The Instigator
Secret-Peter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Gay Marriage should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,131 times Debate No: 22245
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Secret-Peter

Pro

Gay marriage should be legal in the USA because as a secular country it cannot use religion as an excuse because then it is no better than Iran
16kadams

Con

I agree. We are a secular country.

~Against SSM~

Marriage in the governments eyes is an institution about procreation and child rearing. [1] The goverment gives any economic benefits to these couples and with that it is safe to assume they are interested in something. The interest is to further propagate society through responsible procreation. [1, 2] Without these heterosexual couples society would not exist, and therefore we would have no human race. This is a reason these relationships in the states eyes are indispensable and deserve the special recognition. Relationships like homosexual ones do not deserve this privilege as they can not contribute to society the way heterosexual couples can, and hence do not deserve the privilege of marriage.

The argument to counter this is generally marriage is about love, this argument really can't hold any water. If this was true any relationship that involved love would be regulated. I you said "I love you mom" that would be regulated if that was a state interest. As love isn't a state interest this is never regulated.

Another counter is other people can procreate too (non marital). The problem with this is it ruins the states goal in responsible procreation and leads to other detrimental effects to society. [2] The courts have ruled that procreation is indeed their interest, and it is to propagate society, that's why SSM is banned. [3]

The next counter is comparisons with interracial couples. This comparison is absurd. There is a difference between race and sexual preference. Race is not even related to marriage in the slightest in the state eyes, they can still procreate. Homosexual couples can never enter procreative type unions and therefore do not fulfill the interests of the state.

The goverment wants two couples of heterosexual sexual preferences to create biological children to propagate society in the correct way. [4] This, as stated, will fulfill states interests. A homosexuals anatomy cannot do this, they cannot create children when in intercourse with their preferred couple. As they cannot do this, they should not be allowed to marry.

Conclusion:

The states interests are in fact heterosexuals in procreative type unions attempting to further society. The state confers many economic benefits to these couples, this hints to they have interests in the marital business. These benefits are costly to the governments coffers, so the reason they have incentives is procreation. [1] These procreative couples fulfill states interest therefore deserve recognition. Homosexual couples can never ever create these procreative type unions therefore do not deserve the legal status of marriage. Marriage is defined for this reason, vote con.

[1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
[2] "PROTECTING AMERICA'S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
[3] "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
[4] "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
Debate Round No. 1
Secret-Peter

Pro

I need only one argument to blow your emphasis on procreating out the window and here it is what about married couples who CHOOSE not to have children is their marriage somehow not recognized in the eyes of the state or what about older people who get married in their 60's and 70's well past childbearing age they they can still be married so offer a counter to that
16kadams

Con

R1: What if they choose not too

They will likely practice safe sex measures. Then they are forming pro creative type unions and are still fulfilling states interests. [1] The government wants a climate for procreation and procreative type unions not procreative effect. [1] This means any heterosexual couple can fulfill states interests.

---> Old people refutation

These people in their old age still fulfill states interests through creating a climate of procreation encouraging younger couples to procreate. The government has also claimed they fulfill interests through this climated procreation. [1]


Conclusion:

Homosexuals can never fufill procreative type unions therefore the state has no reason to legalize it, therefore it should not be allowed. His examples are faulty as they still fufill states interests. VOTE CON.




[1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
Debate Round No. 2
Secret-Peter

Pro

Yeah your right only by procreating can you have children i mean the stupid 16 year olds who got knocked up or the abusive rednecks who would beat their children deserve kids way more than two loving men or women who have been together 15 years and have proved they are committed, loving and financially stable because the country's orphanages aren't full enough costing taxpayers Billions to pay for raising those children until 18 yeah its in the states interests to leave those kids in orphanages with an increased risk of a life of crime or violence rather than in the hands of a loving gay couple who would care for those children and pay for their upbringing, yeah with america in 14 trillion worth of debt that's what states need to pay for raising children up in orphanages
16kadams

Con

My opponent made no sense... But his argument seems to be hinging on the orphanage. He needs to prove this before we proceed:

1. are homosexuals good patents?

2. Would SSM increase orphage adoptions?

3. Link SSM to orphanages
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. The answer to #1 is no. Gays have shorter relationships, this means the kids will me moved from house to house more often and see more divorces, and it is widely accepted that this is bad. Visual aids for the argument:

Heterosexuals:



Gays:



Gays rarely get past the 7 year mark. heterosxuals do. Soruce: http://www.frc.org...

Also gay are more... they have more "fun". This exposes kids to uneeded sex and leads to divorces more often. gays on average have 8 partners per year. Source: Xiridou, 1031

2. Would it increase adoptions?

No. I have seen stats (source if my opponent asks) that it does nothing to adoption rates. And homosexual do not have that perenting urge. Most gays do not adops children anyway. Visual aid:



source: http://www.frc.org...


3. This is essentially similar to above.
Debate Round No. 3
Secret-Peter

Pro

You have spewed so many gay stereotypes in your argument it's unbelievable. Gays have more "fun" i assume that you mean the stereotypical gay parties of hoards of men having sex and doing drugs all over the house that is akin to saying all rednecks have sex with their own family Secondly these stats I've read are so biased and unreliable it borders on Scientology, gay parents are more likely on average to be better parents seeing as they can't have babies accidentally and have to want and go through a long process to have them this shows they are committed http://www.alternet.org...
16kadams

Con

---> No I meant they are more promiscuous.
---> My opponent claims bias. This is not a refutation to many credible studies. Also your source is a progressive think tank.
---> Gays are more abusive to each other studies show. (like one partner hits the other one) There has an 83% emotional abuse among gays, and a 9% physical abuse rate. higher then heterosexuals.
http://www.springerlink.com...
---> I have seen no refutation to my promiscuity argument
---> He has dropped my procreative case 100%
Debate Round No. 4
Secret-Peter

Pro

This data is unreliable it was conducted by a Texas University, Texas is Anti-Gay HQ
Furthermore you have offered no real evidence about promiscuity among gays being higher than straight people. Men are also likely to beat their wives than their husbands. http://www.kcsdv.org...
Look lets just come out and admit it your anti-gay because of your religion but as you can't use the religion argument because I'll just win so your coming out with the same schmuck every conservative uses to hid the fact they are bigoted, racist and unwilling to accept anything unless I'ts in the bible
You probably think evolution and global warming are lies too
16kadams

Con

--> my opponent doesn't have any justification for his cry foul of sources, aka no proof for the assertion.
--> That makes no sense. that sentence has no sense. But I have proven if you compare homosexuals (married) have higher abuse then heterosexuals. LBGT couples have much more domestic abuse then heterosexuals do.
http://www.lambda.org...
--> I am atheist.
--> My opponent engages in ad-hom. I ask for the conduct points. I am still atheist btw.
--> I believe in evolution deny global warming.

~my opponent dropped arguments~
1. he dropped the secular case against SSM as the debate progressed
2. dropped the promiscuity argument
3. and dropped his adoption argument.

Reasons to vote con:

sources: Mine are more reliable, all he does is cry foul.
Arguments: Me, he dropped arguments and engaged in multiple red herrings.
Conduct: Me, he exploded in ad-hom last round.
S/G: Me, his arguments had worse grammar then me! That's hard to do.

I deserve all 7points. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
lol
Posted by ras2000 2 years ago
ras2000
gay is wrong wrong wrong so gay mirriage is even worse
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
"Texas is Anti-Gay HQ"

Uhhh.....you obviously don't live in Texas.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
pretty pictures
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I just c/p my arguments now
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
How many times have you debated this?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 2 years ago
Travniki
Secret-Peter16kadamsTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one who used sources; fully rebutted what was said and didn't label Texas as anti gay.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
Secret-Peter16kadamsTied
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: Hard to get more lopsided. Cons entire case was almost completely dropped; conduct for the idiotic: "This data is unreliable it was conducted by a Texas University, Texas is Anti-Gay HQ" rebuttal.