The Instigator
AngelofDeath
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
zmikecuber
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

America Should Legalize Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
zmikecuber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,211 times Debate No: 48734
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

AngelofDeath

Pro

I just want to debate someone over gay rights....
--------------
First round is acceptance.
zmikecuber

Con

I assume that when my opponent says "America should legalize gay marriage" he means that it should be put on legal par as traditional marriage. Just to clarify, this is what I shall be arguing against.

As requested, the first round is for acceptance.

Over to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
AngelofDeath

Pro

Just as clarification, I am FEMALE. Please note, the only reason I am bringing this up is because you called me a "he." *teardrops*

Okay, now that I've gotten past that, here is my argument:

Firstly, to prevent GLBT from marrying is a withdrawal of one of our natural rights, the right to pursuit happiness. In fact, the constitution clearly states that "All men are created equal," which implies we all should receive the same rights and should allow them to marry. Also, on the ground that we are all created equal, if we can inter-racially marry, why not same-sex marriage too? This is not only discriminatory but also cruel and unfair punishment for something they were born with, not a decision they can make.

Second, according to a 2010 analysis by American Journal of Public Health, it showed that states banned from same-sex marriage had an average increase of 37% in mood disorders, 42% in alcohol use disorders, and 248% in general anxiety disorders. Another statistic that shows gay rights are a good influence on people is that the is an average divorce rate of 20% lower in states that allow same-sex marriage. In fact, Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, also has the lowest divorce rate in the country, clearly a sign of GOOD INFLUENCE.

Lastly, I would like to point out that the fact that marriage licences are required for union between two people, means that marriage should be a legal matter, not a religious one. Opponents of gay rights may state that same-sex marriage is against the Bible, but we have a policy in America called separation of church and state, which should keep bible-thumpers (no offense) out of interfering with gay rights.

I would like to conclude that we as America should either make marriage strictly a legal matter, in which case, religious entities have no say against any form of marriage, and licences for marriage are determined by state officials; this way, GLBTs can move to a different state if there are any problems. Alternately, this can be strictly a religious matter, in which case, states can't outlaw gay union, and solely churches or other religious temples can unite two people. this way, if a church refuses to marry two GLBT people, they have the option of either switching churches or converting to a different religion that is more accepting.

(My sources are in my worded into my paragraphs btw)
zmikecuber

Con

Thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate her on this subject! This is my first debate on gay marriage, so I hope to have fun and learn!

An apology
My apologies for accidentally calling my opponent a "he" when she's actually a "she." This is like the third time I've accidentally done this within the past week. I'm afraid it's becoming a habit for me to accidentally put my foot in my mouth. :(

I shall now take some time to refute each of my opponent's arguments, and then present some of my own.

The happiness argument
My opponent claims that "to prevent GLBT from marrying is a withdrawal of one of our natural rights, the right to pursuit happiness." However, this is not true. We are not forbidding GLBT from living together, or having a life-long relationship. Rather, we are simply not recognizing their relationship in the same way we recognize traditional marriage.

My opponent also argues that GLBT are being discriminated against. However, there is no discrimination here. I am not arguing that GLBT shouldn't be allowed to marry. Rather, I am arguing that what marriage is, is different. It's absurd to say "Not allowing blind people to drive is discriminating against them." I'm not depriving certain individuals from gay marriage, I am arguing that no one has the right to gay marriage.

Moods, alcohol, anxiety
My opponent also commits a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Simply because something happens after something else, we cannot infer that it is because of it. B may follow A, but that doesn't mean A caused B. (1)

My opponent must demonstrate that there is a causal relation between gay marriage and moods, alcohol abuse, and anxiety.

Furthermore, simply because gay marriage has positive effects on society, this doesn't mean we should legalize it. I will be as fair as possible, and try to summarize my opponent's argument, drawing out the hidden premise.

P1: Gay marriage has good effects on people.
P2: Whatever has good effects on people should be legalized.
C: Gay marriage should be legalized.

However, my opponent has not defended the second premise, and I have refuted her arguments for the first premise.

Religious vs. legal reasons
I actually agree here. I shall not be arguing against gay marriage because of religious reasons.

I'm now going to get into my arguments...

Why does the government regulate marriage?
I shall argue that the government regulates marriage for a reason. This reason must be a public one, or else legalizing gay marriage is a private matter which the government has no business in. The government doesn't recognize our relationships between our friends, because this is a private matter. The government is concerned with public matters. So what is the public affect of marriage?

A special link to children
The reason that the government regulates marriage is because marriage has generally had a special link to children. If you think about this, it makes sense. Marriage has traditionally been held to be nothing else other than the official declaration of a man and woman's sexual relations. A relationship of this sort, which literally builds society, is obviously a public affair. Thus, the government will be interested in this type of relationship.

Gay marriages do not qualify for this type of relationship
This kindof goes without saying. Gay marriage doesn't create society in the way traditional marriage does. Since TM builds society, the government should regulate it accordingly.

Couldn't gay marriage have some other effects on society though?
You might say: "Sure, gay marriage doesn't build society, but it still has an affect on the public!"

Well yes and no. Yes, gay marriage might affect society, but no, this isn't comparable to traditional marriage.

Traditional marriage literally builds a country. Gay marriage, if it affects the society at all, affects a society built by traditional marriage. Thus, gay marriage is less fundamental than traditional marriage, and cannot affect society to the same degree.

So gay marriage and traditional marriage aren't on the same footing
It should now be clear that traditional marriage is more fundamental to the public. Rather than just affecting an already existing society, it literally builds it. Putting gay marriage on legal par with traditional marriage would imply that gay marriage and traditional marriage affect society to the same degree. But they clearly don't. Thus, they shouldn't be given the exact same legal status.

Summary
To summarize my argument, it can be stated:

P1: Relationship A, which affect society more than relationship B, shouldn't be legally established as the same as relationship B.
P2: Traditional marriage affects society more than gay marriage.
C: Traditional marriage shouldn't be legally established as the same as gay marriage.

I believe I have sufficiently defended each of these premises. Since this is a logically valid argument, and the premises are true, the conclusion follows with necessity.

Since "legalizing gay marriage" typically means putting gay marriage right along side traditional marriage, and since this is what the debate is about, it clearly should not be legalized.

I'd also like to thank DDO users Contradiction and xXCryptoXx, who have introduced me to this argument. Of course, I've added a few elements of my own for good measure.

Over to my opponent! :)

Sources
(1)http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate Round No. 2
AngelofDeath

Pro

Belated thanks to my opponent for accepting! And for dealing with my stupidity lol... This is also my first debate on gay marriage, and also my first debate on Debate.org or any public event (excluding classroom debates in my current high school), so if I sound unprofessional and/or really ignorant/naive, my apologies. LAST ROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My reply to: An apology
Haha apology accepted. I didn't actually mind at all, people (me for example) make mistakes all the time, so it's cool. :)




The happiness argument
Representative CON refuted my claim that preventing GLBT from marrying isn't taking away from their natural rights because the government still allows them to "live together" and "have a life-long relationship." The only difference, as my opponent points out, is that we are not "recognizing their relationship in the same way we recognize traditional marriage." However, the entire point of marriage is to allow two people to live together in a non-scandalous manner. To not recognize their relationship as a legal union of two lives is taking away their option of a more permanent union. Anyway, if you don't forbid them from living together as married couples do, what is the point of forbidding them from marriage?


My opponent contravenes my argument that GLBT are being discriminated against by saying "no one has the right to gay marriage" which isn't depriving certain individuals from gay marriage but all of them. However, this is similar to two examples of the past, where we discriminated against an entire people group: slavery and women's rights. America used to sustain slavery, not saying some colored people didn't deserve freedom, but all of them. This is discrimination and against the constitution, as I repeat, states "All men are created equal." Another example, which has been corrected, is women's suffrage. Back in the 1800's, women were not allowed to vote and were discriminated against due to something that was not their choice, their GENDER. Same for colored people, they had no say in their race. Now, we look back and think of how silly we used to be, and see that by giving women our rights, we are doing the right thing and being equal to all people. However, now the controversy to be debated is gay rights. In the past, America discriminated against women and colored folk by saying WHITE MEN could vote and do what they wanted but females and colored could not. Now, they are discriminating against GLBT by saying straight people may marry, but different orientations may not.

Moods, alcohol, anxiety
My apologies for not clearing up my statistics. What I found was a positive correlation between the banning of gay marriage in states and the increase of these disorders found in GLBT people due to the stress caused by inability to legally unite with their loved one.


My opponent points out that I didn't fully defend the second half of this argument, so here it is, my apologies. :(
Good things should be legalized, such as gay marriage, which brings about a decrease in divorce rates. Why should this good influence be legalized? Because our society today is too negative and higher divorce rates usually also ruin the lives of children, according to a survey asking them how they would feel, done by Robert E. Emery, PhD. [1]

Religious vs. legal reasons
Well, my opponent agrees with me (Yay! Finally my beginner's luck kicks in!!!), so I guess I won't go into any more detail.

Going into my opponents arguments and disputing his reasons....

Why does the government regulate marriage?

A special link to children
Although my opponent bring up a good point in that marriages are related heavily to the children a married couple supports, he does not state why two men or two women can't publicly/officially declare their sexual relations, or aren't allowed to. If a GLBT couple were married, there is no reason why they can't adopt or have a donor egg/sperm sample. This way, they can raise their children too, and "build society" in a similar way that straight couples "build society" and raise their children.


Gay marriages do not qualify for this type of relationship
I'm going to try to word this without sounding snotty or offensive.... My opponent doesn't clearly impart his reasons as to how and why gay marriage doesn't "create society in the way traditional marriage does." If he means it creates a different type of society, then yes, I agree. However, it may be for the better because this difference isn't necessarily bad; the only reason most Americans don't like difference is because they are scared of change, for fear of the unknown. On the other hand, if this is not what he means, sorry for my misinterpretation. :(

Couldn't gay marriage have some other effects on society though?
Ummmm.... again with the "building society." My sincere apologies, but I am completely and utterly confused as to what my opponent means :( Could you define "build society" please? I'm assuming it means something along the lines of "makes our country better as a whole." If this is so, my argument is that since we have never tried to legalize gay marriage, how could one know whether or not it affects our society? My opponent has made an observation without basis due to lack of historical evidence. (Is that how you're supposed to word it?) I suggest that we should completely legalize gay marriage in all states, and if they somehow ruin our society (which is already f*cked up, thanks to Miley Cyrus and others, and I don't think it can get any worse... just my opinion), we can re-outlaw it and leave this issue be.

So gay marriage and traditional marriage aren't on the same footing
According to dictionary.com, fun·da·men·tal--serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic;
underlying:
fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
I think one thing shouldn't be defined as "more" fundamental than another thing, due to the fact that if they are both fundamental, they are both essential. If both are necessary to the public, then we should legalize both. I'm not saying that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, I'm just saying that just because it is different does not mean it's unnecessary. My opponent argues that SSM shouldn't be given the same legal status as TM because they don't affect society to the same degree; however, an example to contradict this is, as I used before, is women's suffrage. Women don't affect this society the same as men do, but we do have the same legal rights. Gay marriage should have the same legal status, though it doesn't have the same effect on society.

Summary
To summarize what I contradicted in my opponent's argument, it can be stated:

P1: Although Relationship A and B don't affect society the same way, everything affects society and contributes to what America is today.
P2: Even though traditional marriage may affect society more than gay marriage does currently, there is insufficient evidence (due to lack of historical substantiation) to show that it doesn't affect society, if it were in full blown action (legal in all states).
C: GLBT marriage should be legally established as the same as gay marriage.

I believe I have sufficiently defended all my previous arguments and refuted all of my opponent's premises. That being said, and his premises adequately refuted, my conclusion is as follows.

Since, as my opponent has stated, " 'legalizing gay marriage' typically means putting gay marriage right along side traditional marriage," I believe it clearly should be legalized.

Just to match my opponent's format of this debate, I'd like to add this:
I'd also like to curse DDO users Contradiction and xXCryptoXx, who introduced this argument to my opponent, who clearly knows what he's doing, unlike me, a beginner. HAHA JK THANKS YOU GUYS for giving me the opportunity to grow out of my little bubble where I thought there was no faith in humanity anymore and people couldn't give a decent debate about anything. MY DEEPEST APPRECIATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LAST ROUND.... Over to my opponent!!! Thanks for this opportunity to debate you!!!!! :D

Sources:
[1] Laumann-Billings, L. &. Emery, R.E. (2000). Distress among young adults from divorced families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 671-687.

[2]
http://dictionary.reference.com...
zmikecuber

Con

Introduction
I'd also like to thank AngelofDeath for the opportunity to debate her on this subject. Since this is her first debate on DDO, I'd like to give her a warm welcome, and commend her on doing so well in her first debate. Best of luck to her in the voting.

Happiness
My opponent claims that "the entire point of marriage is to allow two people to live together in a non-scandalous manner." However, I feel that I have dealt with this idea. Clearly, having a list of people who love each other is a private matter, and is none of the government's business. Thus, there must be a public reason why the government recognizes relationships. I've argued that in the case of traditional marriage, this is due to its procreative nature.

My opponent also asks: "Anyway, if you don't forbid them from living together as married couples do, what is the point of forbidding them from marriage?" However, I think I've also answered this question. We ought to forbid gays from marrying each other, since this would put gay marriage and traditional marriage on a legal par, and this should not be so.

However, let's assume that gay marriage would make gays happy. Even if this is the case, this doesn't mean we should do it. There are lots of things that would make some people happy, which should not be legalized. Take child pornography for example. This would make lots of people happy, but it shouldn't be legalized in the first place. So my opponent's argument can only succeed if we assume that gay marriage should be legalized in the first place. However, this is circular reasoning. (1)

Finally, my opponent compares gay marriage to slavery and women's suffrage. But I don't think she has understood what I'm saying. This is made clear by when she claims, "Now, they are discriminating against GLBT by saying straight people may marry, but different orientations may not." But I certainly am not saying gays cannot marry. Just that they cannot marry each other. In fact, even two straight men cannot marry each other in my opinion. So this is not discrimination against their orientation.

Moods, alcohol, etc.
For the sake of debate, I'll admit that legalizing gay marriage would make people happier, less alcoholism, etc. However, let me put this into a formal argument to show you why I don't think it works.

P1: Whatever makes people happier, decreases alcoholism, etc. should be legalized.
P2: Gay marriage does this.
C: Gay marriage should be legalized.

Now the first premise is unfounded. Just because something may make people happier, decrease alcoholism, etc. does that mean it should automatically be legalized? Not necessarily. At least we haven't been given any reasons to believe this. Even if gay marriage does all these things, my arguments against it still stand, and would refute this argument.

Gays having children
My opponent objects that gays can have children by egg/sperm donors, etc. However, I don't think this argument works. The reason is that the link to procreation is not inherent to the relationship in the way traditional marriage is. While gay marriage might (in certain circumstances) be procreative, this doesn't mean the relationship is inherently so. So while gay marriage might possibly satisfy the procreation argument, it wouldn't do this in all cases. And my opponent is arguing that gay marriage should be legalized in all cases. So, at best, my opponent has shown that some gay relationships should be recognized as a marriage.

Building society
I am sorry for the confusing terminology. I shall clarify. When I say traditional marriage "builds society" I literally mean, it creates society. What is society other than the totality of people? Traditional marriage makes people. So traditional marriage, literally, makes society.

Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be clear that gay marriage cannot, and will never, affect society in the way traditional marriage does. Traditional marriage is a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. Relationships of this sort are inherently directed towards creating people. Thus, it affecs society in a particular way. In fact, it doesn't just "affect" society, it makes society. On the other hand, there is nothing inherent to a gay relationship which makes society. While gay marriage may indirectly affect a society, this society already has been built by traditional marriage.

So we can conclude in saying that gay marriage's affect on society is parasitic upon traditional marriage. Now it makes absolutely no sense to put the two on equal legal ground, since one is much more beneficial to society. It is similar to saying my "Right to text" is equally as fundamental as my right "To have a cell phone."

Since "legalizing gay marriage" means putting traditional marriage and gay marriage on equal legal standing, gay marriage should not be legalized.

P1: Relationship A, which affect society more than relationship B, shouldn't be legally established as the same as relationship B.
P2: Traditional marriage affects society more than gay marriage.
C: Traditional marriage shouldn't be legally established as the same as gay marriage.

Thanks!

(1) http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@Finalfan
If you think this debate should be more about the meaning of marriage then you should still have voted Con. As I mentioned in my previous comment, the literal meaning of marriage in most dictionaries specifically states that it is between "man" and "woman".
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
@Finalfin

That's not a valid vote. You're not supposed to vote as to whether or not the person convinced you, but on who did better. I vote all the time for people I don't agree with and wasn't convinced by because they debated better.
Posted by AngelofDeath 3 years ago
AngelofDeath
*compliment
Posted by AngelofDeath 3 years ago
AngelofDeath
@Defro

meh.... i don't really care, i had fun ^_^ (this also shows how much of a life i don't have lol) but thx for the complement! XD
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
@AngelofDeath

lol It's alright! This is actually very impressive for one's very first debate! Furthermore, your contender is a very strong debater and has been on the site for almost a year! At least you didn't forfeit any rounds, which I find to be annoying.

Since the debate is over I take it that it is acceptable for me to contribute my point on this topic.

The definition of the term "marriage"in most (if not all) dictionaries, specifically states that it is between a man and a woman. Therefore, two homosexuals cannot get "married" because it doesn't fit the description of the term "marriage"
Posted by AngelofDeath 3 years ago
AngelofDeath
I am a part-time fortune teller..... my prediction for the outcome of this debate? CON dominates.... and I will quietly curl up into a ball and go cry or something. I give up on life. jk
Posted by AngelofDeath 3 years ago
AngelofDeath
lol thx but this is my first debate ever.... gonna wing it haha
Posted by CrazyCowMan 3 years ago
CrazyCowMan
Good luck AngelOfDeath!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
AngelofDeathzmikecuberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job both of you. Now despite me saying good job to both of you, I'd first like to point out that most arguments and responses given in this debate were quite weak. Both sides needed to clarify more and support their arguments more. The center of zmike's arguments was traditional marriage positively affected society more than gay marriage did. Angel's main argument to refute that was that all men are created equal, therefore everyone deserves equal legal recognition. This would have won Angel the debate because zmike accepted gay marriage as marriage. However, zmike presented a "separate but equal" argument" which went uncontested by Angel. Various arguments were lost by both sides but that was ultimately irrelevant to the center of this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
AngelofDeathzmikecuberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided sound arguments. That is not to say that Pro's points are bad, but they were well refuted by Con.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
AngelofDeathzmikecuberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave it a good one. But he did not convince me! I think this debate should be more about the meaning of marriage! That is the only way to keep out of the "oppression" aspect of this topic! What I'm trying to say is that Con does not have nearly enough reason to justify the oppression of homosexuality! I would need some pretty compelling evidence to believe otherwise!