image such people seek to create is at variance with their own practices, such hypocrisy deserves to be exposed. This would not be to the detriment of democracy but in fact may improve it as it would encourage future politicians to ensure that they live by what they preach, rather than cynically trying to manipulate the media into creating a false image of who they are only for it to be fatally undermined by their own actions.

negative: Individuals have a right to privacy, including to their own financial records  Privacy is a fundamental human right, one that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people do with their own finances is their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. Politicians don’t owe the electorate any special privileges like their financial history. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. His or her duty is not so special as to demand the handing over of all information on one of the most critical aspects of their private life. Financial affairs like income and taxes are a private matter, and should be treated as such by voters and governments. This is even more the case when it comes to financial history, much of which may have happened long before the individual decided to become a politician. Making politicians’ financial affairs fair game for reporters and others who would exploit the information only serves to undermine the rights that all citizens rightly enjoy.  [1] Privacy International. 2010. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 39(1): 58-68.


query: The state retain control of schools - freedom, in this context, is illusory  The state funds education using taxes taken from everyone in society, not just those who have children. Therefore the state has a duty to benefit the whole of society, not just parents and children, when funding education. It is therefore entirely legitimate for the state to use schools to fulfil other societal purposes. A good example of this is the question of teaching citizenship in schools: it does not necessarily help children to pass exams, and so schools do not have a strong incentive to insure that children are taught it. However, it fulfils government goals of helping to ensure that people become functioning members of our democracy.  When schools are privatised it becomes increasingly difficult for the government to ensure that such agendas are followed in schools.

positive: x education education general secondary house would fund education using Most government goals that are pushed forwards in schools are also valued by the parents: consequently, even under a free market they would be taught in schools. Further, if the majority of parents do not want such things taught in schools, then they should not be: to do so would be to use schools as a tool for state propaganda.

negative: Educating in their mother tongue is the best option for children’s education  Because parents that are immigrants teach their kids only the mother tongue, at the age in which they should go to school they barely know the local language. Their parents sometimes don’t know the language of the country that they live in and other times they choose not to use it at home. Therefore, at the age when children have to go to school, they have little or no interaction with the language of the country they live in. In the United States, 72% of immigrant families speak a language other than English at home and 26% live in households where no one has a strong command of the English language. [1] This simply hands over the problem of language to the school damaging education across all subjects. This is because the children will not be able to communicate with other kids in school or understand what the teacher is saying. Because of the exclusion that the immigrants feel when going to school and the fact that they are not able to understand much of what is taught, they choose to leave school early. 70% of Turkish children in Germany have no General Certificate of Secondary Education [2] ; as they leave before completing secondary school. By far the most sensible way to solve this problem is to send these children to a school where they do understand the language in which they are being taught.  [1] Shields, Margie K., and Behrman, Richard E., ‘Challenges Faced by Children of Immigrants’, Children of Immigrant Families, Vol.14, No.2, Summer 2004,   [2] Greenfield, Daniel, ‘80% of Turkish Muslim Settlers in Germany Live off Welfare’, Frontpage Mag, 31 March 2013,

negative: Creates animosity towards religious groups  Faith schools continuously perform better than normal schools. This creates a feeling amongst parents and children of wanting to be included in these faith schools. They are, however, excluded on the basis of their religion. This will create feelings of unfair exclusion, which will lead to animosity towards the religion running the school and, by extension, people of that religion. [1] As a result of this 64% of people in the UK believe that there should be no state funding for faith schools. [2]  It would be easy to convert faith schools to normal schools.  The majority of faith schools are already tied closely to the state education system making it easy to convert them into normal schools which are not faith based. Much of the curriculum is the same or very similar so the change would not be difficult for teachers. In England for example there 6783 faith schools that are also state schools and 47 that are academies. [1] These schools would simply change to having the same systems as any other school and admission would become open to all.  [1] Department of Education, “Maintained faith schools”, 12 January 2011,   [1] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007.  [2] ICM, ‘Guardian Opinion Poll Fieldwork August 12th-14th 2005’, ICM/The Guardian, 2005, pp21

negative: Private schools lack diversity  A private school is an institutionalised, artificial environment where the child will be exposed almost completely to children of their own socioeconomic background. This has two very interlinked problems.  1) One of the most important factors of a child’s education is to be exposed to a variety of races, religions, economies and abilities. This allows children to grow up to be more aware of these differences between people and more accepting of diversity as they get older. Yet private schools admission costs alone mean that students are from wealthy backgrounds, and this means they are largely exposed to other people from wealthy backgrounds. As we know, the majority of the people in the world are not wealthy and therefore these students have an extremely blinkered view of their country. Pakistan can be used as a prime example, where half of its children cannot read a full sentence at primary level and government spending on education has been cut from 2.5% to 1.5%. For those in private education and who usually go to university aboard they will never see or understand the situation of the majority in Pakistan and thus has a dysfunctional view of their country. (Landzettel 2011)  2) It is an inevitable feature of democracies that the rich have particular access to politicians and policy-makers. Furthermore, students from private education are much more likely to go into government or political roles. As mentioned above 66% of British politicians went to private school, and 44% of American politicians (against an 11% national average). While the rich don't have a need for state education because they can pursue education for their children from other sources, they have no motivation to lobby politicians on behalf of the education system and a perverse incentive to remove education from political agendas in favour of their preferred issues and legislation. Only by forcing the rich into the same situation as the poor can we expect to gain meaningful ground in terms of education reform, especially in terms of increased funding relative to national and municipal budgets. We cannot expect education will be a national priority until the entire nation has a vested interest in the good order of the system.

negative: Parents should be permitted to home-school their children provided they register the fact and submit to inspections  Parents who take their children out of school, or choose to home-school due to apprehensions over the quality of state education, should be entitled to do so provided the child is better off as a result. To ensure they are not neglected, parents hoping to home-school must both register the fact they are home-schooling their child and submit to regular, state inspections of the child's progress. If the child is deemed to be falling behind his age group, the parent may be forced to return the child to a school. The parent should be given standards of teaching that they must adhere to before the inspections occur, and the standards should be sufficiently flexible to reflect children learn at different speeds and that not all children's development reflects fairly on their teacher.

negative: The US magazine Time found research in 2007 that suggested that private schools do not provide a better education than state schools, they do however have a higher percentage of students who would do well in any situation. This means that these children would not lose out by going to state schools. ‘The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality’ (Time.com).  The second criticism is that statistics provided by the argument are true only because private education exists, and takes all the best teachers, head teachers and resources away from state schools. If public schools were banned then state schools would gain more teachers and resources and thus would raise to the standards currently occupied by private schools. In a study by Hill and Guin for the University of Washington found that in the US more experienced teachers taught in private schools, thus in theory improving levels of teaching due to experience. (University of Washington2003).

negative: Sex education damages the education system  Sex education damages the education system by confusing the children and by alienating some parents. When children receive mixed signals from home and at school they can suffer real confusion. When parents tell their children that the teacher is wrong about sex, it causes the student to raise his mental defences toward the school thereafter and become less engaged in the process of education. [1] Children will be told by their parents, and will thus come to believe, that the school is promoting a liberal view that is fundamentally contrary to their own. For example, a Muslim girl will find schooling a horrific and alienating experience if she is forced to attend a sex education class that conflicts with her faith as this will be clashing with what she has been taught at home. This will alienate the parents of these children who hold the view that discussion of sex in such a framework is morally repugnant.  [1] Pogany, Sex Smart, 1998

negative: x education education general secondary house would fund education using The most vulnerable children would be left behind by the scheme  Even if a voucher scheme is used, parents still need to have considerable input in order that their children are able to access the best educational opportunities. Thus, those children who are most vulnerable, i.e. those with inadequate home support structures, will find that they are unable to access the best schools as their parents may lack the desire or knowledge to find out which schools are the best in their area.  Further, this problem will be exacerbated by the subsequent dearth of funding at the worst schools.

negative: Faith schools are inherently divisive.  At the age at which children are sent to faith schools, they are too young to have decided their religion for themselves, and so, their parents must have decided it for them. The proposition accepts that parents have a right to decide a child’s religion on its behalf but this means that faith schools end up segregating children based on the faith that they inherit. School should be about bringing children together not segregating them. In the UK the government allows faith schools to ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship [1] which is inherently discriminatory and divisive. Proposition believes that separating children based on what families they are born into creates communities which find it difficult to associate with people from outside their community and therefore cause massive divisions in society based on what religion people were born into. [2]  [1] Directgov, “Applying for a school place: admissions criteria”, direct.gov.uk,   [2] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006.

negative: x education education general secondary house would fund education using Admittedly, it may take extra measures to help children in the very poorest areas. This is required under the status quo and could still be provided under a voucher scheme (e.g. extra funding for children in deprived areas). However, there are many children in between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich who are currently excluded from the opportunities afforded by some of the best schools. These children, as you accept, will see an increase in the choice of schools. The fact that this motion does not solve all of the problems in education does not prove that it does not solve any.

negative: Certainly parents should help their children to make most of their time with the computer and their phone. However, monitoring children in order to do so is lazy, or more precisely a form of ‘remote-control parenting’. Parents abuse of their children’s inherent right to privacy and feel that they have satisfactorily fulfilled their parental role when instead they are just lazy and unwilling to talk to their child personally about being a responsible netizen. [1] How are children to develop a healthy relationship to sharing information and privacy protection if they are constantly being surveilled by their own parents? More effective parents would instead choose to personally and positively teach their children about time management.  [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013.

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools Schools should educate about healthy choices, not make them on the students’ behalf.  Although it might be very tempting for the government to try and attack the problem of childhood obesity by attempting to change, in essence, the very choices our kids can make, this is the wrong way of going about doing it.  The purpose of schools is education – the genesis of active and useful members of society. A large extent of what schools do is imprinting the ideas the society values. In most western countries those would be the ideas of fairness, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. The other side of the coin is the transference of knowledge, knowledge of mathematics, history, but also of biology, health and nutrition.  We see thus that the proposed ban on specific choices one makes in school, whether be it choices regarding food or choices regarding the clothes one wears, the ideas one expresses, and so on, is truly meaningless in the existing concept of education.  What the schools should be doing is putting more emphasis on getting the message of the importance of a healthy lifestyle across. Our kids should be taught that this lifestyle consists of more than just whether or not we chose to eat a hamburger and fries for lunch. In short, this ban falls short of truly educating the children about how important physical activity, balanced meals and indulging in moderation are.  They should also focus on the importance of choice, since in the case of childhood obesity, making the right nutritional and lifestyle choices is of paramount importance. But they should also focus on the importance of choice for a society and how all should take responsibility for their choices in such a society.

negative: When out of school we should have time to ourselves  Time is valuable. We all need some time to ourselves. School already takes up a lot of time and it is necessary to have time which does not involve concentrating on learning. Education is not the only important activity in everyone’s day; physical activity, play, and time with family are just as important as all teach life skills just in different ways. The internet makes it possible to be learning at home, there are even many computer games that help with learning. Homework clashes with these other activities. It can damage family relationships as it means parents have to try and make their children do their homework.

negative: Collaborative Approach  In order for a child’s misbehaviour to be successfully remedied, the child must receive a consistent message on what is appropriate both at home and at school. In many instances parents may condone behaviour that schools and teacher find unacceptable. In other instances, professionals at schools can aid parents in targeting specific behaviours to work on in a specific order in a program that integrates the child’s behaviour at both school and home. Moreover, uniform and consistent rewards and negative reinforcements from school and home are tremendously useful for helping rehabilitate a child’s behaviour. [1]  When initiating such programs, the major problem is often that the parents give in and do not adhere to the agreed upon program, which serves to teach the child that unacceptable behaviour is sometimes condonable. It’s understandable that parents, who must be with the children a majority of the time, sometimes may find it easier to simply give in and pacify the child and inadvertently award destructive behaviour. Therefore, a system of parental investment, as proposed here, will ensure that the parents have something riding on sticking to a disciplinary program as well, which ultimately aids the child.  In the case of parents being penalized for criminal offenses by children, one can modify this argument to fit by noting that often juvenile facilities will use schools as part of a behavioural modification program, therefore the consistency noted above is still critical.  [1] Robinson, Virginia, ‘Bridging the gap between school and home’, Raising Achievement Update, July 2008,

negative: In many countries, parents can apply for help with the cost of school uniform. For example, in the U.K., parents who don't earn a lot of money can get money from the government to help pay for their child's school uniform[13] . In Australia, the Australian Scholarships Group, which specialises in helping parents save money when it comes to their children's education, has tips for parents to get their child's uniform cheaper.[14]  Also, parents would probably have to spend a lot more money if their children didn't wear a uniform to school, because they would have to buy them more casual clothes. Since children don't like to wear the same thing too often (in case they get bullied), parents would have to spend a lot of money making sure their children have lots of different outfits.

negative: School uniforms create a sense of equality  School catchment areas are diverse and in private schools, some children are there on a scholarship. So, without uniforms there are clear indicators of wealth between what children wear. This makes poorer children stand out, (or even possibly the reverse). Children can then be bullied for being different, which diminishes a child's enjoyment of school. A study in New York has shown that 84% of parents think uniforms promote equality, and 89% of guidance counselors think uniforms help teach children to be more accepting of others who are less fortunate[3]. This perception among parents will help create the same perception among their children. This is also likely to translate to the teachers who will therefore treat their pupils more equally.

negative: Young people should hear of the opportunities available in the armed services whilst in school  School children are entitled, as part of their education, to a wide range of careers information, including potential roles in the military. It is a school's duty to offer not only paths to employment, but opportunities to engage with future employers like the military. With university places now increasingly competitive, schools must remain more vigilant than ever that they do not encourage purely academic paths to future careers. Furthermore, nationalism is a powerful factor in school curriculums worldwide, and permitting militaries into schools to talk to students is not an extension of already-permitted activities like the recital of the Lord's Prayer in British state schools or the Pledge of Allegiance in American schools. As such, it comes as little surprise that the predominant reason given for enlistment is service to country1. If schools are asked to ensure that such activities are carried out to foster national sentiment, it follows that military service should be, if not actively encouraged, respected sufficiently to grant the armed services an opportunity to engage with students. 1 Accardi, M. (2011, June 15) Army recruiters become a 'partner' In education Retrieved June 16, 2011, from The Huntsville Times:

negative: There should be rewards for success in school, versus punishment for failure to attend.  This problem could be addressed by subsidizing school supplies or rewarding good attendance records with additional cash. Cutting benefits will only hurt the children we are trying to help, with their families deprived of the resources to feed them or care for them. Free breakfast programs in the US feed 10.1 million children every day1. Providing meals, mentors, programs that support and help students are ways to help them get along better in schools. There are already 14 million children in the US that go hungry, and 600 million children worldwide that are living on less than a dollar a day2. Why punish those families that have trouble putting their kids in school, which only hurts those children more? There should be rewards for good grades, and reduction to the cost of school and above all programs so that children don't have to sit in school hungry and confused. 1 United States Department of Agriculture, "The School Breakfast Program",[Accessed July 21, 2011]. 2 Feeding America (2010), "Hunger in America: Key Facts", [Accessed July 21, 2011]. and UNICEF, "Goal: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger", [Accessed July 21, 2011].

negative: Most parents do not have any teaching qualifications.  If parents are not trained or qualified teachers how can they provide a better or equivalent quality of education than a professional teacher at a school. Even if a parent or tutor excels in one area, will they cover all the things a school does? Even if they tried to, they would not do so adequately due to sheer lack of experience and training. The point of a curriculum is that these are things we have decided as a society that children need to learn, and in order to learn they require the support of qualified teachers1. Support groups and educational text books can help, but they alone cannot turn a parent into a good teacher. 1 National Curriculum Website

negative: Raising the school leaving age promotes equal opportunities  Making sure that everyone gets the same amount of time at school promotes equality. At the moment leaving school early is linked to economic and social disadvantage: those from poorer areas and families are more likely to leave school early than those from wealthier families. Parents who left school at a young age are also more likely to have children who leave school early (only 60% of those children stay in education past 16) [6]. Forcing all children to stay in school longer will help break this cycle of disadvantage.[7]

negative: Raising the school learning age promotes equal opportunities  Ensuring everyone gets educated for the same amount of time at school should promote equality. Currently early-school leaving is linked with other indicators of socio-economic disadvantage, such as low-income jobs or high unemployment. More importantly parents who left school young and as a consequence have lower-grade occupations are more likely to have children who leave school early (only 60% of those children stay in education past 16) [1] . Forcing all children to stay in school longer could break this cycle of disadvantage. [2]  [1] Ibid, ch 3  [2] RTE News, ‘Early school leavers earn lower wages’, 2009,

negative: Having children is our duty and responsibility  We cannot live without the society; it is that very society that provides us with basic goods and services such as education, health care, transportation, work. We can only interact with other people and fulfil our most basic needs if we live within the society. Therefore, we owe it to the society to ensure its continuation. It is only by having children that we can do this. Falling rates of population growth in developed countries highlight how dire the need for reproduction is. If people don’t have children today, the society will run into an enormous economic crisis tomorrow, as there will not be enough citizens to work for the growing numbers of the elderly. In the long run, not having children will lead to human beings’ extinction. If present trends continued it would only be 25 generations before Hong Kong’s female population shrank from today’s 3.75 million to just one. Similarly on current trends Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not reach the year 3000.* It is therefore clear that by not having children people fail to fulfil their most fundamental duty.  *The Economist Online, 2011,

negative: x education education general secondary house would fund education using Variety within the education system is not always a good thing. National curricula exist to facilitate transfer between schools and comparisons of different pupils and schools, as well as enforcing basic standards.  Thus, not only might variety lead to some sub-standard schools, but it might trap children in a particular school that fails to match the child’s ambitions as it grows up, and ceases simply to reflect its parents’ desires, because the child lacks qualifications or even just knowledge required by a more appropriate school in the area.

negative: primary secondary teaching religion god science evolution house would teach Communities should have a say in what is taught in schools, and many communities want to teach creationism.  Society is made up of communities with their own views on politics, religion, education, etc. School boards should be able to set curriculum based on the desires of the public, not just on what the scientific elites command to be taught. Children deserve to hear that their beliefs and those of their community are respected in the classroom. This is why Creationism, a belief held to varying extents in many countries, should be taught in the classroom. This is particularly true in the United States, where in several states the majority of people does not accept evolution, but have instead adopted Creationism, considering the evidence for the latter to be more convincing. [1] In a poll in 2009 a majority (57%) said that creationism should be taught in schools either without evolution or alongside it. [2] The teaching of Creationism should not be taught exclusively, but should share time with other prevailing theories, particularly those of evolution and abiogenesis. Furthermore, evolution taught exclusively threatens religious belief, telling children they are no more than animals and lack the spark of grace given by God. It is important for social stability that schools are allowed to teach what communities believe to be true.  [1] Goodstein, Laurie. 2005. “Teaching of Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey”. New York Times.  [2] HarrisInteractive. 2009. “No Consensus, and Much Confusion, on Evolution and the Origin of Species.” BBC World News America/The Harris Poll, 18th February, 2009.

negative: Interaction with other pupils is a crucial element of a child's development and involvement in clubs is not a substitute for the social skills learnt in school. Teaming building, working towards goals, being forced to confront problems with and live alongside individuals one might not like, or come from different backgrounds, is clearly done best in a school environment1. Those that seek to cocoon their offspring from the outside world merely delay the time when their children have to deal with it. Education is about more than academic teaching, it's about educating the whole person, and that is best achieved by educating them within a school with their peers. 1 'School as a context of early adolescent's academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings' RW Roeser, JS Eccles, The Elementary School Journal (2000)

negative: Parental Responsibility  In most cases, in which the child is not subject to some sort of constitutional problem (genetic condition or otherwise), the disruptive behaviour of a child is a reflection of in adequate parental intervention over time. A normal child under normal circumstances should be expected to conform to behavioural expectations, and the failure to do so represents a partial inadequate job by the parents.  The result is a cost that is transmitted to society. Children that are disruptive in school or in society via the criminal justice system cost the system extra money either in school resources and time or judicial-police resources as well as in the more obvious costs such as fixing vandalism and graffiti. [1] Even worse; if a student drops out as a result of his discipline problems the cost to society has been estimated as $232,000-388,000. [2] Given that the parent is in part to blame for failing to control the child’s behaviour, in the time during which the parent is the primary custodian of the child, it is fair to pass on a measure of this cost to the parent.  [1] Batten, George, ‘The Main Cause of School Budget Problems is School Discipline’, School Discipline Made Easy,   [2] Hymel, Shelley, and Henderson, Natalie Rocke, ‘Helping Students who are Experiencing Persistent and/or Serious Discipline Problems to Succeed in School: The State of the Evidence’, Ontario Ministry of Education Research Symposium, 18-20 January 2006,

negative: Faith schools can be necessary for a religious upbringing.  Sometimes faith schools are necessary for children to get a full picture of the religion that they have been born into, particularly religions, like Islam, that are based mainly in societies unlike our own and far away from our countries. In these cases, banning faith schools is tantamount to preventing parents from bringing their children up in the faith they want them brought up in. The opposition believes that this legislation is, therefore, equivalent to depriving people of religion. [1]  [1] Glenn, Charles L. “The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies.” Princeton University Press. 2002.

negative: An adult vaccine refusal and a parental vaccine refusal are not the same. Parents do not have absolute right to put their child at a risk even if they themselves are willing to accept such a risk for him or herself.  Minors have a right to be protected against infectious diseases and society has the responsibility to ensure welfare of children who may be harmed by their parents’ decisions.  Counseling should form an integral part of any such legislation, as often it is not conviction but laziness of the parents in taking their child to the clinic for immunization or the parents’ inability to make an informed decision. [1]  Also the state has already protected children in cases, when their functioning later as an adult could be compromised due to parental actions. For instance: in order to promote culturally prescribed norms, parents may seek to remove their child from school, or have their daughter undergo clitoridectomy; yet the state may claim that such a decision violates the parents' trustee relationship on grounds that the state has a compelling interest in securing the full citizenship capacities and rights of each of its citizens. As trustee, the parent has a limited right to exclusivity in determining the child's life over the course of childhood, but this determination is to be aimed at shaping the child into (for instance) a productive citizen and community member. [2]  The LSU Law center also explains: “The more difficult problem is religious or cultural groups that oppose immunizations. These groups tend to cluster, reducing the effective immunization level in their neighborhoods, schools, and churches. In addition to endangering their own children, such groups pose a substantial risk to the larger community. By providing a reservoir of infection, a cluster of unimmunized persons can defeat the general herd immunity of a community. As these infected persons mix with members of the larger community, they will expose those who are susceptible to contagion.” [3]  As seen not to vaccine children can represent a danger for their future, there should be no ultimate power of parents to prevent vaccine jabs.  [1] Lahariya C, Mandatory vaccination: is it the future reality ?, Singapore medical journal (editorial) 2008,  , accessed 05/25/2011  [2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,  , accessed 05/28/2011  [3] Louisiana State University (LSU), Compulsory Immunization,  , accessed 05/29/2011

negative: Home schooling involves good community involvement and social interaction.  Homeschooling families do not operate in isolation. There are extensive support networks (particularly in the USA the nation with the largest proportion of the population homeschooling) that exist to provide companionship, promote sports events and social functions. In addition, standard social provisions for children in civic society – scout movements, sports club – are open to homeschoolers. Homeschooling is not a removal from society but just from state schools.1 Homeschooled children often engage with their local community to a greater extent than their schooled peers.  1 ‘Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream’ Patrick Basham, Public Policy Sources

negative: History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum  History is not objective and, in schools, historical fact is at the mercy of those in control of the curriculum. Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of history suggest all history teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that history taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of "Britishness" by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage1. The Education Secretary at the time asked schools to 'play a leading role in creating community cohesion' by doing so1. Even if no historical events are invented as such, this will nevertheless lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information, whether implicit or explicit, can be taught to children is dangerous. 1 BBC News. "Schools 'must teach Britishness'." BBC News. January 25, 2007. (accessed July 14, 2011).

negative: health general weight house would ban junk food schools First of all, such loop holes can be fixed and are just a problem of practicalities, if it helps to educate the pupils, we should do it. For example, there can be an agreement that parents should not buy candy for children to take to school or just restrict stores in the neighborhood to only selling junk food during school hours as they did in Tower Hamlets (UK).  In one school surveyed, all 1,700 pupils were obliged to follow strict rules stating 'no chips, fatty foods, sweets, fizzy drinks' can be sold at the school.  A nearby fast food shop was initially allowed to sell to pupils, but parents and teachers objected, fearing it would jeopardize the school's healthy-eating policy. One resident, Edward Copeland, was so angry that he brought the case to the High Court, where the court decided, that junk food stores are not be opened during school [1] hours to support the schools strict rules.  [1] Borland S., 'Judges declare fast food takeaway near school is »unlawful«', The Daily Mail, 6 December 2010  , accessed 09/10/2011

negative: Far from being necessary immigrants are a drain on the economy. The vast majority of immigrants have few skills. These low skill migrants pay few taxes and take a lot of government benefits. For example in the United States each immigrant without a high school diploma costs the US taxpayers $89,000 over their lifetime. Since there are six million illegals without a high school diploma living in the US this adds up to half a trillion dollars. This increases further if they are given an amnesty so are able to claim citizenship and more money and the costs spiral yet further when the cost of educating their children is included with the possible cost rising to $2 trillion. [1] Some migrants may be necessary as a country ages, but the state should pick the migrants it wants - if a state wants migrants with skills to work in care homes it should let in those who have those skills or are applying to colleges to learn the relevant skills rather than granting an amnesty to those who are already here regardless of their worth to the economy.  [1] Rector, Robert, ‘Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts’, The Heritage Foundation, 25th October 2006,

negative: Diversity of school is necessary for social development.  Being forced to confront problems and individuals from different backgrounds is vital as a preparation for the future as a microcosm of the society they will later enter. Parents and children spending day after day at home re sometimes subject to a phenomenon sociologists call the 'hothouse' relationship the closeness between them becomes exclusive, with reaction to outsiders almost aggressive by instinct. This relationship makes it even more difficult for the child to adapt to life in the wider world.1 While there maybe attempts by parents to socialize their children through other means these organizations and club are centred around similarity. School is a mixture that does not filter out students, and there is an inherent social value to such a mix.  1‘The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling’ in Educate Expert (2011) www.educate expert.com