The Instigator
xXCryptoXx
Pro (for)
Tied
17 Points
The Contender
justin.graves
Con (against)
Tied
17 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal In the United States

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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,283 times Debate No: 34248
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

xXCryptoXx

Pro

I will be debating that gay marriage should be illegal in all 50 states of America.

My opponent will be debating that gay marriage should have full legalization through-out all 50 states.

Definitions

Illegal - not according to or authorized by law

Gay - Homosexual

Rules

No trolling, semantics, or anything that would be deemed innapropriate by the average DDO user.

First round is for acceptance.



justin.graves

Con

Here I am, the Devil's Advocate.

Shoot me now for it or forever keep your piece. (On safety that is.)
Debate Round No. 1
xXCryptoXx

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate! Good luck!


Marriage and Procreation

What makes marriage what it is? What makes marriage special so that it should only be obtained by

man and woman together? The answer is the relationship that only heterosexual couples can

pursue. Normally the argument in support of gay marriage goes along the lines of, “Oh well they

really love each other so they should get married!” If marriage was about the emotional connection

then why wouldn’t the two people simply stay in a non-marital relationship? There is no point in

recognizing a relationship that is only out of love. Obviously, only man and woman can procreate.

Without procreation a society could not continue to live or thrive. The reason the man and woman

get the marriage benefits is because they are doing society a “favor” per say by procreating and

allowing the society to live. This is something homosexuals simply cannot do. Procreation and the

proper raising of children are at the base of marriage; it is the main reason marriage exists. This fits

the traditional view of marriage, which is between man and woman. Gay marriage gives absolutely

no value to society at all as a whole. At the heart of marriage is also the proper raising of children,

therefore infertile heterosexual couples can and should also be able to get married. Even though

they cannot procreate, they can adopt and raise children for society; therefore they still provide

society benefits.


Marriage Between Man and Woman

Now from my last point, it may sound like my arguments go along the line of procreation and the

proper raising of children being the only important thing in marriage. While procreation is what

benefits society in essence, marriage is more than that.


Men and women are complimentary to each other in marriage, and through the loving (and natural)

relationship they pursue. This loving relationship fulfilled at its best (much like a tree that bears

fruit) produces children for society and raises them properly to continue societal growth. Marriage

between man and woman connects sexual intercourse with love and not lust, sexual intercourse

connects with children, and the children connect to being raised and loved by their mom and dad.

This is all good for society and is a role in marriage that can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman.

Marriage is about the relationship between man and woman, and when that relationship is fulfilled at

its best, it commonly becomes a loving family that raises children properly for society. Not only does

gay marriage not fulfill this role, but allowing gay marriage actually distorts this role, leading to

marriage ultimately losing its meaning.


Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited

There is a limited role that the government should, and should not do with marriage. Hopefully the

government would never go as far as to legalize marriages based around pedophilia, bestiality,

having multiple spouses, ect. In order to preserve the sanctity and meaning of marriage, the

government must draw the line somewhere on who gets married. It logical to see that this line

should be drawn at marriage between a man and a woman. Reasoning behind this can be seen in my

procreation argument and my argument over the relationships heterosexual couples pursue.

Marriages between man and woman benefit society while not complicating society like having

multiple spouses could do. Once marriage only becomes an emotional relationship between two

people and nothing more, the meaning behind marriage is lost.


There is a reason that the government regulates marriage. This reason is that marriage between

man and woman is inherently good in the sense that it has a special link to procreation and the

proper raising of children for society. The government would be doing a poor job regulating marriage

if they allowed anything that didn’t have the best societal structure interest in mind.


Parenting among homosexuals

Obviously one of the most important things in society is the children and how they are raised. Children need to be raised well in order to keep the society moving forward without problems. Homosexuals cannot achieve the expectations set in raising children well, or even better than heterosexual parents and I will now explain why.

A study taken in July of 2012 proved that homosexual parents fail in all categories in being better than their heterosexual counterparts at parenting.

"Homosexually-behaving adults inherently suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse; therefore, as a group, households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home environments needed by foster children."(1)(4)

A study taken from the Journal of Human Sexuality concludes the following:

  1. The presence of a father reduces the chances that the child will participate in criminal activities and reduces the chances the child will take drugs.
  2. Lesbian mothers make children more sexually active. Fathers help the child stay chaste.
  3. “Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex.” (3)
  4. People have the best sex lives when raised by heterosexual parents.
  5. Fathers help children with interaction among other people.
  6. When going through puberty, the father teaches the son “how to be assertive and how to be a “man”. (3)

violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples, and homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages”. (4)

I will concede to the point that there are homosexuals that can raise children better than some heterosexual couples. To clear up why it still isn’t appropriate to allow the exceptions, I will give this analogy:

“we should not stop warning people about the dangers of smoking just because some smokers outlive non-smokers. Nor should we stop warning people about the dangers of homosexual behavior or parenting just because some homosexuals outlive heterosexuals or parent better.

If laws were based on exceptions, we would have to do away with virtually every law we have. It would require that we do away with all laws against running red lights because sometimes running a red light will not hurt anyone. In fact, it would require that we do away with marriage itself because spouses in some marriages abuse one another and their children.”(4)

I await my opponent's response.


(1) http://catholiceducation.org...

(2) Journal of Human Sexuality

(3) Quote from Fanboy in his debate, “Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.”

(4) http://www.allaboutlove.org...

justin.graves

Con

I'm going to start off this debate with bad news:

1. I'm going on a missions trip to Haiti.

2. I will not have regular internet access there.

3. I leave on the 1st. I do not get back until the 10th.

4. My bad for accepting this debate. Let's see what we can squeeze out of it.

Now that that is out of the way...

Marriage and Procreation
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but about 10% of women have trouble reproducing, so about 10% of all couples cannot achieve that goal, making it less of a reason. After all, my opponent says that homosexual couples cannot reproduce, so don't have the right to marriage, yet infertile couples can because they can adopt? What if homosexual couples adopt? That would put them in the same boat as infertile heterosexual couples, infertile, but wanting to raise children.

My opponent has really given no good distinction on this contention between why infertile heterosexual couples can adopt, hence marry, but homosexual couples cannot. I see no clear distinction.

Marriage Between Man and Woman
Interesting... "
Men and women are complimentary to each other in marriage, and through the loving (and natural) relationship they pursue... Marriage is about the relationship between man and woman, and when that relationship is fulfilled at its best, it commonly becomes a loving family that raises children properly for society. Not only does gay marriage not fulfill this role, but allowing gay marriage actually distorts this role, leading to marriage ultimately losing its meaning." Let me get this straight... this is a lot about marriage's "meaning," yet, in states that have legalized gay marriage, divorce rates are down since then, wouldn't that increase the meaning of marriage instead of decrease it? In Massachusetts in 2003, the divorce rate was 2.5 per 1,000. In 2004, gay marriage was legalized, and the divorce rate dropped to 1.9 per 1,000 by 2009. Also, more people were getting married as opposed to living together! Doesn't that give marriage more meaning instead of less?

Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited
Agreed, let me point something out. The differences between the various kinds of appalling relationships my opponent compared to homosexual love.

1. Homosexual Marriage: Both parties are mature enough to agree that they love each other. They understand and agree to marry.

2. Pedophile Marriage: The child would not be old enough to understand love and marriage, hence, unable to truly agree to marry. Lack of maturity.

3. Bestiality Marriage: Obviously, a pig would have no real attraction to humans, and definitely cannot understand, much less agree to, marriage.

4. Multiple Spouses: Many times, women are taken advantage of in this system and forced into it. As is seen in various radical forms of Mormonism

The government has No place telling two agreed, loving, mature individual that they cannot marry.

Parenting among homosexuals
I just want to again point out that divorce rates are lower in states that have legalized homosexual marriage! It makes not sense to say that homosexuals are worse parents when homosexuals lower the divorce rate. Overall, it helps parenting for both homosexual and heterosexual couples!

My contentions were pretty much stated above, but let me summarize:

1. The government has no place telling two consenting and mature adults that they cannot marry.

2. Homosexual marriage decreases the divorce rate, helping children and couples everywhere.

Sources
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://reason.com...
Debate Round No. 2
xXCryptoXx

Pro

My opponent will be leaving very soon so I will be giving my rebuttals ASAP.

Have fun on your mission trip by the way! :D

Now then:

Marriage and Procreation

My opponent misunderstands my argument.

First off, you’re argument is flawed from the start in saying that 10% of women have trouble reproducing. This does not mean the woman cannot reproduce. In fact, if the woman is having trouble reproducing then the couple will have to try harder, and want more to have a child which is good for the family because now the parents will have more dedication to that child. However, this entire rebuttal and your entire argument against my own are irrelevant.

The point is, heterosexual couples can raise children properly for society whereas homosexual couples cannot. Procreation among the heterosexual couples is simply a bonus to this because in order for society to continue there needs to be humans to well, continue it.

I have already explained that homosexuals should not adopt because there is scientific evidence that they cannot raise children properly for society as I already showed in my opening arguments.

Marriage Between Man and Woman

My opponent goes completely off track when attempting to rebut my arguments.

Please, can you explain how divorce rates have anything to do with the relationship heterosexuals pursue that homosexuals cannot?

The meaning of marriage is fulfilled through the role heterosexuals play in their relationships. I have explained why homosexuals cannot play the same role heterosexuals do; therefore homosexuals distort the meaning of marriage.

Now you can see just how irrelevant divorce rates actually are as a counter to my arguments.

Also, if we use our reasoning, we can determine that divorce rates either lowered because (a. homosexuals couples are less likely to divorce, therefore lowering the divorce rate, or (b. other variables attributed to lower divorce rates.

In addition, you’re facts on Massachusetts divorce rates are incorrect; the divorce rate in 2004 was at 2.2 and it inflated to 2.5 by 2010. (1) Even so, you’re source actually works against you. According to your source, “A 2004 study of registered partnerships in Sweden reported that gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples were nearly three times more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples.”(2)

Once again though, this is all irrelevant to my opening argument.

Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited

My opponent misses the main point of my argument, which was, In order to preserve the sanctity and meaning of marriage, the government must draw the line somewhere on who gets married.”

My opponent assumes that marriage is only about the emotional commitment between two people. I have already argued why it is not in my previous two arguments and my opponent has completely failed to negate those arguments.

Let’s review on what my opponent needs to rebut in order to negate my arguments:

  1. Homosexuals cannot procreate or raise children properly for society.
  2. Homosexuals cannot pursue the good relationship that heterosexuals pursue.
  3. Homosexual marriage does not benefit society in any way, therefore they should not be given marital rights.
  4. Homosexual marriage distorts the meaning of marriage.

The reason I do not have much to rebut from my opponents arguments is that this arguments is strictly related to my previous two arguments. My opponent failed to negate my previous two arguments so I really have nothing to rebut here.


Parenting Among Homosexuals

“It makes not sense to say that homosexuals are worse parents when homosexuals lower the divorce rate.”

One, I already negated your divorce rate argument, and two, your logic is extremely flawed.

Parenting and being able to stay together as a couple are not even related.

I can be married to a girl my entire life, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to be any good at raising a child.

In fact, the government does have the right to tell two consenting, mature adults they cannot marry.

Marriage can only be granted to those who can fulfill the roll marriage calls for. Anyone who does not, or cannot fulfill this roll should not be granted the right to marry. Homosexuals cannot fulfill this roll, therefore they should not be granted the right to marry. It is irrelevant whether they are consenting adults.

Conclusion

My opponent completely failed to refute any of my arguments and went completely off track in his rebuttals several times.

All of my arguments still stand, and there is no reason to believe my opponent has negated any of them.

My entire arguments is based around the fact that only heterosexuals can procreate and raise children properly for society, and that homosexuals cannot pursue the relationship that heterosexuals do. My opponent completely failed at trying to negate both those arguments to the point that I hardly had to rebut any of his arguments against my own at all.

justin.graves

Con

My opponent has graciously agreed that, do to time constraints, we can both agree to call this debate as a tie.

See ya'll when I get back from Haiti.
Debate Round No. 3
xXCryptoXx

Pro

Don't vote on this debate.

It will be left at a tie!

Have fun on your trip Justin. :D
justin.graves

Con

I'll bring you back a souvenir, Crypto.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
Leave it as a tie please!
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
You guys aren't funny. You are just being jerks. Leave it at a tie.
Posted by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
That's too bad. This debate was looking fabulousssssssssss!
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Not the source I used, but it says the same thing.

This is my (1) source from my Round 2 Arguments:

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu...

The other source I used was the one Con listed in his Round 2 Argument.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
I can't seem to find it... :
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Oops, uh let me see if I can find my source real quick.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Pro didnt cite his sources
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Well in that case I'll just word the resolution differently next time :P
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Actually, it isn't illegal, nor should it be. We don't jail homosexuals for marrying. Its not really about keeping them out, rather protecting the definition of an institution.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
xXCryptoXxjustin.gravesTied
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: Cvb
Vote Placed by effimero89 3 years ago
effimero89
xXCryptoXxjustin.gravesTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ............lololololololo...........
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
xXCryptoXxjustin.gravesTied
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: Babeslayer
Vote Placed by Babeslayer 3 years ago
Babeslayer
xXCryptoXxjustin.gravesTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: why not
Vote Placed by AgentRocks 3 years ago
AgentRocks
xXCryptoXxjustin.gravesTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't worry it is still a tie.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
xXCryptoXxjustin.gravesTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I loved this debate. Too bad it ended as a tie.