The Instigator
darceem
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Gay Marriage Is Beneficial To Everyone

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...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,556 times Debate No: 20997
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

darceem

Pro

Full Resolved: 'Gay marriage' as a legal, state union is beneficial to all people in the country, economically and socioreligiously.

Definition: Gay marriage is the legal, state union between two consenting parties of the same gender.

I will be arguing based on three points:

Gay marriage encourages stimulation of marriage and family related markets - Though gay people may have weddings, many, seeing the lack of legal recognition, are discouraged from holding weddings and because of laws surrounding marriage and adoption and family planning, may be discouraged from starting a family. If gay marriage were legal, thus encouraging more gay couples to have formal weddings, it would stimulate markets commonly utilized to hold these events (small markets perhaps, but markets nonetheless). As well, despite arguments that giving these couples marriage tax benefits will decrease state and federal revenue, it will also decrease the use of Medicare, as gay couples, now encouraged to marry, are less likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors. For example, following Massachusett's legalization of gay marriage, they say a decline in STD rates in the state, while other states not recognizing gay marriage saw an increase.

Gay marriage legalization would be a landmark for social justice of all kinds -
The legalization of gay marriage, despite protests from religious organizations, would be a step towards religious and social equality, which would benefit ALL religious institutions in the long run. The concern is often that gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples, despite only isolated incidences which may hint at this. State recognized marriage has not forced churches to recognize unions in the past and would not now - churches are still allowed to not recognize couples which do not follow their belief system. Allowing gay marriage would only solidify that religious freedom and continue to forward America's progress towards complete freedom.

Marriage is a fundamental right -
Gay couples consist of consenting adults wishing to enter a legal union. Loving v. Virginia set the precedent that marriage is a basic human right - denying this right to consenting adults because of their gender is gender discrimination of the same kind that prevented women from voting in prior to the early 1900's. Invalidating gay marriage also invalidates interracial marriage, and other marriages often looked on with dissent. Legalization of gay marriage would further validate these unions.

I look forward to my opponents response.
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and will argue why Gay marriage is not beneficial to everyone...... Emphasis on EVERYONE and BENEFICIAL...

First the Pro's arguments
- 1 - Economy:
Gay marriage would benefit the economy, I wont contest that

- 2 - Social Justice?:
"would be a step towards religious and social equality, which would benefit ALL religious institutions in the long run"
I dont think this is true. Religious institutions, especially the Catholic Church, have routinely denounced and criticized scientific facts and social movements since the Middle Ages. These are the same religious institutions that stubbornly refused to believe the Earth revolved around the Sun, that witchcraft was fake, that Muslims were evil, etc.

If Gay Marriage were legalized, it would be the latest slap to the face of long standing religious institutions. These religious institutions would immediately denounce gay marriage, and then as time progressed and people grew comfortable with gay marriage as a reality, they would look back and ridicule the church for protesting something so fiercely.

- 3 - Marriage is a fundamental right
I do not deny this, but the point of this debate for me is to prove how NOT everyone would benefit everyone.

List of people who would not be befitted from Gay Marriage
- Normal People - How would gay marriage actually benefit any one person individual person? many people would be rather unaffected by gay marriage being legalized and thus wouldnt "benefit" from it
- Homophobes - Gays walking around everywhere would be their nightmare
- Racists - These guys sh*t on gays all the time, if Gay Marriage were legal then racists would be very annoyed
- Conservatives - NOT ALL OF THEM. But there are some who are against gay marriage and if it were legalized conservatives would feel upset, well some of them
- Anti Gay Groups - These groups would have lost the battle, something that would annoy them forever
- Anti Gay Authors - Authors who have books denouncing gay marriage would see sales plummet if gay marriage were to be legalized
- Ignorant Bigots - There are people who make an opinion and stick to it no matter how dumb or stupid it may be (Glenn Beck), those who denounce Gay Marriage would spend their lives denouncing it and how this country is going to hell, and that hate speech would piss off a lot of people
- Comedians - Comedians who have jokes about how Gay marriage is normal and poke fun at other anti-gay groups would lose a lot of material if gay marriage were legalized.
- Parents - If gay marriage were legal, kids would come out to their parents more often and more freely, some would be upset
- Idiots - Idiots who think that Gays are the reason AIDS is around would be very traumatized by gay marriage being legalized because they think that AIDS would start spreading more, even though that is a complete lie only idiots believe

I have named some groups of people who would be HARMED by gay marriage, but i would like to remind voters that the debate is whethor or not gay marriage is BENEFICIAL to everyone, so he has the BOP to show that we all BENEFIT from Gay Marriage.

Unaffected by it =/= beneficial to people
Debate Round No. 1
darceem

Pro

Economy -
I'm glad. :)

Social Justice -
That is to assume that people are always aware of the benefits of something. Parents do many things that benefit their children that children think are just awful. Social justice works the same way. No one against woman's suffrage felt benefited by woman's suffrage but the next 100 years of rapid social progress would say otherwise. Benefits are not always apparent to the beneficiaries is what I'm saying.

To combat your list:
Individuals wouldn't necessarily feel an immediate, direct benefit, unless you count an influx in the use of glitter in public as a benefit. But they would benefit from the economic boost, and depending on the demographics they are a part of may have more social benefits.
Most of the middle of your list are the same basic demographic -the antigay crowd. As I said before. While antigay people may not feel benefited by it, the social ramifications of consistently supporting human rights will only benefit their goals in the long run - the antigay crowd, for example, frequently criticizes the ACLU. But that same ACLU has fought for religious purposes. The religious crowd may not notice or recognize it, but the fight for social justice for gay people forwards their own social justice goals.
I think that parents of gay children would benefit, and gay children themselves. Right now because gay marriage is illegal, parents feel less comfortable about the idea. To use an anecdote - I came out to my grandparents. They weren't necessarily upset about my sexuality, but concerned because they knew the ramifications of it. While some parents will overreact, gay marriage being legalized will give those kicked out more resources and confidence so that the impact won't destroy them. But I don't believe that children being more likely to come out is a negative - like I said before, people may not like it, but it's beneficial in the long run.
Comedians still make jokes about black people despite black people almost reaching full legal equality. In fact for a couple of weeks comedians will have a great deal of fodder about how every florist is sold out of lavender and pink.
As far as idiots, I don't expect anything benefits them much, as they reverse any benefits that they received through sheer stupidity. But perhaps the lack of what they believe will benefit them - then they'll stop concentrating on homosexuality and start concentrating on the next stuid thing.

Everyone will be affected, even indirectly.
imabench

Con

- Social Justice -
The Pro's argument here is that "Gay marriage will benefit everyone, they just wont know it until like 100 years from now". But the thing is, being benefited by something is relevant to time. You cant just say that gay marriage is beneficial to everyone eventually, you have to show that in all cases gay marriage is beneficial to everyone at any time.

List of people who would not benefit from Gay Marriage

Individual people

- Individuals are not always tied to the economy, people under the age of 16 almost never are therefore if Gay Marriage does somehow provide such an economic boost it could affect the lives of all the taxpayers in America, kids still wont be affected since they arent affected by the economy.
- If the Pro argues Gays do provide a large benefit to the economy, keep in mind it only benefits the AMERICAN ECONOMY. Individuals in Ghana and Tibet and Singapore and Iran, etc would not be affected by Gay Marriage in the US.

Anti Gays

- Not all people are anti gay, most of them are simply against gay marriage, there is a huge difference
- Anti gays would surely not "only benefit their goals in the long run" if they dont even live that long.... If an Anti Gay person dies 4 days after Gay Marriage is legalized in the US, then he wont enjoy the "benefits" at all.
- "the social ramifications of consistently supporting human rights will only benefit their goals in the long run" How the hell does supporting human rights benefit the goals of the Neo Nazis, the KKK, and anyone else who doesnt give a hoot about human rights? Gay Marriage would certainly not benefit their goals

Religious people

- "The religious crowd may not notice or recognize it, but the fight for social justice for gay people forwards their own social justice goals." Not all people try to advocate social justice goals, Take a look at people of the Westboro Baptist Church. These dumbsh*ts enjoy campaigning at military funerals with signs saying "God Loves Gay Soldiers", how does that qualify as social Justice?
- Religious groups dont all set out for social justice, so if legalizing Gay marriage is a step forward for social justice than churches and organizations who dont give a hoot for social justice would not benefit from Gay marriage...

Parents of Gays

- "I think that parents of gay children would benefit, and gay children themselves. Right now because gay marriage is illegal, parents feel less comfortable about the idea." First off you cant just say you think so, give actual proof otherwise this is just your own opinion. Second, Its not that parents dont like their sons and daughters being gay because they are concerned about their well being because Gay Marriage isnt legal. Its because some parents dont like having gay sons and daughters because they think that being gay is a sin or that something is horribly wrong with the child or with themselves for producing a gay child.... If Gay Marriage were legal, kids would come out more instead of keeping it a secret, and even if the rest of society accepts it their parents might not so they still wont be benefited by it.
- " like I said before, people may not like it, but it's beneficial in the long run." Its not about the long run its about Gay Marriage will benefit people depending on the moment, in their own lives which might not be long enough to see the long run come about.
Stupid people
- "As far as idiots, I don't expect anything benefits them much" - Gay marriage would qualify as anything (concession)
- " then they'll stop concentrating on homosexuality and start concentrating on the next stupid thing." You dont know that though, thats just your opinion. Some dumb people still are focusing all their effort on believing that the moon landings were a hoax even though that was 50 years ago. If gay marriage was legalized you cant just assume idiots will forget about it and focus on something else stupid. That being said idiots wont be benefitted by Gay Marriage being legalized if they have a stupid undying fear of Gays

"Everyone will be affected, even indirectly."
Do you have evidence to suggest such a claim?

Other people who would not benefit from Gay Marriage in the US
Afghanis
Iraqis
Israelis
Indians
Britons
Kenyans
Mexicans
Canadians
------------ >Cubans
------------ >Iranians
------------ >North Koreans
South Koreans
Russians

AND THE NUMBER 1 PEOPLE WHO WONT BENEFIT FROM GAY MARRIAGE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

ALIENS (Yeah I said it)
If aliens exist they surely would not be benefited by Gay Marriage.....

Debate Round No. 2
darceem

Pro

I'm not gonna lie, I feel like we're playing with semantics here. But it's cool, I'm game.

First off, I never resolved that gay marriage is beneficial to everyone immediately. Very few conscious things have an immediate, direct effect. If you eat food you must digest it. If you intend to go to Disneyland you must drive there and wait in line. If you want to have sex, you have to take off your clothes first. Therefore, that point is not correct.

People under the age of 16 absolutely benefit - they live with their parents who benefit (which in turn benefits them) and the impacts on certain markets would also benefit them.

America's market has been shown as having an impact on the international market - because of our girth and ties to so many countries, the rest of the world tends to follow a similar pattern. While correlation is not necessarily causation, I believe it would be safe to say. And the social impact would very likely lead other countries to legalize gay marriage, and experience those benefits head on.

Since most anti-gay people are religious, they believe in an afterlife, and could likely see the Earth as it continues, seeing their family benefit is a benefit.

Out of the nationalities, this may be surprising, but non-American white people can also be gay. :)

It may benefit their research though! Assuming the existence of aliens, when they come to study us our sexuality will no doubt be a huge characteristic for them to study! The existence of gay marriage, and thus a more open and accepted sexuality will make it easier for them to observe our planet.
imabench

Con

1) Immediate effect vs Long Term effect
Read the resolution you made Pro, it says that "Gay Marriage is beneficial to everyone" not "Gay Marriage is beneficial to everyone 50 years form now", stick to your own resolution before playing semantics then accuse me of starting it.

Time is a factor for whether or not something is beneficial. There are cancer patients who will die tomorrow or some time over the next week, and the same will be true for the day gay marriage is legalized. If gay marriage is legal and they pass away, they wont benefit from it, and the Pro cannot deny that

2) List of People who would not benefit from Gay Marriage
- 16 and Under -
According to the Pro this is how Gay Marriage benefits children,

Gay Marriage -> more taxes -> better economy for all -> somehow benefits are passed to ALL the parents -> somehow benefits all of their kids......
Even with taxable incomes that doesnt mean people will have to pay less taxes if the government just spends all of it anyways (which they do). And any barely minimum amount that does benefit people would become negligible when that is transferred to the kids somehow...

- Internationally -
Same argument made by the Pro but again, the government might not transfer that savings to people if they spend any extra cash on themselves. Then any benefit that is somehow passed to people doesnt get passed overseas at all. when Gay Marriage was legalized in Argentina in July 2010 it did not affect the people of Somalia.... Or any other places that is economically isolated from the US and would not benefit from it.

"Out of the nationalities, this may be surprising, but non-American white people can also be gay. :)"
Oh thank you Sherlock Holmes I knew that already, keep in mind when they legalized Gay Marriage it didnt benefit us, so how would it work the other way around?

It wouldnt

- Religion -
"Since most anti-gay people are religious, they believe in an afterlife, and could likely see the Earth as it continues, seeing their family benefit is a benefit."

3 words, Anti-Gay Athiests...

- Homophobes - Conceded
- Racists - Conceded
- Some Conservatives - Conceded
- Anti Gay Groups - Conceded
- Anti Gay Authors - Conceded
- Ignorant Bigots - Conceded
- Parents - Conceded
- Idiots - Conceded

- Aliens -
"Assuming the existence of aliens, when they come to study us our sexuality will no doubt be a huge characteristic for them to study"
Pro, if ants were having gay sex it wouldnt benefit me....... And the aliens havent found us yet so how could they benefit from something they dont even know is happening.....

They dont

I thank the Pro for a fun debate and I thank the voters for reading....
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by darceem 2 years ago
darceem
Really? Because after Round 1 I got the impression we were just playin' around at that point. I don't know how I put out an attitude. :)
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
Since it won't let me officially vote yet, I'll cast my unofficial ballot here. Plus, I get to enjoy the 1500 extra characters. So suck that.

Anyway, I end up voting con in this round for a few reasons.
1) Con provides a BOP for the pro to mandate. I feel that this was never really sufficiently achieved. But I have a few concerns with this argument. Be wary, there is evidence out there that supports the BOP being on the negative. Something about a UN meeting in 2010. -shrug- But since this was never challenged, I let it slide and since pro never really mandates a change in the status quo, I can vote con here.
2) I do feel that this was full of semantics. But debate is mostly semantics to begin with, so you just got to deal with it. Off of the wording in the resolution, the pro put himself at a bit of a disadvantage here. You would have to prove that legalizing gay marriage benefits EVERYONE. Since the definition of everyone proposed by the con of, well, every person existing currently, was never really challenged, it becomes a bit of an up-hill debate for the pro debater and while he gave it his best effort, he just didn't quite do enough to prove his side. Too many groups of people were conceded throughout the round as seeing no benefit from this legalization, thus making it impossible for me to vote pro.

An extra concern that I had is the attitudes of the debate, specifically past the second round. Things got heated as people were accusing each other of doing something or other. Watch the tempers. I myself am subject to occaisionally flying off the handle and getting mad, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Keep your attitudes in check, and you sound a whole lot more persuasive to voters.

Aside from these things, I thought that this was a semi-decent debate round. Congratz to both debaters.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
There was an easier way out though (racists, homophobes, etc) who under no circumstances would benefit from gay marriage being legalized
Posted by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
Seriously dude.... you forfeited the economy point. That was the easiest one to rebut. Shame....
Posted by darceem 2 years ago
darceem
If I recall, he supports the theory that providing the tax benefits available to married couples would further cripple the deficit, which I covered in my opening statement. The slight impact on state and federal revenue would be more than evened out by the increased revenue from the sales tax, not to mention the costs saved in Medicare because of the decrease in suicides and STDs in those communities. Add the impact on marriage related economies and it benefits the economy FAR more than those tax benefits could ever hurt it.
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
how so?
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
It could actually hurt the economy
Posted by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Sure thing :)
Posted by darceem 2 years ago
darceem
Well, that was prompt, wasn't it. Thank you :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 2 years ago
Doulos1202
darceemimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Keyword EVERYONE
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
darceemimabenchTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: US marriage would not effect afghans. Actually I have an argument proving it would but lets not go there. It as con said woudl not beneficial many people, and the economy argument is highly controversial.
Vote Placed by LibertyCampbell 2 years ago
LibertyCampbell
darceemimabenchTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Semantics debate. Because of the nature of the resolution, Con obviously wins. He also demonstrated his point quite well, given "Aliens".