Gay Marriage Should be Legalized
Debate Rounds (5)
This defeats the purpose of marriage being solely to reproduce. Marriage doesn't even exist within animals, unless you count animals that mate for life. I'm sorry for a quick round, I had to do this on the run. I look forward to my opponent's response.
I thank my opponent for giving an interesting start to this important topic, but there are some problems.
It is true that we observe Homosexual behavior in animals, but this does not defeat that marriage is about reproduction. If my opponent wanted to refute such an argument they would have to show that marriage was created for a different reason, or not always defined as one man and one woman.
Now my reasons for supporting traditional marriage.
First, the Burden of proof is on my opponent because most states in the U.S. don't recognize Homosexual marriages .
1. Marriage is more than love
"Mutual affection and companionship between partners is a common, although not universal, feature of marriage" . "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world."  This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it. "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives."  The procreative argument was held up in many courts  such as Baker v. Nelson , Jones v. Hallahan , Singer v. Hara , Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning . Showing that defining marriage is constitutional. Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. Marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman because marriage is more than just love.
2. Marriage Historically
"Although certain aspects of the institution of marriage have varied from society to society, it has universal functions. These universal functions are:
1. Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle;
2. Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible:
3. Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible;
4. Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and
5. Providing men with a stake in family and society." 
The Netherlands was the first country to recognize Homosexual marriages in 2001 .
No society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships" .
Now dealing with interracial Marriage.
Many supporters of homosexual marriage make the comparison to interracial marriage but this isn't a valid comparison. The First Anti-miscegenation (Anti-Mixed Marriage) Laws was passed in Virginia in 1691 . It is important to note the colonial Virginia started in 1607 . So, there was a period of 84 years before these laws ever existed. Also, . Nine states never had any Anti-miscegenation laws . Further, "no nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was ever enacted" , and no state recognized Homosexual marriages until 2004 . It is also important to note that "The laws in U.S. states were established to maintain 'racial purity' and white supremacy" , and laws defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman were not meant to ensure heterosexual supremacy, or anything like why interracial marriage was.
Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it isn't what marriage was intended for.
3. The Slippery Slope
If love is all that matters in marriage then other restrictions on marriage like Polygamy bans, Incest prohibitions, Age restrictions should be allowed too since all of them are able to love each other. Support for Polygamy is on the rise; according to a Gallup poll people who think Polygamy is morally acceptable has double in the last decade.  Also, recently a Federal Judge in Utah struck down polygamy ban as unconstitutional, and he relied on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage.  "If the natural sexual complementary of male and female and the theoretical procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union are to be discarded as principles central to the definition of marriage, then what is left? According to the arguments of the homosexual “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship are truly necessary elements of marriage. But if that is the case, then why should other relationships that provide love, companionship, and a lifelong commitment not also be recognized as “marriages”—including relationships between adults and children, or between blood relatives, or between three or more adults? And if it violates the equal protection of the laws to deny homosexuals their first choice of marital partner, why would it not do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice?" . There is further proof corroborating these claims. Going back to the Netherlands the country that first legalize Homosexual marriage that "the Netherlands polygamy has been legalized in all but name"  In 2005 a civil union of three people were "married" . Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it will lead to more re-definitions of marriage.
4. Marriage is a privilege
Many supporters of Homosexual marriage claim that it is a civil right, but this isn't true. It is important to note a few differences between the 1960 civil rights movement and the homosexual marriage movement. "The two driving forces behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 arose primarily out of discrimination against African-Americans and women"  This brings up the question of what is a civil right. "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics" . It might be possible that you could prove widespread discrimination, but it is nothing compared to the 1960s. We have never made Homosexuals sit at the back of the bus, or have separate schools/public areas. Next, we have economic disadvantage. A 2012 study shows that Homosexuals actually tend to have more money .
Ran out of characters. I will continue this argument in the next round.
I'm a liberal, hence, I'm all about change and seeing what happens. I think when you define something as old as marriage, it must be redefined to fit the values of the society practicing it. Science has been changed and redefined countless times, and look where we are now. We still have problems like pollution, global warming, and cancer, but we've come a long way with exploration, technology, and knowledge. Another thing I think should be redefined is the Bible. I know this isn't a religious debate, but the Bible was written by multiple unknown authors and based upon the values of a society that existed 2,000 years ago. I don't think many people support raping someone and giving 50 shekels of silver to the father of the person you raped, and then marrying the person you raped.
"If love is all that matters in marriage then other restrictions on marriage like Polygamy bans, Incest prohibitions, Age restrictions should be too since all of them are able to love each other."
Love is not all that matters in marriage. When you get married, you have responsibilities to your partner, and your partner has responsibilities to you. These include being faithful, respecting each other, and hearing each other out on disagreements. If love was all that mattered in marriage, we'd be too busy making love instead of doing laundry.
"Many supporters of Homosexual marriage claim that it is a civil right, but this isn't true."
*A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.* Looks like a civil right to me.
Some people claim that if we legalize gay marriage, that it will somehow affect heterosexuals. I don't see how, I mean, it won't start WWIII, or make all women men. Gays will just be allowed to marry.
I thank my opponent for their interesting remarks.
First, science has never been redefined. Science's job is to explore the natural world. That has always been the definition of science. Also, change the definition of science won't help pollution or global warming any more than redefining doctor will make people healthier. Second, dealing with the Bible. I want my opponent to look up where it says those thing that they mention and read it in context. This will clear a lot of things up.
2. Slippery Slope
Now dealing with the slippery slope. It is important to note people in polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages could also "being faithful, respecting each other, and hearing each other out on disagreements." Which only proves my point that it will lead to further re-definitions.
3. Civil Rights
My opponent claims that Homosexual marriage is a civil right; however, they do not explain their reasoning. However, I have explained why it is not like other similar civil rights such as race based discrimination in the 60s. By using the 1964 civil rights act we can see that sexual preference does not meet all, if any, of the requirements.
4. Affecting Heterosexuals
Actually, everyone is affected by Homosexual marriage. First, "Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships." "On Dec. 17, 2009, 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 between 2010 and 2019. " Also, "Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened." "So, for example, when Catholic Charities in Boston insisted that they would stay true to principle and refuse to place children for adoption with same-sex couples, they were told by the state that they could no longer do adoptions at all. "
Homosexual marriage is a civil right, as I will repeat again. A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation. I apologize for not explaining, I'd thought the definition would be enough, but you can't read my thoughts. Homosexuals have been discriminated against for centuries, and have been denied the "right" to marry. We must realize that we are talking about people here, not mindless animals. If for centuries heterosexuals had been denied the right to marry, been shunned by society, and discriminated against, and were suddenly accepted by more than half the American public, wouldn't you want the right to marry?
In the Declaration of Independence, it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." You can say it's unconstitutional to keep people from having equal rights and banning them from the pursuit of happiness.
Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would NOT be threatened in the slightest. If I get married, I am not affecting what you believe. I am not affecting you in any way. The Catholic Charities in Boston that refused to place children up for adoption with same sex parents is heartless and cruel towards both the child and potential parents. What they did was prejudicial and, in my opinion, hateful towards homosexuals.
I thank my opponent for their statements.
I thank my opponent for their responses.
1. Civil Rights
First, discrimination is defined as "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people" . Second, there is no right to marry who ever you want. Further, my opponent put right in quotation marks which used in this case shows sarcasm. For example, someone saying Homosexual "marriage" doesn't believe that it is really a marriage just like someone saying "right" to marry doesn't believe it is a right . So, it would only be discrimination if treatment was unfair and there was a civil right denied; However, the treatment is not unfair because traditional marriage is based on the biological fact of only a pair of one man and women can have a child. If this is discrimination then separation of boys and girl sports is too even though boys have different body's which are usually stronger than girls. This is biology no bigotry.
2. Declaration of Independence
Funny my opponent mentions the declaration of independence. It makes for a very ironic source. Firstly, it says these rights are endowed by their creator, God, and every major religion such as Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity all disapprove of Homosexuality. Second, the phrase all men are created equal was inspired by John Locke which believe in something called Tabula Rasa. This means "individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence" . However, if my opponent believes people are born with certain dispositions like favorite color, music taste, mental disorders, or sexual preference. Then the idea behinds all men are created equal is wrong. Hopefully, my opponent will not hold a clearly contradictory view.
3. Religious Liberty
This will be affected no matter what my opponent says because it already has happened. There is a website dedicated to sharing stories of people affected because they didn't agree with homosexuality/homosexual "marriage" . Further, it is not cruel or heartless is a private, devout charity wants to adopt children out to what they believe will be a harmful environment for the child. In fact the only cruel or heartless thing would be to force them to do so.
patrick967 forfeited this round.
It is unfortunate that my opponent forfeited the final round, I was looking forward to an interesting conclusion to this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Well, this was an incredibly disappointing debate from Pro. Much as he and I likely agree on everything here, I don't see the responses I need to see in order to combat Con's arguments. All I need to do is pull through Con's argument from R1 that marriage only has one purpose, and that is to naturally be able to have babies. Even if I agree with Pro that marriage is a civil right (and given the arguments, I don't), its basic function can compete with that, and I never see a response to that function. I could vote Con on a number of other bases as well. Con, well done on the whole, even if we disagree I can still say you did a great job upholding your side of the debate. Conduct goes Con due to the forfeit, and sources also go to him on the basis that his were pretty much the most dominant and important in the debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.