The Instigator
xXCryptoXx
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
loveu157
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

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 2 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,670 times Debate No: 32569
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

xXCryptoXx

Pro

I will be arguing that gay marriage should be illegal.

Definitions

Gay - Homosexual (1)

Marriage - the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage (2)

Illegal - not according to or authorized by law (3)

Rules

No trolling, semantics, innapropriate language, lawyering, strawmanning, or any other thing that would be deemed innapropriate by the average DDO member.

First round is for acceptance.

Good Luck!


(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...

(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
loveu157

Con

this sounds interesting

HIT ME
Debate Round No. 1
xXCryptoXx

Pro

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? I can answer that with one word. Procreation. 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!” Granted, love is very important in marriage, but it’s not what marriage is all about. If marriage was about the emotional connection then why wouldn’t the two people simply stay as girlfriend and boyfriend, boy friend/boy friend, girl friend/girl friend, or just live together? 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 heart 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 so infertile heterosexual couples can and should also be able to get married. Even though they cannot procreate, they can adopt and raise children properly for society; therefore they still provide society benefits.

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

There is a limited role that the government can, and cannot 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 that line should be drawn at marriage between a man and a woman. Reasoning behind this can be seen in my procreation argument. Marriages between man and woman benefit society while not complicating society like having multiple spouses could do.
“the state's granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination.”

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."(5)
A study taken from the Journal of Human Sexuality (6) 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.” (7)


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”.” (7)


Homosexuals and Rights

To think that homosexuals have any less rights than heterosexuals is complete balderdash.
We can see how homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals below:
1. Homosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex
2. Heterosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex
3. Homosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex
4. Heterosexuals can marry someone of the opposite sex
5. Other than that they both share the exact same rights given by the constitution, amendments ect.
6. Therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights.

Sometimes it’s hard to understand, but imagine that you completely forget about sexual orientation. You can then realize that we do indeed have the same rights. I also realize
that some gay marriage advocates understand this; they simply want an extension of rights for all people, homosexual and heterosexual. However, homosexuals do not deserve the right to marry because they cannot benefit society in any way. Therefore there should be no extension of rights for gay marriage at all.


(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...
(5) http://www.lifesitenews.com...

I await my opponents response. Good luck!

loveu157

Con

It is no one else's business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples.

There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural" in evolutionary terms.

Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974"s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.

Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage 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 over three years.

Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted . A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems . A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents.

Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association found that more than a century of research has shown "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that "[c]ivil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage" and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages only because the state has given them that authority.

Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values." A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage , divorce, and abortion rates, the percent of children born out of wedlock...

Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.

If marriage is about reproduction, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. George Washington, often referred to as "the Father of Our Country," did not have children with his wife Martha Custis, and neither did four other married US presidents.

Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time."
Debate Round No. 2
xXCryptoXx

Pro



1) "It is no one else's business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples."


Gay marriage corrodes on the true meaning of marriage, procreation (optional), and the proper raising of children. Why they don't deserve the benefits is explained through my procreation argument.

2) "Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974"s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses"

"Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status."

"Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time."


False. Marriage is protected by Due Process Clause. Gay marriage is not included in this. If it was, then any type of marriage would be protected by this clause and there would be absolutely be no holding anyone back from marrying anything for any reason.
The true question here is whether these court cases apply to gay marriage (or any other type of currently illegal marriage) at all.
"if marriage is heterosexual in nature, when the courts use the term marriage, it simply does not apply to homosexuals."

3)
Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage 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 over three years."

This will explain why your statement is no good:

"
the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending (28 KB) between 2010 and 2019.


4)
"Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted . A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems . A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents."

Read my opening argument over homosexuals and parenting. This all cannot be true and these studies are a result of bad research, biasness, or both. The father plays a huge role in raising children as do moms. If you have two moms, or two dads then you find you are genetically lacking the ability to teach a kid things only a mom could, or only a dad could. (1)(2)(3)(4)

There are four sources to prove this statement.

5) "
Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support."

Here's a quote from my opening arguments explaing why this can't be true.

"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."



6)
"Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values." A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage , divorce, and abortion rates, the percent of children born out of wedlock..."

Gay marriage harms heterosexual marriages because gay marriage allows it to involve homosexuals. In addition, just look at the above quote from my response to contention 5 to see how it ruins family values.

7)
"Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage."

Irrelevant. There are too many other factors to say this is due to gay marriage being legalized. I could respond with scientific evidence suggest that homosexual relationships are shorter than heterosexuals, but seeing that my opponent plagiarized his arguments and I'm tired right now, I will only give this evidence if I must.

8)
"If marriage is about reproduction, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. George Washington, often referred to as "the Father of Our Country," did not have children with his wife Martha Custis, and neither did four other married US presidents."

Already explained that the heart of marriage is also the proper raising of children therefore infertile couples may also get married.

I would like to note that I was bit lazy with my responses only because my opponent plagiarized his arguments. If I must further elaborate on my arguments then I will.

in addition to all of this, my

opponent plagiarized
his entire

argument.
This is extremely

innappropriate and blatantly goes

against my rules:
"or any other thing

that would be deemed innapropriate by

the average DDO member."

http://gaymarriage.procon.org...

(1)Jennifer Roback Morse. “Love & Economics: It takes a family to raise a villiage” 2009.
(2)http://www.sciencedaily.com...
(3) Dean Byrd. “Dual Gender Parenting for Optimal Child Development” Journal of Human Sexuality (2010).
(4) Walter R. Schumm, “Child Outcomes Associated with Lesbian Parenting: Comments on Biblarz and Stacey’s 2010 Report” Journal of Human Sexuality (2011).
loveu157

Con

loveu157 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
xXCryptoXx

Pro

Extend all arguments.
loveu157

Con

loveu157 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Announcement to all viewers:

My opponent has plagiarized his entire 2nd round argument. Please read through my Round 3 response for further detail.
Posted by Jhate 3 years ago
Jhate
please just debate luggs get over it
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Frankly yes, because it makes he debate too easy to play semantics with.

I also don't see that much reasoning within your comments.

Again, we kn what we are debating, the voters know what we are debating. This is just a regular debate over whether gay marriage should be illegal or not.
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
Is it really that hard to make that minor change?
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
I don't understand what the problem is. We both know what we are debating, all our viewers know what we are debating. Stop trying to be so politically correct and just accept the debate likes a regular debate over whether gay marriage should be legal or not.
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
That doesn't change the fact that no words can be defined using the word in question.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Which is exactly why I am using a very broad definition. I'm keeping the outer wall of the definition, and we can fill in the details of what think marriage is about in the debate.
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
It's an invalid definition because a word cannot be defined using itself.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
"the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage"

I will be arguing that gay couples should not be included in the individuals mentioned, and you will be arguing that they should be included.

Taking out the definition and the rule over semantics is needless.
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
I will not accept this until you remove the definition of "marriage" and the rule of "no semantics".

The whole debate will pretty much be arguing over the meaning of marriage, so there's no point in putting a circular definition that is unchangeable.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 3 years ago
Sola.Gratia
xXCryptoXxloveu157Tied
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: FF and un followed rules. Pro did a fine job with his questions and resources. So he gets the points.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
xXCryptoXxloveu157Tied
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 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: he did forfeit.