The Instigator
JGHOSTBOY
Pro (for)
Tied
8 Points
The Contender
MilkyChocolate
Con (against)
Tied
8 Points

Gay Marriage should be declared illegal throughout America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,508 times Debate No: 36269
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

JGHOSTBOY

Pro

This debate seeks to identify whether or not Gay Marriage should be legalized.

I SUPPORT the topic...


Prerequisite Standards:
1. Gay Marriage is defined as the legal bonding/commitment of a same-sex couple.

2. No Religious views or affiliations are to be expressed in this debate.
3. Both opponents will not use homophobic or discriminative slurs within their argument.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I look forward to a pleasant experience.


The Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, is a United States Federal Law institutionalizing marriage as the union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. A balanced marriage creates a nurturing and healthy environment for raising a child, in accordance to modern tradition and societal norms. However, a same-sex couple has different parental expectations than a traditional couple; these differentiated norms and values that fundamentally govern the upbringing of a child can negatively impact the child's understanding of sexual orientation. A 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggested that children with lesbian or gay parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.

The United States, and all of humanity, is dependent on people's ability to procreate in order to survive. Otherwise, humans would eventually become extinct. By allowing same-sex marriage, children become more susceptible to homosexual behavior, resulting in the inability to procreate with a partner. Aside from ensuring procreation and the potential survival of the human race, marriage of the opposite sex exposes their children to emtional securities and advice that are unique to the gender of each parent. Without these preconceptions, a child's development can be negatively altered.


Yet, prohibition of same-sex marriage is commonly percieved to be discrimination and a violation of Civil Rights. This may, at first glance, appear to be true, except the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not outlaw or reference any discrimination regarding sexuality, only racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. Thus, sexual orientation does not meet any of the five central criteria of this historically protected Act.

The legalization of same-sex marriage is not a question of rights, freedom, or liberties, it is strictly a question of whether or not same-sex marriage instigates progress in a society, or if it poses as a threat to humanity's survival. Greed motivates the progress of society, and our greed to procreate and self-preserve is what ensures our survival. Gay marriage is a threat to our survival.
MilkyChocolate

Con

I would firstly like to thank my opponent as well for the opportunity to debate against them about such a controversial issue.

The Defense of Marriage Act is only partially germane to the topic, seeing as we're debating in regards to gay marriage and not marriage between a man and a woman. My opponent brings no proof to evince the following:" a same-sex couple has different parental expectations than a traditional couple". What makes you say that? We are all dying to know and I'd especially like PRO to further explain the statement, since it's a heavy and deliberate insinuation. I've never heard of any parent of the LGBT community to impose their sexuality upon their child(ren). While it's more likely for children born of gay/lesbian parents to inherit the same preference, the domain of Genetics is still pretty fragile and we can't utterly ascertain that fact. Still, it doesn't provide you the right to gratuitously oppose gay marriage, since that would break the first amendment.

Individuals cannot be artificially influenced to suddenly change their sexual physiology as regards sexual attraction. It is impossible for the media to change one's sexual preference. The world is also in constant demographic growth and we are certainly not going to suffer an overflow of homosexuals as my opponent implies, since heterosexuals continue to dominate the charts.

The Civil Rights Movement caused the homonym act to be ratified and it is not in any way related to gay marriage.

As the legalization of gay marriage is directly concordant with the first amendment (as I've previously mentioned), it is in fact a matter of rights, freedom and liberty. Again, my opponent uses false claims to support his false medical notions, saying that we lust because we are "greedy" and that is why we procreate. Gay marriage is not a threat to our survival, given the recent soaring scientifical breakthroughs that allow us to perform artificial insemination. While the latter may sound immoral, we are not here to question the process, rather the social paradigm that is gay marriage.

In short, illegalizing gay marriage would not ensure our "survival"; in fact, it would only give the government another reason to infringe upon our rights.
Debate Round No. 1
JGHOSTBOY

Pro

Thank you for a challenging and intriguing rebuttal.

My statement, "a same-sex couple has different parental expectations than a traditional couple," is further elucidated by the corresponding statement, "these differentiated norms and values that fundamentally govern the upbringing of a child can negatively impact the child's understanding of sexual orientation," something that you claim to agree with. A child being raised in a predominately homosexual environment is far more liable to inherit homosexuality as a sexual preference than one who is raised by heterosexual parents (http://www.frc.org...).

Ascertaining facts from genetic construction is irrelevant when discussing a child's adaptation of sexual preference. According to William R. Rice, PhD University of California Santa-Barbara,

"A team of international researches has completed a study that suggests we will probably never find a 'gay gene.' Sexual orientation is not about genetics, say the researches, it's about epigenetics. This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment." (Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development, December 2012)

Thus, it is scientifically proven that individuals can be artificially influenced to suddenly change their sexual physiology. Humanity's self-preservation is dependent on our ability to procreate, and fundamentally ensures our survival. "Greed for life" is the emotional equivalent to biological self-preservation, not lust, and is scientifically advocated by many biological disciplines, including ecophysiology and biological evolution. Gay marriage restricts our ability to procreate, forcing homosexual couples to resort to unethical and fortuitous insemination, and threatens the future of society by negatively influencing a child's sexual orientation. Good habits formed at youth make all the difference (Aristotle). The only reason heterosexuals even dominate the charts is because gay marriage is not legalized in majority of America.

In addition to your adverse accusations regarding the scientific aspect of gay marriage, your Constitutional argument is completely false and blatantly unjustified. The legalization of gay marriage is not directly concordant with the First Amendment whatsoever. The First Amendment states,


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where does the First Amendment refer to marital rights? The only subtle reference to marriage defined in the Amendment is religion, an aspect of this debate that is not to be included within any of our arguments (refer to the Prerequisite Standards). Attempting to justify gay marriage with a religious argument, inspired by a Constitutional Amendment, is disrespectful to the established criteria of this debate (see Prerequisite Standards in the opening argument).


It is universally recognized that marriage is institutionalized to create an optimum environment for raising children, otherwise marriage would be superfluous for any relationship. Not only does gay marriage threaten the sexual orientation of children, it weakens the necessary marital components that a child requires. David Popenoe, PhD in Sociology, explains:

"We should disavow the notion that "mommies can make good daddies," just as we should disavow the popular notion...that "daddies can make good mommies." . . . The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary—culturally and biologically—for the optimal development of a human being."

Girls who are raised without a father figure are at higher risk for premature sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. Children without a mother are destitute of the emotional security that only a mother can provide during a time of need. Each parental figure has a unique perspective on the upbringing of a child; both tackling different aspects of the child's overall development.

To legalize gay marriage is to put our youth at risk of a synthetic and fallacious childhood. An uncultured environment can fundamentally damage the development of a child, and negatively influence his or her sexual orientation.

To illegalize gay marriage is to avert any potential damages to the future of society, and preserves the integrity of youth and the morality of procreation. The lives of the parents succumb to the lives of the children, for they dictate the progression of humanity.
MilkyChocolate

Con

I thank my opponent for his strong comeback and I hereby further present my arguments.

I have never claimed to accept the corresponding statement you've used and I am unaware as to why you'd actually make it up out of nowhere. PRO is putting words in my mouth and I would like to assure the readers that I have not, in any way implied that "these differentiated norms and values that fundamentally govern the upbringing of a child can negatively impact the child's understanding of sexual orientation".

It hasn't been definitively proven that Genetics do not and cannot change an individual's sexual orientation just as I've mentioned prior to this argument: "While it's more likely for children born of gay/lesbian parents to inherit the same preference, the domain of Genetics is still pretty fragile and we can't utterly ascertain that fact". Also, it hasn't been proven that if society learns to become more lenient toward homosexuals and accords them the right to marry each other, more and more boys, for example, will suddenly decide to prefer men over women. Hence, proof is weak on both sides of the bargain and you can't just jump into conclusions. I do, however, have the following proof of homosexual heredity:
"James I of England (James V of Scotland)
Son of Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587) had a gay father, Lord Darnly and was also gay himself."
"Charles I of England (1625 King of England)
Son of a gay father James I of England and had a gay grandfather Lord Damly."
SOURCE: http://gaylife.about.com...

Upon doing a little bit of research, I have stumbled upon an article that goes: " If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay".
SOURCE: http://www.hollanddavis.com...

The abovementioned sentence would sound illogical to anyone who's versed in the basics of Genetics. There is more than just one type of twins, such as twins conceived separately, half identical twins, mirror image twins, etc. The study has been conducted only on very few cases, if not only one. As for your saying that it's not related to Genetics but Epigenetics, I'll have you know that the latter is merely a subbranch of the former; thus, if we were to think of it from a semantic perspective, then whether you'd use the term "Genetics" or "Epigenetics", it's the same thing: "epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype...", the key word here being "gene".

Thus, there is not enough scientific proof to confirm that sexual preference can be artificially determined and I do not know of any person to have been so physiologically altered. While I do not disagree with your statement that we procreate to expand our species and ensure our survival, you must also accept the fact that everyone is different and that we do not all have "greed for life". Gay marriage does not restrict our ability to procreate; besides, I'm sure you would agree that the world is overpopulated and we're not in any bit of danger of becoming extinct. In fact, it's quite the opposite. You seem to approach the manner solely from a scientific view, which is why I'm doing the same and suggesting that you don't bring ethics into this since the two aren't linked.

The first amendment states, beside what you've copied from Wikipedia that your freedom ends once you intrude on others' freedom, which you are doing right now. Why shouldn't gay marriage be allowed? I've managed to disprove your arguments once again. While the first amendment does not particularly mention homosexuals, we have the ninth amendment, which "addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."

Homosexuals can also have families and raise children properly if given the chance to. By illegalizing gay marriage, they would be denied their rights as an actual married couple. For example, they are required to testify against each other in court even if they're been together for dozens of years. They also can't interfere in their partners' situation in terms of medical emergencies and much more.

Paternal and maternal figures don't have a huge impact on the lives of children as much as the first 7 educational years do. In fact, homosexual couples would be more likely to encourage their children to be lenient than heterosexual couples, as you can also agree that most homosexuals have been subject to personal belittlement and denigration. Then again, I can't even speak in regards to the majority; as I've previously mentioned, we are all different, complex beings with all sorts of (sometimes) uncanny and queer psychological traits. While one children may be devastated by the fact that both his/her parents are of the same gender, another might not care at all.

PRO mentioned that "Girls who are raised without a father figure are at higher risk for premature sexual activity and teenage pregnancy.". You forgot to mention that this is only valid if the girl only has ONE maternal figure, not TWO. If she were to be adopted or given birth to by a lesbian couple, she definitely would NOT be as promiscuous as the girl whose second guardian is nonexistent.

Legalizing marriage wouldn't put anyone at risk. Civil unions are completely normal and it only ensures homosexuals their deserved rights as human beings. It won't damage society in any way, be it theoretical or practical. There are a lot of homosexuals with integrity out there and sexual preference does not make a person entirely.
Debate Round No. 2
JGHOSTBOY

Pro

Thank you for the very strong rebuttal.

I apologize if I misunderstood the meaning of "... it's more likely for children born of gay/lesbian parents to inherit the same preference," and correlated it to one of my statements. I most certainly did not intend to put "words in your mouth."

One of the numerous foundations of my argument is the mutually agreed fact that one cannot simply ascertain that genetics do not and cannot alter an individual's sexual orientation. However, my argument inferring that epigenetics, not genetics, can fundamentally influence an individual's sexual preference, is still completely valid. The following definition, that you acquired from Wikipedia, states: ". . . epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, some of which have shown to be heritable." (I am assuming you simply "forgot" to include the 'caused by' part of the definition). This is only one of the two verified definitions of epigenetics, and is not the focal-point of my argument. If you were to respectfully investigate my first source, Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development (a factual scientific paper), it would be clearly implied that the psychological definition of epigenetics is to be used. The psychological definition, also acquired from Wikipedia (your favorite source for definitions), states: "
Epigenetics in psychology helps to explain how nurture shapes nature, where nature refers to biological heredity and nurture refers to virtually everything that occurs during the life-span (e.g., social-experience, diet and nutrition, and exposure to toxins). Epigenetics in psychology provides a framework for understanding how the expression of genes is influenced by experiences and the environment to produce individual differences in behavior, cognition, personality, and mental health." The latter suggests that behavioral epigenetics, a psychologically and biologically established scientific discipline, explains how one's social-experience, environment, and experiences shape the expressions of genes and produce differences in behavior and personality, two key characteristics that dictate sexual orientation/preference. This proves that a predominately homosexual developmental environment generally shapes the sexual behavior and orientation of a child (with respect to conscious choice, hence the psychological definition of epigenetics).


For a different perspective on the same proof, feel free to read the Article, Homosexuality & Choice: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Not only does a homosexual marriage threaten their adopted children with the potential inheritance of a manipulated sexual preference, the absence of a paternal and maternal figure of the opposite sex negatively influences the upbringing of a child. By stating,

"PRO mentioned that 'Girls who are raised without a father figure are at a higher risk for premature sexual activity and teenage pregnancy.' You forgot to mention that this is only valid if the girl only has ONE maternal figure, not TWO. If she were to be adopted or given birth to by a lesbian couple, she definitely would NOT be as promiscuous as the girl whose second guardian is nonexistent."


MilkyChocolate is suggesting that a mother can play the role of a father and vice versa. Each gender has exclusive traits that have a unique role in a child's development. Where does it say that my statement, regarding girls being raised without a father figure, is only valid if the girl has just ONE maternal figure? I simply said "without a father figure." The absence of a father figure cannot be remedied by the installment of another mother... the father is unique to the raising of a child, as is the mother.

"While I do not disagree with your statement that we procreate to expand our species and ensure our survival, you must also accept the fact that everyone is different and that we do not all have "greed for life."—Your implied definition of "different" is not clearly articulated, I can only assume that it refers to your accusation that "we do not all have greed for life." Although everyone's reason for self-preservation, the equivalent to "greed for life," may be different, the fundamental instinct of all humans is to self-preserve, i.e. be greedy for life. You stating that procreation ensures our survival, then subsequently stating that we do not all have greed for life, is extremely hypocritical and inappropriate. Gay marriage does restrict our ability to ethically procreate, and is dependent on the union of a man and a woman in order to supply the same-sex couple with a child through the means of reproduction or artificial insemination. As to your assumption that "the world is overpopulated and we're not in any bit of danger of becoming extinct," this is an outrageous accusation! I never suggested that gay marriage would lead to the extinction of the human race, I am simply proving that gay marriage does not benefit society nor the future of our society. Please refrain from any further unjustified accusations! By the way, if you think overpopulation reduces the chances of extinction, you're wrong (see http://www.biologicaldiversity.org... for more information).

Unfortunately, I also have to burst your opaque political bubble. The First Amendment text that I quoted was not from Wikipedia, it was from the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov...). The First Amendment does not state or imply that "your freedom ends once you intrude on the others' freedom." I have managed to disprove your arguments once again. Yet, your detail regarding the Ninth Amendment's text is extremely intriguing, but fallaciously unsupported. The current legal interpretation of the Constitution, with respect to the Ninth Amendment, allows for regulation of marriage by States. However, in United States Constitutional law, a particular Federal Principle called "Substantive due Process" allows courts to protect certain fundamental rights from governmental interference, marriage being one of them. Thus, your argument suggesting that gay marriage should be a government-regulated liberty in accordance to the Ninth Amendment would be valid if it were not for the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, both exploiting Substantive due Process to prohibit governmental interference of the fundamental rights of the people.

Illegalizing gay marriage not only serves as a safeguard for prevalent child development, it reduces homosexual's composition of population and fundamentally benefits our society's advancement, without infringing any Constitutional rights or liberties.

As this is my final argument, I would like to say that it has been an absolute pleasure debating with you on such a challenging and controversial subject! It has been both a learning experience and an opportunity to practice my skills as a debater. Thank you for debating with me.

MilkyChocolate

Con

I haven't pasted the whole definition off Wikipedia because I found it redundant and superfluous as I'm currently in medical school and unconsciously surmised that you knew that Genetics does not deal exclusively with our DNA. I apologise for the irrevent assumption. However, I will not bother to argue against the next argument since it is correct, although irrelevant. Curiously enough, you've furtherly attested to what I've said: the fact that Genetics are likely to influence the sexual preference of an individual, but that it hasn't been successfully proven as yet.

PRO mentions that "each gender has exclusive traits that have a unique role in a child's development.", however sexual preference are also related to the so-called "sex steroids" one of the three main hormones of the adrenal gland that affect one's secondary sexual traits (behaviour, personality, for example), which makes it possible for one of the mothers/fathers to act as the maternal or paternal figure accordingly.
SOURCE: The Anatomy and Physiology of the Human Body - Compendium - by Cezar Th. Niculescu (in Romanian)

Procreation DOES ensure our survival, however what I've mentioned is not at all hypocritical; I believe you have misused the term entirely. We are not motivated by greed, but by instinct. There is a huge disparity between the two terms, and I assure you that while we do enjoy sex, it still doesn't show that we're "greedy". Who wouldn't want to take pleasure in their daily activities, be it sex or what have you?
For more info: http://www.workers.org...

You've mentioned that "gay marriage does restrict our ability to ethically procreate, and is dependent on the union of a man and a woman in order to supply the same-sex couple with a child through the means of reproduction or artificial insemination"". I would have suggested you to look at my previous arguments and see what I have commented on the matter of ethics and how it shouldn't be related to science nor this debate, but apparently I have to present the final argument; so be it.

I have seen the link you provided and it only subtly implies that if we keep having more and more offspring, we are in danger of overexerting our resources and depleting them. In a way, if gay marriages were to be legalised and if they were to choose to adopt instead of choosing artificial insemination, they would do the world a favour; we are overpopulated, as I've mentioned and as the statistics indicate.

You haven't really adduced a proper argument just by mentioning those amendments, since the following definition of the fifth one (off Wikipedia): "protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure" only recognises the conclusion of my initial thesis: "illegalizing gay marriage would not ensure our "survival"; in fact, it would only give the government another reason to infringe upon our rights.". You have also bemused me a little by mentioning that my argument was "fallaciously unsupported." According to dictionary.reference.com, "a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc". How can my argument be misleadingly unsupported? It makes no sense whatsoever.

As for your finale, you seem to have repeated the same unjustified arguments from the previous rounds, only worded differently this time. I've just manifested that gay marriage shouldn't remain nationally illicit, rather tolerated (preferably globally), while making sure they are not deprived of their rights as human beings, the same ones heterosexual males are endowed with.

I also thank my opponent for the opportunity (as it is my first serious debate) and I would offer him a handshake, but seeing as we're doing this online, that's not possible.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Anewpastuer 3 years ago
Anewpastuer
This sugar sweet, civil debate tone between you two, is effeminate! It is my opinion that whereas human males have this overarching need in the year 2013, to marry one another, and females have this overarching need in the year 2013, to be marrying one another, then we have as human creatures shown yet one more example of our inferiority among species of all worlds, know or unknown. I suggest that humans discontinue the practice of marriage, altogether, whereas it has no clear meaning as a human behavior practice, any longer. There were days in the recent past when, living together, without a paper document that allowed for living together(only in legal marriage), was a naughty human behavior. Yet such a practice of man living with his girlfriend for decades, or all of their lives, without an official marriage license, became a relationship known as a "common law marriage". This situation of specific human behavior, had to be given a descriptive name ,"common law". I suggest that we have found ourselves as human creatures, at a crossroads, where this thing, now vague, called "marriage", is meaningless. Let us do away with marriage completely. Let us live with whom ever we wish, for as long as a relationship can survive, and be not bound by any restrictions or consequences, to ebb and flow from one relationship to another under free will. Let us remove the lawyers and tax status, and money factors involved with living with our fellow humans, as utilized by governments, to control human behavior. If you went with this idea in totality, just thinking about it all would swing your mind right back, full circle, to the result of men and women having intercourse and creating additional human creatures as a result, and why "marriage" was enacted, such that "Parents" would now be bound to be responsible for their offspring. Because I am limited by "word count", I am unable to complete my remarks. I could make your heads spin!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Noctan 3 years ago
Noctan
JGHOSTBOYMilkyChocolateTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con easily for the arguments, his were more convincing and he easily refuted Pro's, as funwiththoughts pointed out as well.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
JGHOSTBOYMilkyChocolateTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to pose a serious challenge to Pro's main premises. At the same time, Pro mainly used biased sources (e.g., the website of a Christian conservative think tank and the Huffington Post) and Wikipedia.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
JGHOSTBOYMilkyChocolateTied
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: While I agree with con, he fell into the trap of responding to pro's points about society and parenting and not focusing on why the right to marry should be guaranteed.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
JGHOSTBOYMilkyChocolateTied
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: It generally seemed like Con had an easy time refuting Pro's arguments, so arguments goes to him, however he did not really use sources except in round 2 so that goes to Pro.