The Instigator
rjayx8
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Gay Marriage should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
rjayx8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 467 times Debate No: 56143
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

rjayx8

Pro

Round 1 is for acceptance
Round 2 is for arguments
Round 3 is for rebuttal
Round 4 is closing statement
dairygirl4u2c

Con

we should recognize that the natural world creates natural distinctions between male and female, and their cohabitation etc is what produces offspring. they are a natural unit for the purposes of kids, and a natural unit for the purposes of simply recognizing nature.
we can have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage.

also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there.
this is a separate debate, but touches on it. we should only allow males and females to have offspring.it's the natural order, and to allow otherwise would be to pervert how things ought to be for the child. (a gay couple for children who can't get adopted cause no one wants em, maybe an exception i dont know)
Debate Round No. 1
rjayx8

Pro

Judges please note: First round was acceptance only, however it was strange to see my opponent to begin with her argument, anyway I believe that is no point of contention and is fine with me, still if we could try to follow the format, it would be great :)

Well, my argument will consist of four points; it will be simple and concise. I will adhere to the rules and reserve my rebuttal against Con’s argument for Round 3.

I wish my opponent luck and look forward to a good debate.

  1. Same-sex couples should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment in the same way as heterosexual couples. [1]

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation states that many same-sex couples "want the right to legally marry [and] honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer..."

  1. Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Many benefits are only available to married couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [2] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by theNew York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple. [3]

  1. The concept of "traditional marriage" being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. 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. [4]

  2. Marriage is redefined as society's attitudes evolve, and the majority of Americans now support gay marriage. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. With a May 2013 Gallup poll showing 53% of Americans supporting gay marriage, it is time for the definition of marriage to evolve once again. [5]

SOURCES:

[1] "Answers to Questions About Marriage Equality" (357 KB) , www.hrc.org,

[2] Freedom to Marry, "Marriage 101," www.freedomtomarry.org

[3] Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber, "The High Price of Being a Gay Couple

[4] Ross Douthat, "The Marriage Ideal," www.nytimes.com

[5] Jeffrey M. Jones, "Same-Sex Marriage Support Solidifies Above 50% in U.S.," Gallup.com,

dairygirl4u2c

Con

i'm not sure what is really established by stating that there's a rights campaign that says same sex couples want to be married, to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society offers etc. that is self evident in this debate. also, pointing out that a majority of americans support gay marriage doesn't prove or disprove that it is that it is something that we should do.

if we allow civil unions, there would not be the limitations described by pro, such as lack of hospital visits. also, much of the things they are denied can be replicated by legal transactions, such as wills instead of natural intestate property transfers.

our system of hetero marriage may not be evolutionariarly traditioal, but it is traditional in our culture. and that's all that matters. and it is better established and more natural than gay marriage.
Debate Round No. 2
rjayx8

Pro

My opponent herself is confused, she even says 'I don't know' in the first round.

She has only presented an argument of procreation. Thats it. How is heterosexuality natural and homosexuality unnatural? There are more than 30 species in the world that are known to be homosexual, its not only in humans but exists in nature.

I am afraid I don't have any points to refute.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

i presented both procreation AND the inherent differences between homosexuality and herterosexuality. con merely acknowledges that i made the arguments, but doesn't engage in the arguments. con also fails to respond to my counter attacks on his arguments.

even homosexual activity in animals doesn't lend itself to procreation. marriage should be limtied to folks who can have children, either naturally, or as a matter of what's inherently possible if they are infertile, or through adoption. even if they choose not to have kids, they have that capacity. also, homosexual activity in animals is surely more about the animals just getting off. it doesn't indicate that that is the natural structure of things. it's a deviation from the prescribed way of things, written in our genes and reflecting our body's designs etc, both in animals and in humans.

here is this again.
"also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there.
this is a separate debate, but touches on it. we should only allow males and females to have offspring.it's the natural order, and to allow otherwise would be to pervert how things ought to be for the child. (a gay couple for children who can't get adopted cause no one wants em, maybe an exception i dont know)"
Debate Round No. 3
rjayx8

Pro

rjayx8 forfeited this round.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

reiterate
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by rjayx8 2 years ago
rjayx8
The reason for bhealey's vote is rather ludicrous. I hope there would be some pragmatic voters out there.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
rjayx8dairygirl4u2cTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Conduct is a wash because PRO forfeited a round and CON broke the rules of the debate; S&G to PRO because CON failed to use ANY capitalization; Sources to PRO because he offered some which supported his case; Arguments to PRO because CON only offered a procreation argument, which PRO handled, while, PRO offered several other arguments, which CON did not adequately address.
Vote Placed by Ambassador95 2 years ago
Ambassador95
rjayx8dairygirl4u2cTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was arguing from equality. However, as Con pointed out, homosexual unions are not equal to homosexual unions. Reasons such as procreation and natural functionality served to make this point and were never dealt with my Pro. Conduct was equal because both had measured tones, Con presented an argument in an acceptance only round but Pro failed to to post in the last round. Pro had slightly better usage of grammar when taking into account capitalization and formatting. And although Pro used sources, they did not provide any additional credibility to his case, therefore, they could have just as easily been left out.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
rjayx8dairygirl4u2cTied
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: Conduct vote is equal because both are guilty in their own aspects. Pro forfeited and Con broke the rules. Both invaded conduct, therefore it is equal. Con made a case on procreation with an abysmal way of expressing it as Con terms it 'I don't know'. Pro made legal cases with some historical background. A bad Procreation case vs Legal case backed with historical sources, Arguments go to Pro. Pro was the only one to use sources, Sources of which was direct in contention whereas Con stayed in her 'procreation case'. The rebuttals are weak, Con came with a reassertion and a copy & paste argument from previous round and Pro came with attacking con's 'i don't know' credibility. What is very noticeable here is the difference in the quality of the contention of both debaters, which Pro wins as his legal case holds. Thus, Pro is awarded both the arguments and the sources point.
Vote Placed by bhealey 2 years ago
bhealey
rjayx8dairygirl4u2cTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: pro forfeited and I agree with con anyways