The Instigator
Lordknukle
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
lotus_flower
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Be it resolved that gay marriage be legalized in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Lordknukle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,415 times Debate No: 19647
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Lordknukle

Con


Resolution: Be it resolved that gay marriage be legalized in the United States

Pro argues for the legalization of gay marriage in the Untied States

Con argues against the legalization of gay marriage in the United States

Outline:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Main case (No rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals and conclusion (To balance out the last word advantage, CON can rebut two points while PRO can only rebut one point).

Rules:
  • No Ad Hominems or various logical fallacies
  • Failure to abide by the outline or rules, while automatically result in the loss of a conduct point and further punishments as the readers see fit.

Good Luck!

lotus_flower

Pro

I accept! Let's make this a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.


C1: Marriage is not a right


My first contention aims to prove that the concept of "marriage" is not a right. Nowhere in the American constitution does it state that everybody has a right to marriage. Nowhere under international doctrine, especially that of the United Nations, does it state that marriage is a right. In fact, in very few, if any societies, does it state that marriage is in fact a right that everybody deserves.

I will expand on this point later as I am running out of space. To summarize, something that is not a right, cannot be perceived as a right. Marriage is a privilege that the government can, theoretically, bestow on anybody that it wishes. To claim the fact that everybody has a right to marriage is absurd.
C2:Gay Marriage is a detriment to society


This will be a two part contention

P1: Gay couples have increased murder and domestic violence rates

Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. who is a former commander of Bronx homicide for the New York City Police Department stated in 1995 concerning homosexuality and murders that homosexual murders are relatively common and these murders may involve male victims murdered by other males or may involve female victims who are in some type of lesbian relationship and they are murdered by another female.(1)

A forensics journal article by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology was published in 1996 called "Homicide in homosexual victims: a study of 67 cases from the Broward County, Florida, Medical Examiner's office (1982-1992), with special emphasis on "overkill"
In the article it clearly stated(2):

"Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims. Overkill or wounding far beyond that required to cause death is a frequently used descriptor of these deaths. We quantified the number and extent of injuries between homosexual and heterosexual homicide victims to determine whether one group suffered more violence than the other...Homosexual homicides are more violent than heterosexual homicides when one compares the mean number of injuries (fatal sharp, blunt, and total)/case and the extent of injuries on the body"

As a result of this article, we can infer that homosexual couples are harmful and detrimental society because of the fact that they are:
1. More violent and more prone to murders
2. Are more likely to use gruesome means to murder.

Number #2, is in essence, irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that homosexual couples are more prone to murders, which our society greatly condones.

Also, to conclude this premise, the American College of Paediatrics states that(3):
"Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."

Now, the reader and my opponent might be asked, "Why does this matter? People are going to be gay anyways. Perhaps if we legalize gay marriage, this will stop "

However, the opposite is in fact true. Lets use this logic and replace it for a murder metaphor: "Why does this matter? People are going to murder anyways. Perhaps if we legalize murder, it will stop."

If we were to legalize gay marriage, then we would be, in essence, promoting these atrocious activities. We, as the people of the United States and as the federal government would be saying that it is O.K. to promote domestic violence and murders within the gay community.

P2: Gay couples carry a larger amount of diseases

According to the American Center of Disease Control and Prevention:
"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died."(4)

Of all newly diagnosed HIV infections in the year 2003, the CDC estimates that about 63% of all of these diagnoses were for men who had sexual contact with other men. (5) We have to remember that the gay population is only 2% of the entire US population. However, they account for 63% of the newly diagnosis of the most lethal STI known to man, HIV/Aids.

C3: Children need a mother and a father

The purpose of marriage is two things:
1. Love between partners
2. Procreation

However, the second is more important as it provides something for society in general. It serves a use and a function. Therefore, procreation is more important than love when it comes to marriage.

Gay couples will not be able to naturally reproduce. Therefore, they will have to adopt children. This is where the problem starts:

Many psychologists have concluded the fact that children need a mother and a father.

According to the American College of Pediatricians (3):
"There are significant innate differences between male and female that are mediated by genes and hormones and go well beyond basic anatomy. These biochemical differences are evident in the development of male and female brain anatomy, psyche, and even learning styles.11Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child.11,12,13 Psychological theory of child development has always recognized the critical role that mothers play in the healthy development of children. More recent research reveals that when fathers are absent, children suffer as well. Girls without fathers perform more poorly in school, are more likely to be sexually active and become pregnant as teenagers. Boys without fathers have higher rates of delinquency, violence, and aggression."

Glenn T. Stanton, a researcher, wrote an article on this matter. This is a medium sized article explaining why children need both mothers and fathers in their lifestyles(6). I will quote important parts of it, but it is always in the sources for reading:

“To be concerned with proper child development is to be concerned about making sure that children have daily access to the different and complimentary ways mothers and fathers parent.”


"FACT: A married father is substantially less likely to abuse his wife or children than men in any other category. This means that boys and girls with fathers learn, by observation, how men should treat women."

The American Journal of Sociology finds that, “Societies with father-present patterns of child socialization produce men who are less inclined to exclude women from public activities than their counterparts in father-absent societies.”

As Dr. David Popenoe warns,

"We should disavow the notion that ‘mommies can make good daddies,’ just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that ‘daddies can make good mommies.’ ...The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being."

Conclusion

  • Marriage is not a right, and therefore a privilege. Governments do not have to bestow privileges.
  • Gay marriage is harmful to society, and therefore should not be condoned by the government.
  • Children need a mother and a father, which gay marriages cannot provide.

Vote CON


Sources in comments.
lotus_flower

Pro

First, I would like to sum up my opponent's arguments:

1.) gay couples show higher rates of domestic abuse
2.) Gay couples carry a larger amount of diseases
3.) Marriage is not a right
4.)Children need a mother and a father.

First, I would like to address the violence aspect. It is proven that domestic abuse and violence are more prevalent in oppressed communities, who are not given equal social and societal privileges and recognition. The same goes for the spread of disease (Like AIDS), drug use, and suicide. Gay people are not inherently violent, it is the result of the surroundings that most gays are placed in. This is also evident in the African American community. Although African Americans make up only 13% of the total U.S. population, they accounted for 49% of HIV/AIDS cases in 2007. They are also about tree times as likely to commit brutal murder than white non-Hispanic males. This is the case with every minority, and being a minority is the only common factor. Being gay has nothing to do with it, not being widely accepted does.

Marriage isn't a right:

I agree. I say that we revoke and dissolve all marriages, including the heterosexual ones. Heterosexual marriage isn't any less valid, but it is no more valid than a gay marriage. Children need both a mother and a father to function correctly. This simply isn't the case. Most major studies have prove that the only thing a child needs to have a stable, nuclear (two parental figures) family environment to function. It helps economically: Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City's economy and $184 million to the State's economy.

Sources:
http://www.psychpage.com...
http://www.idvaac.org...
http://www.hds.harvard.edu...
http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

"First, I would like to address the violence aspect. It is proven that domestic abuse and violence are more prevalent in oppressed communities, who are not given equal social and societal privileges and recognition." "

According to....?

My opponent brings up the fact that gays are prone to violence because they are oppressed, bringing in an example of black people.

First of all, gays have the exact same rights as everybody else. Marriage is not a federal or state right, instead it is a priviedge.

To argue that black people have less rights is absurd. They have exactly the same rights as everybody.

By bringing the black case into the argument, you have contradicted yourself.

If giving the same rights to black people as everybody else doesn't work (causes violence etc..), then what is to say that it will help gays (even though they have the same rights).

My opponent keeps going on how minorities are more likely to commit worse crimes. This is false as he gave no evidence of it.


"Marriage isn't a right"

The principle and privilege of marriage falls upon the ability to fecundate within the marriage. There is absolutely to societal purpose for gays to marry.
My opponent said, "Why not dissolve all heterosexual marriages".
The reason for this is because they serve a common purpose, procreation. Procreation is highly beneficial to society. Gays cannot provide this service.

The prevalent case with the pro-gay marriage community is that they believe that everybody who is in love, should marry. This falls false on a few account.
If everybody who loved was given the privilege of marrying, then we should let brothers and sisters marry. After all, sometimes they love eachother. We should also legalize polygamy because the people love each other.
If the state must recognize marital privileges solely based on the purpose of love, then what right does it have to deny it to the above mentioned criteria?

"Children need both a mother and a father to function correctly. This simply isn't the case. Most major studies have prove that the only thing a child needs to have a stable, nuclear (two parental figures) family environment to function."

My opponent has claimed a position, with no sources to back it up.

I have my position backed up with numerous sources and facts.

David Popenoe's new books "Life Without Father", clearly shows the detrimental and harmful effects that SSM marriages have on children.

"It helps economically: Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City's economy and $184 million to the State's economy."

My opponent is nitpicking facts and ignoring the big picture.

There are about 9 million gays in the US (3%).

Lets assume that 66% of them will marry.

That leaves us with about 6 million gays.

6 million/2= 3 million

That is about 3 million couples.

These are the rights and benefits of heterosexual couples.


    • Right to benefits while married:

        • employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges

        • per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating

        • Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)

        • sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits



    • Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:

        • veteran's disability

        • Supplemental Security Income

        • disability payments for federal employees

        • Medicaid

        • property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans

        • income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates

        • wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]



    • Joint and family-related rights:

        • joint filing of bankruptcy permitted

        • joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records

        • family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison

        • next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims

        • custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce

        • domestic violence intervention

        • access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods



    • Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs

    • Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.

    • Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens

    • Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime

    • Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse

    • Court notice of probate proceedings

    • Domestic violence protection orders

    • Existing homestead lease continuation of rights

    • Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption

    • Funeral and bereavement leave

    • Joint adoption and foster care

    • Joint tax filing

    • Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society

    • Legal status with stepchildren

    • Making spousal medical decisions

    • Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver

    • Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation

    • Right of survivorship of custodial trust

    • Right to change surname upon marriage

    • Right to enter into prenuptial agreement

    • Right to inheritance of property

    • Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

    • For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:

        • Social Security pension

        • veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing

        • survivor benefits for federal employees

        • survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers

        • additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease

        • $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty

        • continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits

        • renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse

        • continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances

        • payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death

        • making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts



Just by looking at the list, we can see the economic detriment that gay marriage would have on the economy.

I will not go into statistics as there is no concrete amount.

It is obvious that these benefits financially outweigh the benefits that my opponent has brought up.


Conclusion
  • Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
  • My opponent has tried to show how gay marriage couples are violent because of other reasons. This is false.
  • Heterosexual couples benefit to society, while gays don't.
  • Homosexual couples will be an economic detriment.



Thank you.

Vote CON

lotus_flower

Pro

lotus_flower forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Lordknukle

Con

Extend arguments.

Vote CON.
lotus_flower

Pro

I apologize for the forfeited round, maybe we can do this in a more convenient time, I am just a bit overwhelmed right now.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Sources for Round 3:
http://tech.mit.edu...

I will post all of my sources together in the 4th round.
Posted by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
I have definitely not heard this before... Interesting...
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
It was irrelevant. It proved that gay couples are more violent than their heterosexual counterparts.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
I finished the round before I posted. You can't use 1,000 characters on something "irrelevant" and not expect comments lol.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
If you kept reading, I said that the gruesomeness was irrelevant. All that mattered was the fact that they are more prone to murders.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
"As a result of this article, we can infer that homosexual couples are harmful and detrimental society because of the fact that they are...more likely to use gruesome means to murder."

Why does the gruesomeness involved in a murder matter? I've never watched the news and thought "they obviously killed that guy, but at least they weren't gross about it."
Posted by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
it's ok.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Good luck. It might be a while before I post my argument cause I'm doing my Gadaffi debate.
Posted by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
It should be a good one.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Lordknuklelotus_flowerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped a round - Conduct. Con had extremely extensive arguments while Pro's were short and almost arrogant. He didn't refute anything thoroughly or completely.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
Lordknuklelotus_flowerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had everything, but sources so therefore he gets my 100 vote.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Lordknuklelotus_flowerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: VVVV---this---VVVV
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Lordknuklelotus_flowerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: A very close debate, I Con was very extensive in his arguments. He also gets a point for conduct because Pro forfeited a round.