The Instigator
gerkraine
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Philocat
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized In America

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 3 votes the winner is...
Philocat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 823 times Debate No: 65406
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

gerkraine

Pro

Gay marriage should be legalized in America. There is no logical reasons as to why it should not be, but regardless, I am going to debate the most common reasons against it.
The main reason people are against gay marriage is religious reasons, mainly Christianity. Religious people will say that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman, and that homosexual relations is an "abomination". However, that should have no place in a legal decision. If you recall, this land is created on the bases of 10 unalienable rights, one of them being freedom of religion. Is it really right to base a law off of a religion that other people do not follow? Furthermore, religion is not logical; I am not invalidating anyone's religion, but the fact of the matter is that it cannot be proven. I don't think laws should be based off of anything other than logic. So what are the logical reasons against gay marriage in America? Are there any?
Some people may say that it is immoral. But is there really anything immoral about two consenting adults engaging in sexual activity, regardless of gender. You may disagree, but the simple fact is that a healthy, consensual sexual relationship is not hurting anyone. Why should they be denied marriage rights if they are not hurting anyone?
Another people argument use is something along the lines of, "If gay marriage becomes legal, what's to stop the legalization of bestiality/pedophilia/rape/incest?" First of all, there are many things wrong with this argument. First of all, all of those previously mentioned things all have reasons as to why they are wrong and immoral. That is why they will always stay illegal. Confused as to what they are?
Rape - Easy. One adult is not consenting. That is hurting someone involved.
Bestiality - An animal cannot verbally consent to sexual relationships. Therefore it is rape, which is wrong since one partner is being hurt by the act.
Pedophilia - Pedophilia involves an adult having sexual relations with children. Having sex with a child under the age of consent is automatically rape. Which is wrong.
Incest - Sexual relationships between family members have the potential to conceive a child who may be physically or mentally affected by the crossing of similar genes. That is hurting someone involved, regardless if the two family members consented to sex. Also, incest brings the potential to harm a partner emotionally and mentally, since the relationship is taboo and illegal. You may wonder, "what about family members who cannot conceive a child?" Well, believe it or not, in many states, there are laws that protect the right to marry a family member who you cannot conceive with, including my state (Indiana). So that argument is pointless, because how will it lead to legalized marriage between family members if it's already legalized?
Besides, all of those are "what if"s. "What if"s are not a logical argument to use. The legalization of gay marriage does not automatically guarantee that everything "immoral" will be legalized.
Another argument is "What if it turns our children gay? I don't want my child exposed to that!" Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but if you do not approve of your child having a normal sexuality, you should probably reconsider your parenting skills. Seeing a gay couple will not determine their sexuality; sexuality is something you cannot change, and no outside force can change it. Despite that fact that we always assume that a child will be heterosexual, that does not mean a different sexuality is "abnormal". Sexual attraction to humans is a normal thing.
Also, what is wrong with a child being exposed to a happy, healthy, loving, monogamous relationship? Many people speak of the "gay lifestyle", which includes sleeping around, contracting STDs, etc. So wouldn't you rather your child see homosexual relations as healthy relationships, instead of one riddled with drug abuse and promiscuity? And if your child is gay, do you want them to think that the only lifestyle for them is the latter? I don't think so.
Out of all the main arguments I have seen against gay marriage, I have yet to see a logical one. If you truly have a logical argument, feel free to debate with me.
Philocat

Con

Just to clarify from the start, I am debating against gay marriage from a completely secular viewpoint.
Marriage is an institution created by society in order to create a stable environment for the procreation and rearing of children, no more, no less. You may argue that it is actually a bonding of two people who love each other, but there is no need for a contractual agreement for two loving people. It is best that married couples marry because they love each other, but only insofar as it creates the best environment for rearing children.

Now I have established the social function of marriage, there is no need for homosexuals to get married as they will not procreate or rear children (as explained later on). In other words, gay marriage has little positive benefits beyond the whims of homosexuals, which are outweighed by the negatives.

You explain the 'slippery slope' argument relatively well, and I would agree that such a slippery slope would never lead to rape or paedophilia. although I would like to highlight a few inaccuracies you have:

1. You make the assumption that in bestiality the human is the instigator in the sexual act, in which case it would be rape as the instigator requires consent, which an animal cannot give. However, there are cases of bestiality where the animal is the instigator of the sexual act and so gives consent physically, so long as the human consents (which he/she can) then bestiality is consenting. A slippery slope could therefore lead to bestiality.

2. You say 'incest brings the potential to harm a partner emotionally and mentally, since the relationship is taboo and illegal', but so did homsexuality 50 years ago. The point of the slippery slope argument is that legalisation of more and more divergent sexual relations, such as gay marriage, will lead to things such as incest NOT being taboo. If I spoke to someone in the 1950s they could easily say "homsexuality brings the potential to harm a partner emotionally and mentally, since the relationship is taboo and illegal" in order to explain why homosexuality would not be legalised. Yet it IS now legalised. Therefore you cannot say that incest will always remain illegal.

3. When you state 'So that argument is pointless, because how will it lead to legalized marriage between family members if it's already legalized?', I would answer that gay marriage could easily lead to a slippery slope to incestual marriage in other states besides Indiana. That is the prerogative of this debate; whether we should have gay marriage in all state of the USA and not just in Indiana.

4. The most common destination on the slippery slope from gay marriage is polygamy, which you have conveniently neglected to mention. Most advocates of gay marriage would not advocate polygamous marriage, but for no clear reason. You can just stand up and say that 'marriage is between two people' as if the definition of marriage is set in stone, yet the very foundation for legalising gay marriage is that proponents have changed the definition of marriage from 'a man and a woman' to 'two people'. What is to therefore stop polygamiss from changing the definition further? More to the point, what is the meaning of marriage if it is changed by society as if by a whim?

To return to my earlier assertion that it is not conductive to society nor a child's welfare for homosexuals to raise children, I argue that a mother and a father have complementary roles that give children the best upbringing possible. There have been sociological observations that find that a lack of a mother causes males to be harsh and unable to empathise with others (especially women) and females to be overly masculine, with nobody to talk to regarding female social behaviour or physicality. Also, a lack of a father can cause males to be too feminine and females to be distrusting of men. I am not saying homosexuals cannot be good parents, they may well be excellent parents, but the simple pyschological need for both a mother and father puts those children in a negative postion from the start.

I will finish off my response by replying to your closing statments:

"The legalization of gay marriage does not automatically guarantee that everything "immoral" will be legalized."

Agreed, but it definitely increases the probability of legalising them.

"What if it turns our children gay? I don't want my child exposed to that!"

Again, I agree that this is a poor argument, and not one that I would argue because homosexuality is not instilled by observing other homosexuals. However, I would point out that homosexuality is not a 'normal sexuality'. Normal is defined as 'conforming to the standard or the common type', in regards to sexuality, heterosexuality would be the normal sexuality because it is the standard and most prominent one.

"Also, what is wrong with a child being exposed to a happy, healthy, loving, monogamous relationship? Many people speak of the "gay lifestyle", which includes sleeping around, contracting STDs, etc. So wouldn't you rather your child see homosexual relations as healthy relationships, instead of one riddled with drug abuse and promiscuity? And if your child is gay, do you want them to think that the only lifestyle for them is the latter? I don't think so"

It is a fair point that homosexual children benefit from observing a happy, health and loving gay relationship, but marriage is not required for gay relationships to be happy, healthy and loving.
Debate Round No. 1
gerkraine

Pro

I strongly disagree with your right from the start. Marriage is not strictly about procreation; if it was, it would be illegal for infertile people to be married. And what about heterosexual couples who do not plan on having children? Should we ban marriage for everyone who doesn't plan on having childen?
I also disagree with the statement about love; we are not animals. Marriage may have been formed for the benefit of rearing children, but this is America in the 21st century. There is no need to hold ourselves to the standards set thousands of years ago. In our society, marriage is fully for the reason of love. Family is not the main reason anymore.

I disagree with you that homosexuals have "little positive benefits" from marriage. Marriage provides rights and benefits such as joint income tax, inheriting a spouse's estate, legal rights to making financial/medical decisions on your spouse's behalf, taking a family leave to care for your ill spouse, receiving retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse, legal rights to making funeral/burial arrangements, and many more government/economic/tax/medical/housing benefits. Denying homosexuals marriage is denying them these rights. Although you don't need a contract to show love between people, you need a contract to gain these benefits for the person you love.

I completely, utterly disagree with your next statement. It is not a fallacy; animals cannot, and never will be able to give consent to sexual intercourse with a human. Consent needs to be verbal; a yes or a no, which an animal is incapable of doing. Although physical signs may point to consent, it does not equal consent. Does a drunk woman taking off her shirt give someone permission to violate her? I have never heard of an animal instigating sex, unless the owner has trained them to do so, which is not right. A dog humping your leg is not instigating sex, and it does NOT give a human consent to have sex with them. Animals are instinctual; their instinct is not consent.
Also, animals are not as intelligent as humans. Most animals only have the mental capacity of a 4 year old child or younger. In the same way that a child cannot consent, an animal cannot consent. They also do not have intercourse for pleasure, only to reproduce. That is why having sex with an animal is always taking advantage of them, and always raping them. The marriage between humans will never equal marriage between a human and a person or animal who cannot give consent.

I can agree with you on your next statement; homosexuality WAS taboo, and that is not a very solid reason to deny the correlation between gay marriage and incestuous marriage. However, incest can cause emotional damage since the person you are engaging in sexual acts with is someone who have a familial bond with; breaking that bond to form a sexual one has the potential to cause mental harm, especially if one side feels like they are being used.

In your next statement, you are actually solidifying my point. How would gay marriage be a slippery slope into incestuous marriage if it is already legal, in fact, made legal BEFORE gay marriage? Not only in Indiana, this is legal. In fact, in 20 states, 1st cousin marriage is fully legal, without any age restrictions. In 4 other states, it is legal with age restrictions. In 2013, gay marriage was only fully legal in 13 states. I don't see how gay marriage can lead to a slippery slope to incestuous marriage if marriage between first cousins was legal before marriage between homosexuals.

I did not mention polygamy in my argument because it is irrelevant. This argument is about whether consenting adults should be able to marry consenting adults- which I believe is true. I do not see a logical reason why polygamy should /not/ legalized, (I may remind you that polyamory is a real romantic orientation). But that is an argument for another day. I give a logical reason as to why gay marriage would not lead to polygamous marriages, but I also do not have a logical reason as to what is inherently wrong with polygamous marriages if it is healthy one, instead of more of a "love triangle" situation.

Are you saying there is something wrong with a masculine female or a feminine male? In this world, there will always be children who are less sympathetic, or more masculine/feminine. I don't think that is a valid argument because that does not necessarily put them at a distinct disadvantage.
And as I said before; marriage in our society is not about raising children. If it was, we would have to ban infertile people and couples that have no intention to have children from marriage. I do not think that marriage should be banned from a specific group of people because there have been studies that might show that their children may be more masculine or feminine, because not all gay marriage will result in children.

I disagree with your statement about "normality". Heterosexuality is indeed the most prominent sexuality; that is why heteronormativity exists. However, the word normal has a negative connotation attached to it, which implies that anything other than heterosexuality is bad. I think that instead of demonizing valid sexual orientations, we should celebrate them. Many people of other sexualities "stay in the closet" because of this, making heterosexuality seem to be the more normal. Refusing to expose your child to anything but heterosexual relationships makes this even more prominent.

I agree that marriage is not required for a loving relationship, but children see it that way. You stated that homosexuals raising children can bring negative affects; I will argue that homosexuals raising children while /not/ being married can have negative effects too. When they are taught from a young age that marriage = love, what will they think when they learn that their parents are not married? If you have studied the psychology of the child's mind, you will know that these sort of things can stress them out, confuse them, and have negative effects emotionally.

To end this, I respect the majority of your arguments, but I think that the benefits gay marriage greatly outweigh the cons. It has been said that anywhere from 3-8% of the population is homosexual. Even more so are sexualities that are neither heterosexual or homosexual. I personally think that denying that amount of the population marriage and the rights that come from marriage should is discrimination. Saying that marriage is only for procreating wouldn't and shouldn't apply in a legal situation, since many couples who are eligible for marriage cannot or do not want to have children. In our society, it is useless to say that marriage can only be for purposes of bearing children.
Philocat

Con

I'm not saying it should be illegal for infertile couples to marry, just that there is little point as marriage is a social institution designed to ensure the best environment for raising children. You may disagree by saying it's just about love, but that's only because society presents it that way in order to ensure that people who marry stay married.

I see your point about benefits of marriage, but in the UK there is a system called a 'civil partnership' which gives all the rights you mentioned, but to homosexual couples. Marriage is not needed in order to provide those benefits.

Also, I accept you are right about bestiality, I know little about the subject so I would be digging a deeper hole for myself if I did continue :)

1st cousin marriage is not the incest that people worry about the most, it's legal in those 20 states because it is a grey area. However, if two people in a brother/sister relationship observe gay marriage being legalised, they have every right to protest ask: 'if homosexuals can change marriage to suit their relationships, why can't we do it?' I agree that in some cases of incest one partner can suffer emotional damage, but that can occur in any type of relationship (albeit at a lesser extent). Also, there are lots of other cases of incest where both partners suffer no emotional damage and would therefore be encouraged by gay marriage legalisation to lobby for incestuous marriage.

In regards to polygamy, I disagree with it. That is probably why I fear a slippery slope going there whereas you may not. However, debating the morality of polygamy is, as you said, a debate for another day.

I am not saying that there is something wrong with a masculine female of a feminine male, but they will doubtless lead a more difficult life because of it. Most men will not be attracted to masculine females, causing the latter to become bitter and possibly a misandric. There's a reason that many feminists are masculine. S feminine male will often be downtrodden by his stronger counterparts, possibly even bullied as well. The case also applies that women are generally not attracted to feminine men, which could therefore lead to bitter, entitled men. If a gay marriage will not result in children, there is no reason why they should be married in the first place instead of having a civil partnership.

"When they are taught from a young age that marriage = love, what will they think when they learn that their parents are not married?"
This point is irrelevant to my argument, because I am also gay people raising children.

To conclude, you make a strong case for gay marriage. However, I think there are alternatives that would suit both homosexuals and conservatives. Want inheritance/tax-sharing? Have a civil partnership. The reason I am against it, aside from it being unnecessary, is that marriage is a contract that a man and a woman sign to bond them together in the eyes of society. Married couples signed this contract knowing what it was, yet if government changes it, they are changing what these married couples signed up to. It's like someone donating to a charity that supports dementia, before the charity changes to support stem cell research and continues to use your money. Finally, if the definition of an institution is changed at the whim of the people, then it loses its value. To use another analogy, what credibility would a political party have if what they stand for is constantly changed?
Debate Round No. 2
gerkraine

Pro

gerkraine forfeited this round.
Philocat

Con

Thanks for the debate! :)
Debate Round No. 3
gerkraine

Pro

gerkraine forfeited this round.
Philocat

Con

Pro has forfeited his/her final round in the debate and so has not bothered, or is unable to rebut my arguments against the legalisation of gay marriage. The comprehensive responses in rounds one and two highlight that pro is not a lazy person so I will presume the latter is this case. Therefore, my arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Shoot me a message if you'd like me to debate this some other time, especially if you win a few debates! I hate to debate against people who are new to the site, but I have a nice case against gay marriage for some other day!
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
This is all off of opinions whether one believes a man should be with a woman or if one believes that the government can't tell people who they love... it's impossible to win.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
gerkrainePhilocatTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
gerkrainePhilocatTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times so conduct to con. Con was able to show there are no good reason for a government to support such unions as they don't provide society any benefit. He also showed that no one's rights are being violated by not having homosexual marriages. So arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
gerkrainePhilocatTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.