The Instigator
Stupidwalrus
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
xandraaa
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage (Full Resolution in Round 1)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Stupidwalrus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 843 times Debate No: 24820
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Stupidwalrus

Pro

Yet another debate on gay marriage.

The full resolution is: "Same-sex marriage should be legalized in the United States."

Burden of proof is shared.
Drops are not concessions
Each side may use their own definitions/framework. These definitions can be attacked.
No new arguments in round 5.

Round structure is as follows:

1) Acceptance
2) Arguments
3) Rebuttals
4) Response to rebuttals (defending your own case)
5) Summary

If, however, my opponent wishes to respond to one of my rebuttals in round three, they can do so. I based the round structure around the incredibly annoying character limit. However, I'm not obligated to respond to such an argument in round 4. Ask for clarification in round 1, or the comment section, if you don't understand this.
xandraaa

Con

I fully accept my opponent's challenge.

As a devoted and faithful Christian, I go against the same sex marriage. I believe that men are made for women and women are made for one and they should multiply. Same sex marriage, however, is something that everybody doesn't agree on. I've been studying in an exclusive school for girls for my whole life and I've witnessed girl-to-girl relationships and it doesn't pleases me and many people that surrounds me as well. I do not have anything against the "LGBT" community, in fact, I have so much respect for them because they aren't afraid to express themselves.

I'll be patiently waiting for my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidwalrus

Pro

Contention one: SSM is protected by the U.S. Constitution and International Law.

Protection under the Ninth Amendment: The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the following: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Note that in order to use this argument I must show that marriage is a civil right. However, that's not that hard to do.

From the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Later, from the U.S. Supreme Court in Zablocki v. Redhail:

Before the Supreme Court heard the case, District Judge John Reynolds held that marriage was a fundamental right. When the Court heard the case, the majority decision concurred with the district court, and marriage was upheld as a fundamental right.

Protection Under the Due Process Clause: In the Supreme Court Case Cleveland Board of Education v. Lafleur, the following was decided: "This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matter of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause."


Protection under International Law:

From Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled equal rights as to marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution."

If men and women of full age are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, then the United States cannot restrict the right of same-sex couples to marry without violating international law.

The article also lists the only requirement for marriage as both of the intending spouses having the full/free consent to marry.

Clearly, bans of SSM violate rights guaranteed by both the U.S. Constitution and International Law. Thus, until the U.S. legalizes SSM, it is acting in direct contradiction to its own founding document, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed to all human beings.

Contention two: Legalizing same-sex marriage will benefit the state.

Subpoint A: Economics:

"The Comptrollers Office estimates that the economic impact of marriage equality would add $142 million, on a net basis, to New York City's economy during the three years... It would add about $184 million, on a net basis, in spending to the State's economy.

"Weddings generate sales taxes and marriage license fees, and marriage may affect the income tax, estate taxes, and public spending on means-tested government tansfer programs." (http://gaymarriage.procon.org...)

Other findings for state economic benefits include the following:

From (http://blogs.smartmoney.com...)

"If the right of same-sex couples to wed were granted nationally, the policy could generate a substantial economic boost... A 2009 study the organization (Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA) conducted posited that allowing same-sex couples to marry in Vermont would result in an extra $30.6 million for the state over three-years. Another study earlier this year estimated that New Jersey would have generated economic gains of $48 to $119 million over three years."

"A 2004 study from the Congressional Budget Office expected that the losses and gains in both tax revenue and program expenses would largely even out, with the Government saving $1 billion annualy over a 10-year period."

From (http://www.missourirecord.com...)

"According to a 2008 article in The Boston Globe, gay marriage has pumped over $100 million into the Massachusetts economy, with $5 million coming from marriage license fees and sale and occupancy taxes."

Subpoint B: Adoptions.

The easiest way for same-sex couples to have children is to adopt. In many states, they are currently unable to do this. The number of children waiting to be adopted, currently 130,000, would decrease in the event of same-sex marriage being legalized. This would provide thousands of children with a stable family.

Many opponents of gay marriage claim that children raised by same-sex couples fare far worse when they grow up. While I will be refuting this in my third contention, note for now that a same-sex family is better than no family.

Contention three: Legalizing homosexual marriage will not discourage procreation.

It is commonly claimed that legalizing SSM will interfere with state's interests relating to procreation.

To begin with evidence:

"Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children)." (http://gaymarriage.procon.org...)

This is, of course, with the hurdles that same-sex couples musty overcome in order to raise a child. This is also with the outright bans on same-sex adoption in states such as Mississippi, Florida, Oklahoma, Utah, etc.

Clearly, same-sex couples are not only able to raise children, but they desire to. With lesbian couples already near the national average for childrearing, legalizing SSM will not discourage procreation. If anything, it will help encourage it.

So when a same-sex couple wants a child, what do they do? Either artificial insemination (which is procreation) or adoption. Either method benefits the state. Artificial insemination still encourages procreation. Adoption gives children a home. Also note that this method of adoption is no different than it is for heterosexual families, which is also encouraged by the state.

What about the possibility of homosexuality being passed down through generations, thus discouraging heterosexual marriage and procreation?

"Compared with young adults who had heterosexual mothers, men and women who had lesbian mothers were slightly more likely to consider the possiblity of having a same-gender partner, but in each group similar proportions of adult men and women indentified themselves as homosexual. Another study reports no significant differences in gender devlopment for either boys or girls according to the mother's sexual orientation... So few adolescents in either group reported same-gender attractions or same-gender romantic relationships that a statistical comparison was not found."

What about the adverse effect of being brought up by same-sex parents. Doesn't that exist? Not really.

For every study which claims children raised in homosexual families will have problems developing, there is another study which finds the opposite. Here's a few.

http://www.usatoday.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://news.stanford.edu...

And here's some quotes from http://gaymarriage.procon.org...

“Children born to and raised by lesbian couples seem to develop in ways that are indistinguishable from children raised by heterosexual parents. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children’s social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms.”

“Children born to and raised by lesbian couples seem to develop in ways that are indistinguishable from children raised by heterosexual parents. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children’s social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms.”






My first two contentions showed two benefits of legalizing same-sex marriage. My third contention has proven there to be no downsides to legalizing same-sex marriage.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.
xandraaa

Con

"The image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. This is only possible in a heterosexual union."

Heterosexual- sexually attracted to the members of the OPPOSITE sex.
In order for reproduction to happen, sperm and egg cells should unite and there, a new being is formed. If one gender won't be open to the other, no multiplication will happen.

"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'"
—Mark 10:6 (NKJV)

Adam and Eve is one concrete that man is made for a woman and a woman alone is made for man.

"When Jesus was asked questions about marriage he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis that say that marriage is between male and female and is meant to be life long. He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also."

'Marriage is between male and female...'

http://www.christiananswers.net...

I'll be patiently waiting for my opponent's answer.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidwalrus

Pro

Well then. Seeing as how Round 2 was for all arguments, it appears as though the entirety of my opponent's case relies on the religion of Christianity.

My rebuttal is simple:

Marriage, as of right now, is not a Christian institution. Due to both seperation of church and state and freedom of religion, my opponent's argument does not show that gay marriage should be illegal, just that it's immoral for Christians.



While my opponent mostly relies on religious arguments, she also makes that claim that "in order for reproduction to happen, sperm and egg cells should unite and there, a new being is formed. If one gender won't be open to the other, no multiplication will happen."

I already addressed this in my third contention. Same-sex couples who want to have children can either adopt or use artificial insemination. Artificial insemination still is procreation, and thus my opponent's statement proves nothing. I will wait until the next round to go more in detail on this, because my opponent has not yet had a chance to respond to it.





xandraaa

Con

xandraaa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidwalrus

Pro

As my opponent has not attacked my case or defended her own, I really don't have anything to do in this round.

Vote pro.
xandraaa

Con

xandraaa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Stupidwalrus

Pro

Vote pro.
xandraaa

Con

xandraaa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by famer 4 years ago
famer
StupidwalrusxandraaaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
StupidwalrusxandraaaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited more than once.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
StupidwalrusxandraaaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: lets see, who presented argunments?