The Instigator
Nataliella
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Daze
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Gay Marriage Legalization

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 4 votes the winner is...
Nataliella
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,299 times Debate No: 36210
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Nataliella

Pro

This is a debate over whether or not Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States. My position is that Gay Marriage should be legal. I will let my opponent start the debate with their arguments.
Daze

Con

Thank you for the topic.

And I'll be the con for the Gay Marriage Legalization. And so I stand on grounds that disagree with the legalization of gay marriage. Of course, I won't state my personal beliefs. I may or may not be a devil's advocate.

Same sex marriage.
Well, since there isn't an idea for me to argue right now, I'll start off with the differences between a normal couple and a gay couple. In a normal marriage, first thing you can think of is procreation. Normal couple can have a child through a natural birth, while gay couples cannot. Marriage in essence was a institution to support procreation of that couple 'exclusively'. And no matter the scale, they had to deal with 'adultery' had they looked upon another women with lust.
Gay couples on other hand cannot procreate. Something marriage intended to support isn't in their power to do so.

And if you think about procreation, you can think about a child and its growth. In a research shown in a book by Susan Golombok (Ph.D), 25% of children raised in a gay household exhibited gay behavior. And without a proper mother, or father, there may be some part of mentality that a children may lack when grown up in a gay household compared to children grown in a heterosexual household. Still, there is lack of evidence in this, but the research that shows effects in children raised in a gay family suggests it may also effect other psychology.

Plus there may be peer pressure amongst children, and children who are of gay household may experience unwanted complex involving having gay parents. If they think we don't have the right to take away their happiness, why do they think they have the right to take away anyone's happiness? Peer pressure amongst children is the hardest thing a child can come by and frankly, deciding to adopt a child in a gay family is exposing the child to that world. On a side note, there is nothing that stops them from becoming a couple, just the part about marriage. So it isn't really limiting their happiness.

On the other hand, to most religions gay marriage is just plain wrong. So there is no need to speak about religion here I guess. In a 2008 survey, 76% of Americans were Christian. 1.4% out of all Americans a Jew. 0.8% out of all Americans a muslim. To others, no religion. But the majority of people have religion that strongly disagree with gay marriage. Law is for the people, and frankly law that does not have support over the majority is as good as a dead law.

I on the other hand think it's a good idea to allow gay marriage alternatives such as civil unions.
Debate Round No. 1
Nataliella

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for joining this debate.

I would like to protest my opponent's idea that marriage is only about procreation. What about infertile couples? What about couples who wish to remain childfree? If they can marry, why not the LGBT community, too? My oppeonent states "Marriage in essence was an institution to support procreation of that couple 'exculsively'." The key word in this statement is "was". Marriage predates recorded history, when many unacceptable ideas for that time period were now social norms. For example, racism against blacks has diminished since the 1950's. The meaning of black changed from "second-class citizens" to "people just like us". So the meaning of marriage can just as easily change from "This thing that allows people to make babies" to "A bondage between a loving couple, regardless of gender or ability to procreate".

I beg to differ my opponent's position that gay couples cannot raise a child properly. If they can not, then by this logic, single people should not be allowed to adopt, because children cannot succeed if raised by only one gender. However, since singles can adopt, gays should be legally be allowed to adopt, too. I wish to question why my opponent is stating something that has "a lack of evidence", and therefore cannot be totally claimed as a fact. Also, I would like to question why 25% of children raised by gay couples becoming gay is a bad thing.

I wish to refute the idea that a child raised by a gay couple will be bullied or pressured by society. If gay marriage is legalized, homophobia will eventually diminish, just as racism lowered since segregation ended in 1954 with the Civil Rights Act, and only 3 years later, Thurgood Marshall became the first African-American justice in the Supreme Court. If homophobia takes We must start the end of prejudice against the LGBT community now so gays are not pressured and bullied by society, and legalizing Gay Marriage will make a huge impact on this.

Last, but not least, I would like to point out that although many Americans have various religions, this does not prevent the majority of people accepting the legalization of Gay Marriage. According to a Gallup Politics poll, 52% of people are in favor of gay marriage, while only 43% are not. Since more Americans want gay marriage to be legalized than not, this definitely points out that gay marriage should be legal.

Again, I would like to thank my opponent for joining this debate.

Sources:
http://www.xtimeline.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.fasttopten.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Daze

Con

For example, racism against blacks has diminished since the 1950's. The meaning of black changed from "second-class citizens" to "people just like us".

I'd like to state, meaning of 'second class citizen' was against the constitution in the first place. Something that should've been a right was a privilage. But in this case, marriage is not something thats necessarily a right. That would mean children can have the right to marry also. Marriage is something that is a privilage. Racism is intolerable even at a young age, when otherwise marriage is intolerable at a young age. I don't think the comparison is valid.

However, since singles can adopt, gays should be legally be allowed to adopt, too.

Not really an argument since they can.

I wish to question why my opponent is stating something that has "a lack of evidence", and therefore cannot be totally claimed as a fact.

Because of the possibility. I am just suggesting there may be. In the face of uncertainty, careful progression must be made for laws, since laws are bound absolute to all men. And in order for it to be absolute, there shouldn't be uncertainty. It makes it a good burden of proof for the lawmaker to pass the law.

Also, I would like to question why 25% of children raised by gay couples becoming gay is a bad thing.

Agreed. But there are people who may say it is a bad thing. But that wasn't the point in the matter. It was about the possibility a gay person may affect a child and to a certain effect, there may be bad influence.

I wish to refute the idea that a child raised by a gay couple will be bullied or pressured by society. If gay marriage is legalized, homophobia will eventually diminish

Which essentially means that a child raised by a gay couple will be bullied and pressured.

and only 3 years later, Thurgood Marshall became the first African-American justice in the Supreme Court

And even yet, racism persists even until today. That doesn't say how a couple million blacks weren't pressured and bullied by society.

Still in 1957, there were many cases of racist behavior left in people. But that was mostly due to prejudice. Frankly speaking, I don't think expanding the analogy of race and sexual identity is the same. For most heterosexuals, being gay is unnatural and revulsion a natural reaction.

Last, but not least, I would like to point out that although many Americans have various religions, this does not prevent the majority of people accepting the legalization of Gay Marriage. According to a Gallup Politics poll, 52% of people are in favor of gay marriage, while only 43% are not.

Which usually means there is enough margin for error to discredit the poll as a valid citation. A gallup poll usually samples a couple thousand at most through phones- which usually further discredits gallup's validity. I do know that what people identify themselves as is sometimes misleading toward what they actually believe in. But still, it would be unwise to discredit demographics which is a complete survey, while a gallup poll is a partial survey in the fractions of population.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DebateKate 3 years ago
DebateKate
"Which essentially means they will be pressured and bullied by society." Um... How, exactly?
"A gay parent may influence their kids, which could be a bad thing." How, exactly? You said it's not bad to be gay.
"Not really an argument since they can." Okay... So why did you bring it up in the first place?
"The poll can't be credible." Nowher in Con's argument did he mention a poll! He just said most people are religious! This is not a statistic over whether or not people want gay marriage legalized or not.
"I don't think the comparison is valid." Like YOUR comparison over how letting kids get married is like lettng gays get married? Get real. They're not children.
Con also seemed to totally ignore the procreation rebuttal. If I could vote, I'd give all points to Pro. Pro answered all arguments, used proper capitalizations, used actual sources, and made much better arguments.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
NataliellaDazeTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Daze wasn't aggressive enough, the arguments fell flat.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
NataliellaDazeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Pro cited sources. Con chose some very poor arguments against gay marriage; for example, in America our laws do not allow the feelings of the majority to reduce the rights of the minority, else interracial marriage would still be illegal. Con never properly made an argument for how kids being bullied should make gay marriage illegal (kids get bullied for everything), or how parenting is in any way inferior in a gay couple (which also isn't an argument against marriage since there are a plethora of crappy hetero parents). And the religion argument is awful, since we have a separation of church and state.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
NataliellaDazeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Let's break it down. Conduct=Equal. Good etiquette from both. S&G=Equal. Against, good job both. Arguments=Pro. Pro managed to easily and devastatingly dispute con's points on pro-creation and gays with children. Sources=Pro. Only one who used sources. Con used a study, but did not cite a source. A serious debate from both, but pro takes it. Good job both of you!
Vote Placed by Merrit 3 years ago
Merrit
NataliellaDazeTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had fair conduct, for that reason it is tied. Neither had poor grammar or spelling. Con made much more convincing arguments, and negated most of Pro's arguments. Pro however used and cited more sources.