The Instigator
halfsour
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Varrack
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In All States

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 5 votes the winner is...
Varrack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 72920
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

halfsour

Pro

I believe gay marriage should be legal in all states because if a person truly loves a person, all religious bias set aside, how can you not allow them to be together? Also, gay people being together affects no other person personally and has no negative affects on society or the people that live in it.
Varrack

Con

I accept. I await Pro's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
halfsour

Pro

If a person really loves someone, who is to say they can't be together? If it doesn't affect you, why should you be against it.
Varrack

Con

Thank you Pro. I will now proceed with my case against gay marriage

= Case =

What is marriage?

There are two views of what marriage is[1]. The common view, which has been increasingly being adopted into society, holds that unifying good of the marital union is the personal fulfillment of the spouses. From this perspective, marriage is solely about love, mutual affection, and romance. The only difference between this union and others is that it holds legal status and is recognized by the state. While that may seem good from the surface, we immediately run into a problem: many relationships exist through love, yet the state does not recognize them. In order for marriage to be regulated, it must have a unique purpose and goal that makes it distinct from all other unions. Although love is essential to marital unions, it is not enough for it to be legally recognized and regulated by the state. Love can exist between friends, yet the state does not recognize friendships. Now we see that the revisionist view of marriage does not hold a legitimate base. It does not provide a purpose for the state to regulate it nor does it promote the common good. If this is not the secular definition of marriage, then what is it really?

Allow me to provide a new definition of marriage. "Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children."[2] This is the conjugal view, which holds that a marital union is to promote a common goal. This goal is for two spouses to share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. The ends of the mean is procreation, and the children produced are reflective to union at hand. Naturally, only a man and a woman can complete this comprehensive union, which creates a biological unity that fulfills intrinsic procreation. Marriage points couples in that direction, and brings them together in unity that is unlike any other relationship.

This intrinsic link to children is what the government is interested in, for there is no other reason for the government to regulate this union. The state recognizes the good that this union brings, and provides benefits that promote this union. It demonstrates a proper view of what marriage is and what its purpose in society is. Procreation in itself most often largely benefits society through having more workers, scientists, military personnel, entrepreneurs, government laborers, medical staff and overall more people to support the economy and the nation.

There is a huge amount of evidence that supports the fact that children need both fathers and mothers. A child learns different things from both parents and can be most properly raised by heterosexual couples. The American College of Pediatricians states, "Social scientists in the last 20 years have come to recognize another important resource: the significant effect the marital status of the child's parents has on children. The positive impact of a married mother and father on a child's development has been scientifically verified across all measures of well-being. It is now acknowledged that the married mother-father parent unit significantly and positively impacts how a child will do in every important measure of well-being and maturity."[3] Children raised by heterosexual couples have more healthful measures of educational attainment, physical and mental health, protection from poverty, protection from physical abuse, and even more benefits in varying areas[3]. Marriage not only contains an intrinsic link to procreation but the *best* manner in which a child can be raised. Thus, marriage is about child-bearing and child-raising, of which heterosexual couples are the most efficient sources of doing this. Allowing homosexual couples into this status will be harmful to not only the ideal family structure and to children but to marriage's role in society.

= Sources =

[1] http://discussingmarriage.org...
[2] http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...
[3] http://www.acpeds.org...
Debate Round No. 2
halfsour

Pro

Though it may be true that same sex couples cannot have children together, there are other ways to have children. For example, adoption is an alternative, as well as surrogate mother and artificial insemination. And is marriage supposed to be mostly surrounded by having children? There are plenty of heterosexual couples that choose not to have children and that is legal.

Although there have been some studies showing that support the fact that it negatively impacts children, it doesn't solely matter if you have both the specific mother and father figure in their respective gender roles, it matters if the parents can teach and support the child. The good thing about gay people having children is that they want a child and have sat down and decided they want a child. In a same sex relationship, you can't accidentally have a baby. Therefore a good amount of thought has to go into having a child and if they can support and provide for them.

There also isn't a problem with our population. There is no desperate need for more people. We have enough people for enough jobs, so is procreation really a valid argument in this situation?

Thank you for your opinions and views
Varrack

Con

Thanks to Pro for the response. I will now answer fully each of Pro's objections to my case and demonstrate why traditional marriage is the most logical definition of the marital union.


What constitutes a marriage?


If marriage is about procreation as a common goal, then why don't all heterosexual couples choose to have children? Why should these couples be allowed into marriage but not homosexuals? The reason is that heterosexual unions are still of the procreative type whether or not they can act upon that characteristic. Just encouraging these couples to enter into marriage create a likelier chance that procreation will occur, so that it can bring a benefit to society. The state wants to provide a view of what marriage really is, not just as a means to end. For example, if I went out into the forest to hunt for some animals, but came back empty, I would've still considered myself "hunting" regardless of whether or not I was successful. [1]


Aren't same-sex parents efficient enough?


Any union can properly raise a child, whether it be a homosexual couple or a man and his TV set. Whether same-sex parents are good enough at raising a child is irrelevant, because marriage is about an ideal family structure, and the only way to properly preserve of that structure is to grant such relationships a special status in which they can continue to meet the societal goal. This isn't to day that homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt children, since many children are needful of parents, but that there is no reason to extend marriage to unions which are contrary to the marital institution itself. As a society, we want what is best for the next generation, and in order to help them we must institute marriage as it is which will best serve as a benefit to society.


Is marriage about population?


The purpose of marriage is to help the upcoming generation be raised the best so that they can best function to help our society. As mentioned above, it is how workers and laborers come to be. It isn't, however, about growing population, since there is no problem with population growth in most countries, but it could be argued that it would incentivize couples to procreate in countries that our losing people. Since we are talking about the states as noted in the resolution, this argument doesn't really apply.


Source


[1] http://discussingmarriage.org...
Debate Round No. 3
halfsour

Pro

Thank you for your views and opinions.

Though the original idea of marriage is procreation, and yes, many heterosexual couples who decide to not have children may later decide upon it, but a good portion don't, and a good portion can't. And for the statement regarding the negative effects on children and their lives, why should there be a societal goal? A homosexual couple with a child will raise them to believe in equality for all people, and to never give up no matter what anybody says. A benefit to society would be to legalize gay marriage in all states. This would provide, as thinkprocess states, a positive impact on the state budget. Also, we would see an increase in tax-revenue, even if it is small. Just after one year of legalization in New York, they made 259 million dollars in economic impact just New York City alone. [1]

Source
http://thinkprogress.org...
Varrack

Con

It seems Pro has dropped most of my case and agrees with a lot of what I say, but disagrees on whether marriage has a societal goal or not. My opponent also seems unaware of the convention that new arguments should not be made in the last round.


Does marriage have a purpose?


Marriage must fulfill a common goal. Otherwise, the state would have no such interest in marriage or in regulating the marital union. If the state does not a reason to regulate marriage, then there's no reason to allow marriage at all, which makes the entire case for gay marriage fall apart. My opponent's question: "why should there be a societal goal?" has been met.


My opponent hasn't provided any reasons why the state should have an interest in regulating marriage, which is the purpose I have provided should be accepted over his argument. Instead Pro states the allowing gay marriage would increase the state budget. This is a flimsy argument because wedding ceremonies can still be performed - the only difference is that the state would recognize them as legitimate. Also, few gays actually marry. They make up only 0.1% of the married population[1], so any economic benefit would be extremely minimal. Whether or not it is a benefit, it is irrelevant to its actual purpose, a purpose my opponent seems oblivious to.


Couples without children?


I have already answered this argument in the last round, but since Pro has ignored it then it is in my best interest to bring it up again. Marriage is not determined whether one is successful in a goal, it is determined by whether a couple has the ability to achieve that goal. If a baseball team tries to win a game, but they aren't successful in winning, are they no longer a baseball team? Of course not. The same logic goes for the minimal voting age: minors could vote maturely, yet we don't let them. There are adults who don't vote maturely, but we let them anyways. The same goes for marriage.


Conclusion


If marriage is about love, like my opponent thinks, then there is no reason for the government to care about it at all. Thus, it logically follows that marriage must have a reason, and because Pro has no reason to provide it is proper that a reader should accept mine over Pro's. The revisionist view is flawed if it is about love because it would allow a ton of people to marry and could be easily abused. If the conjugal view is correct as I have shown, then there is no reason to allow gay marriage. The resolution is negated. Vote Con!


[1] www.rense.com/general79/fewd.htm
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
What jerk reported my vote? I think this is such an an obvious win that no explanation is even necessary.
Posted by ConceptEagle 1 year ago
ConceptEagle
I did not. However, I also notice you have been using the same arguments too.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
@ConceptEagle, your vote looks like you never read the debate either. I'm beginning to think you're very biased about your stance and completely skipped my arguments.
Posted by ConceptEagle 1 year ago
ConceptEagle
Your RFD does not only shows that you hastily read the debate and analyzed it, but looks like it was written by a 1st Grader.
Posted by ConceptEagle 1 year ago
ConceptEagle
@JesusYoloSwag, that is a vote bomb
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>Reported vote: Wylted // Moderator action: Removed<

Arguments to Con (3 points). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Only con made any arguments}

[*Reason for removal*] Pro did not forfeit any rounds. This RFD has an obligation to explain *why* it did not consider anything that Pro said to have been an argument in favor of gay marriage.
=====================================================================
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
halfsourVarrackTied
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 won't award points here, but I did vote for con. Pro didn't make a single argument so it's an obvious win. Debates in general should require an explanation, but when one side is trolling (God I hope it was trolling), while the other side is actually presenting arguments than the vote shouldn't even require an explanation.
Vote Placed by ConceptEagle 1 year ago
ConceptEagle
halfsourVarrackTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully refutes Con's core concept of accepting the marriages of only those who are most likely able to procreate. Meanwhile, Con provides no clear objection as to why those who are less likely to procreate and raise a child accordingly are to be always left out from being considered a union recognized by the state.
Vote Placed by chrisjachimiak 1 year ago
chrisjachimiak
halfsourVarrackTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- No forfeitures, so no points their overall. Spelling- I felt Con's arguments had better grammar. Argumentation- Pro dropped most of Con's arguments, and pro's arguments were not thought out very well. Sources- Con had multiple sources, and Pro had like two.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
halfsourVarrackTied
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: Pro lost the initiative in R2 by offering no case in favor of the resolution, then failed to reattain it, mostly just making assertions against cons case about marriage and children and the very purpose of marriage, then even waiting until the final round to offer any evidence (when con had offered plenty). I hate to say BoP, but this falls pretty firmly to pro never establishing it (well he kind of did in the last round, but I wholly agree that isn't the time to begin the real debate). Conduct is of course tied, you have to be intentionally awful to lose it.
Vote Placed by JesusYoloSwag 1 year ago
JesusYoloSwag
halfsourVarrackTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con was very convincing with his explination for what marriage should be and how some other views might include to many people. he explains that kids need moms and dads to live healthy lives and although pro disagrees he doesnt give any sources to prove it. it felt like pro didnt response to cons arguments either...