The Instigator
lotus_flower
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
ryan_thomas
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,253 times Debate No: 18110
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

lotus_flower

Pro

The time to argue will last for 72 hours, and we will have 8,000 characters for our argument. The first round will be for acceptance/introductions and the following 3 rounds will be the debate.

Definitions:

gay marriage
noun
�The legal marriage between homosexual couples.

legalize
verb
�To make legal, to permit under law. Either by decriminalizing something that had been illegal or by specifically permitting.

If you would like to change anything about the format of the debate (rounds,voting period, etc.) just tell me, and I will be glad to meet your demands.
ryan_thomas

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
lotus_flower

Pro

To begin, I will state my reasons for supporting marriage between homosexuals.

my first point is that 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.

My second argument would be from an economic stand point. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue 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.

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 ."

sources:
economic argument: http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov...
adoption argument: http://people.virginia.edu...

My opponent now has the opportunity to refute what I have said and present his argument.
ryan_thomas

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument and a chance to debate this issue.

I agree with my opponent on his first point.

As for his second argument, it is a very good point except that there is a better alternative then giving gays marriage. It would be better to give them Civil Unions, since it would get rid of any religious outcry that could be caused. Civil Unions would give just as much revenue as marriages would.

My opponent is right concerning this but, they do not have to be in a marriage to adopt the children. Rather then give them marriages they should be given Civil Unions and the couples would be together and the children would have a stable family to be raised in.

My argument


The Seperate but Equal Argument

According to this argument Homosexuals would be allowed to have Civil Unions with the same benefits as marriages, and therefore equal to heterosexual marriages. Thus, they would be seperate but still equal. Everyone would be happy.



Conclusion

In conclusion, everything my opponent has put forth is true, but giving homosexuals Civil Unions would be better then marriage. It would make everyone happy, it would allow homosexuals to be together with the same benefits as marriage, it would give religious people what they want, it would give the state its extra revenue, and give adopted children a family

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
lotus_flower

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response, although his views on civil unions don't seem to be as well researched as they may come across.
A civil union is NOT equal to marriage. One of the biggest differences between a civil union and a marriage would be that civil unions do not include federal benefits that are given to married couples. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) issued in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
Another equally important difference between civil unions and marriage would be that because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines. This isn't something that happens to people who have the right to marry.
Another example of inequality would be that now, after New Jersey's Civil Union Law took effect, at least 1 out of every 7 civil-union couples in New Jersey are not getting their civil unions recognized by their employers. That is 14 percent of civil unions. If 14 percent of married couples in New Jersey were being denied full, legally guaranteed marriage benefits by their employers, then people would be completely outraged, and there could even be riots in the streets.
And as far as adoption goes, under the current state of the law, many gay and lesbian parents are unable to assume full legal parenting rights, which results in children being denied health care coverage from their parents' employers. Children are also being denied survivor benefits when a parent in a same-sex relationship dies.

So, in conclusion, I believe I have responded to all of y opponents arguments, and have proved that Civil Unions are NOT equal to a marriage, in any sense of the word. I thank my opponent and the people who are voting. Vote pro.

Sources:
civil unions: http://www.factcheck.org...
DOMA: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...
ryan_thomas

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

My opponent speaks of civil unions in there current state. The ones I and many other people suchas, President Obama himself are propossing would be equal to marrige. They would have the same rights and and benefits as married couples. No one could deny them these benefits without geting the same response as what my opponent said would happen. No one could stop them from getting any benefits suchas adoption. Civil unions would be equal to marriages.

In conclusion, Civil unions can be made equal to marriage with the same benefits and therefore equal. My opponent was not able to refute my argument.


Vote Con.


http://www.whitehouse.gov...

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lotus_flower 3 years ago
lotus_flower
@1Historygenius You owe me a new computer monitor, the old one has a hole the size of my head in it.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
If France had a low birth rating in the 1930s and 1920s, then they would not have the sufficient reserves in the 1940s obviously. You need sufficient reserves, that is one of the reasons why France lost the war, you said "because that is NOT why france lost the war" you when you forgot to point out that I said that is one of the reasons France lost the war. Other reasons include the lack of tank divisions, poor defense of the Ardennes Region, and placement of troops in case of a German invasion into Belgium which would then enter France. Now the same thing could happen if France had a largely gay population in the 20s and 30s because then you would not have enough men of the correct age for the 1940s when the invasion into France beings. Still there was lack of men of the correct age to join the French army in World War 2. I like how you based my knowledge of history just on France in World War 2 when you should understand that World War 2 was bigger than France's performence and that there is more to history than just World War 2.
Posted by lotus_flower 3 years ago
lotus_flower
thanks to everybody who voted! I really apreciate your criticism!
Posted by lotus_flower 3 years ago
lotus_flower
@1historygenius and no, obviously you are NOT a history genius, because that is NOT why france lost the war. I was actually shocked someone could be so blatantly wrong... are you republican?
Posted by lotus_flower 3 years ago
lotus_flower
@1Historygenius
First of all, learn at least how to punctuate sentences. Second, that makes no sense. Now we have something called artificial insemination, so if that were a problem, then we could just go that rout. It can, and HAS worked before.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
have children which would cause a decline...*
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
Did you know that gays cannot jave children causing the decline in birthrate which causes a decline in people joining the army. In France during World War 2 their birthrate had decline which would mean no grown men to fight in the French Army which is one of the reasons why France lost in World War 2. So if someone went to war on us or we had to go to war and many people from our past were gay which cause them to not have children then by the time we had to go to war we would have a lack in numbers.
Posted by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
ANALYSIS

Sources: PRO simply used more sources than CON, although I feel it could have been much better sources used.

Arguments: PRO showed why civil unions=/=marriage. Rememebr that separate but equal is never equal. It is a form of discrimination, dehumanizing people, and forcing them to be unequal.
Overall, this was a poor debate. CON I'd gladly debate you on this.
Posted by lotus_flower 3 years ago
lotus_flower
I have no idea how to change any settings. for some reason I could do it earler, but now the whole process is fucked... but if you tellme how, I will change the voting time to two weeks.
Posted by Sojourner 3 years ago
Sojourner
Lotus:
If you change the Voting Period from indefinite to a reasonable length of time (suggest two weeks), I'll accept. There is an argument against Gar Marriage that I came across recently, and this might help me to thrash it out.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 3 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
lotus_flowerryan_thomasTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not really argue.
Vote Placed by Sketchy 3 years ago
Sketchy
lotus_flowerryan_thomasTied
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: Con fails to counter Pro's first arguments, and Con's separate but equal argument is weak at best. Con's only source is Obama agreeing with him, i.e. an appeal to authority fallacy.
Vote Placed by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
lotus_flowerryan_thomasTied
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 made valid contentions, while Cons counter argument was invalid. By arguing for an alternative that does the same exact thing as gay marriage, Con validates every case Pro made. Con then fails to show why Civil unions should be implemented over gay marriage other then his contention that "everyone would be happy". Yet no support or logical justification was given to why people would be happy given that equality is the issue for pro gay marriage advocates.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 3 years ago
CD-Host
lotus_flowerryan_thomasTied
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: Pro didn't address the counter argument as presented which was civil unions with full benefits. Obviously pro on sources and information.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
lotus_flowerryan_thomasTied
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's economics argument was actually somewhat compelling, Cons only agument (seperate but equal) was not.
Vote Placed by Puppet911 3 years ago
Puppet911
lotus_flowerryan_thomasTied
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: When analyzing the voting criteria at hand, my overall vote must go to PRO. Con rebutted Pro's points, but was left with the undermining bondage of civil unions, which I feel wasn't taken care of all that well. It was close either way.
Vote Placed by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
lotus_flowerryan_thomasTied
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: not a good debate. Actually, PRO clearly shown why civil unions=/=Marriage. (More analysis in comments)