The Instigator
JayConar
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
OverLordSandwich
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gay Marriage should be legalized.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 65228
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

JayConar

Con

I am devil's advocating here. The first round is acceptance only.
OverLordSandwich

Pro

I accept.

Cheers! :)
Debate Round No. 1
JayConar

Con

Thank you for accepting, I'll get straight on to my opening arguments.

Argument:

1. Children need a Mum and a Dad.

The institution of marriage is one that allows, primarily, for a stable family atmosphere. Thus marriage promotes children. However, is it right that homosexual couples should be encouraged to raise children. Children are in need of good role models and, whilst a gay couple may be, individually, excellent role models, children need both a male and female role model.

A study carried out very recently, which sent questionnaires to 3,000 18-39 year olds, 247 of whom had grown up with parents in a same-sex relationship, showed that there is a difference between children who grow up with same-sex parents and children who grow up with heterosexual parents. I would like to point out that the sample is actually statistically representative.

'[1]Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):


    • Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
    • Have lower educational attainment
    • Report less safety and security in their family of origin
    • Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
    • Are more likely to suffer from depression
    • Have been arrested more often
    • If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female'


Those are the most statistically significant results that were found. Here is a list of other statistically significant results:

'[2]Children of lesbian mothers:

    • Are more likely to be currently cohabiting

    • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance

    • Are less likely to be currently employed full-time

    • Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed

    • Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual

    • Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting

    • Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."

    • Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will

    • Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others

    • Use marijuana more frequently

    • Smoke more frequently

    • Watch TV for long periods more frequently

    • Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense'


Personally, I would question the validity of some of these results as it is more than likely that some of the people who filled in the questionnaires were out to represent homosexual parents in a disfavourable light and, therefore, lied about having parents who were in homosexual relationships. However, this is unlikely to account for all, or even a majority, of the data.

2. Religion

There is no argument in 'the bible says that homosexual relationships are bad and therefore it is immoral to allow gay marriage.' However, there is an argument to be had that it is immoral to force religious institutions, such as the church of England, to perform gay marriages. It is an invasion of the culture and beliefs of Christians (or any other religion, for that matter) to force them to marry two people whom they do not deem appropriate for their 'ceremony' or 'rite' or whatever you would like to call it. Whilst you may believe this to still be discrimination, it is only discrimination in the same way that an insurance company discriminates if they decide not to issue life insurance to an individual with a terminal illness. The individual cannot change the fact that they have the illness, but this does not mean that life insurance should be issued to that individual as it would not be in the interests of the insurance company, much the same as marrying a homosexual couple would not be in the interest of promoting the various values and beliefs that a Christian church may wish to promote.

3. Marriage is archaic.

This is an interesting argument. Some would argue that the institution of marriage is one that oppresses two individuals to agree to conform to a certain set of archaic, and often heterosexual, values.

'[3]Paula Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women's Studies, wrote in 1989, "Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships."'

The concept of 'gay culture' is relatively new when compared to the institution of marriage, which actually predates recorded history (if you don't only include 'Christian marriage.') Allowing homosexual couples to marry jars two inherently different cultures together, thus attempting to assimilate them. The fact is, gay culture is not the same as the culture in which marriage belongs (primarily religious ones), so why attempt to make them so. Gay culture should be celebrated for what it is, it should be kept seperate from institutions such as marriage, which is, now, primarily religious. Instead, a different option should be put in place which is similar to marriage, in that it allows two people to declare their love for each other, but avoids religious connotations.

This is my opening argument. Thank you for reading! Over to you, Pro!

Sources:
[1]http://www.frc.org...
[2]http://www.frc.org...
[3]http://gaymarriage.procon.org...;
OverLordSandwich

Pro

"[..]sent questionnaires to 3,000 18-39 year olds, 247 of whom had grown up with parents in a same-sex relationship. Personally, I would question the validity of some of these results as it is more than likely that some of the people who filled in the questionnaires were out to represent homosexual parents in a disfavourable light and, therefore, lied about having parents who were in homosexual relationships."

Only 247 of 3,000? You should question the validity of the data especially considering:
http://liespotting.com...:
http://www.newsweek.com...

The chance that those 247 who were surveyed actually were from a gay family and knew about welfare, unemployment, and any other economic points you bring up, is very low.

"[...] much the same as marrying a homosexual couple would not be in the interest of promoting the various values and beliefs that a Christian church may wish to promote."

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com...

"
A justice of the peace is acceptable and binding before God. God accepts the law of the land in which we live. Romans chapter 13, verses 1-7 (https://www.biblegateway.com...) states our need to be under the authority of our government as long as they do not ask us to violate God’s laws. Therefore, getting married by a justice of the peace would be fine."

Is the Church now not promoting the Bible? It is my understanding that the Christian Church must allow gay marriage if it is legalized; which it is in 33 states (http://www.freedomtomarry.org...).
Thus, it is OK for the Church to promote same sex marriage because it is OK with the Bible. And I believe that counters your other point:

"Instead, a different option should be put in place which is similar to marriage, in that it allows two people to declare their love for each other, but avoids religious connotations."

There would be no need for that.




Debate Round No. 2
JayConar

Con

Round 3

Rebuttals

My opponent asserts: 'Only 247 of 3,000? You should question the validity of the data especially considering:
http://liespotting.com......:
http://www.newsweek.com......'

Here, my opponent suggests that 247 of 3,000 people may be too small a sample to be representative. However, it is a large enough sample to be representative, if it were a sample closer to 30 or 40 then I might be hesitant to suggest that it's representative. However it's not, thus it is representative and some of the most insightful experiments ever have had incredibly small samples ([1]Sperry's experiment into split-brain patients had only 11 people)

As to my opponents suggestion that the sample of 247 people were all lying, whilst it is possible that some of them were lying, it is incredibly unlikely that all of them were lying.

My opponent asserts: 'Romans chapter 13, verses 1-7 (https://www.biblegateway.com......) states our need to be under the authority of our government as long as they do not ask us to violate God’s laws. Therefore, getting married by a justice of the peace would be fine."'

Yes, getting married by a justice of the peace would be fine. However, it is made quite clear in the bible that homosexual relationships are violations of God's law:

[2] 'Leviticus 18:22 -
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.'

It is clear from this that the bible lays out homosexuality as being against God's law.

Thus, gay marriage is not ok with the bible. Thus forcing Christian institutions to perform gay marriage ceremonies is ethically wrong as it is against their beliefs. My argument thus holds.

Simply saying 'there is no need for that' does not rebut my argument. Another option, such as I suggested, would mean that religious institutions would not be forced to carry out ceremonies that are against their beliefs, and religious people would still have a way of declaring their love for each other and gain state benefits the same as a married heterosexual couple would.


Sources:
[1]http://www.nobelprize.org...
[2]http://www.openbible.info...

OverLordSandwich

Pro

"However it's not, thus it is representative"

I am not implying that the data is not representative; I am simply saying that the data could be flawed considering certain variables:
1) People lie.
2) The questionnaire may contain information that the sampled group does not know, as well as biased questions.
3) We know nothing about the sampled group. This is very important because certain areas and certain races vary (http://www.frc.org......)
"[...]homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work."

Furthermore, gay couples already know the risks involved with adoption. We are not debating if it is moral or not; we are debating if it should be legal:

Let's pretend that all the states ban same sex marriage in a week:
Those who are already married face problems:
1) What happens to them in a week?
2) What about their adopted child?
Those who want to marry also face problems:
1) What do we do?
2) Do we cancel any plans that take effect after a week? (eg marriage, honeymoon, adoption, etc)
The government faces problems:
1) How do we tell who is already married and who isn't?
2) How do we enforce the one week limit?

Seeing how already 33 states legalized same sex marriage(http://www.freedomtomarry.org......), for the other states to not, would create interstate complications and discrimination.

"[...] it is only discrimination in the same way that an insurance company discriminates if they decide not to issue life insurance to an individual with a terminal illness."

No it isn't. In the situation I just gave (above), it would be like an insurance company not allowing service to one person while another insurance company allows service. That is the definition of discrimination... (http://dictionary.reference.com...)


"Thus, gay marriage is not ok with the bible. Thus forcing Christian institutions to perform gay marriage ceremonies is ethically wrong as it is against their beliefs. My argument thus holds."

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com...
https://answers.yahoo.com...

You don't need a Church/religious institute to marry you. A justice of the peace is acceptable and binding before God (if you believe in a God).
Why should gay marriage not be legalized? It only affects Christians. Not everyone is religious...



Debate Round No. 3
JayConar

Con

Round 4

'I am not implying that the data is not representative; I am simply saying that the data could be flawed'

Here, my opponent concedes that the data is representative, and that his only criticism is that the data 'could be flawed.' This is true with every investigation ever performed, and is not a valid reason for disregarding the data as a whole.

My opponent also asserts: 'Furthermore, gay couples already know the risks involved with adoption. We are not debating if it is moral or not; we are debating if it should be legal:'

He is right, we are debating if it should be legal, and moral considerations should be taken into account as a part of that debate.

My opponent suggests that there are practical problems in the banning of same-sex marriage. However, we are not discussing how a ban on same-sex marriage could or should be practically approached, we are discussing whether it needs to be approached in the first place. Besides that, my opponent creates a scenario (a strawman) and then attacks that scenario. I said nothing about the banning of gay marriages in a week. He did that himself.

My opponent asserts: 'No it isn't. In the situation I just gave (above), it would be like an insurance company not allowing service to one person while another insurance company allows service. That is the definition of discrimination... (http://dictionary.reference.com......)'

Here, my opponent is attempting to say that the act of a religious person or institution to refuse to perform a religious ceremony for two people due to their not meeting the criteria for that specific religious ceremony is discrimination against those two people. However, it is not discrimination as there is no immutable characteristic of those two people that is causing the refusal. The simple fact is that if a homosexual man and a homosexual woman wished to marry each other , then that would be perfectly fine under the beliefs of the Christian religion. The fact that it is two men or two women who wish to undergo that religious ceremony means that they are unable to as they do not meet the criteria as specified by that religion. If, however, the two people were a man and a woman, but a specific church did not wish to marry them because they were black, then that would be discrimination as it is not a religious requirement that the two people who undergo the religious ceremony of marriage be white.

My opponent asserts: 'You don't need a Church/religious institute to marry you. A justice of the peace is acceptable and binding before God (if you believe in a God).'

Here, my opponent accepts that a religious marriage in a church should not be legalized. Instead, he asserts that a marriage by a justice ot the peace is acceptable. However, I would argue that it would also be immoral to force a justice of the peace to carry out a same-sex marriage if he did not believe that it was 'right' to do so in his own beliefs and opinions of his individual faith.

My opponent also asserts: 'Why should gay marriage not be legalized? It only affects Christians. Not everyone is religious...'

My opponent correctly asserts that not everybody is religious. My opponent also, however, fallaciously asserts that the issue of gay marriage only affects Christians. This is untrue as the issue of gay marriage can effect a number of religions such as Jews ([1]Traditional Judaism considers homosexual acts as a violation of Jewish law), Muslims ([2];Islam is clear in its prohibition of homosexual acts.'), Zoroastrianism ([3] 'The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is the man that is a Daeva [demon]; this one is the man that is a worshipper of the Daevas, that is a male paramour of the Daevas') and many more.

Whilst my opponent is correct that not everybody is religious, including me, that does not mean that we should ignore the wishes of those whom are religious in regards to their own culture, as the equalisation of marriage, in terms of allowing same-sex marriage, implies that religious institutions would have to accept that their traditional views of marriage would be ignored in favour of views that may not be Christian views. This is oppression of one set of people to ease the oppression of another. This, in my opinion, does not increase equality in the world.

Sources:
[1]http://judaism.about.com...
[2]http://islam.about.com...;
[3]http://www.religioustolerance.org...;
OverLordSandwich

Pro

"My opponent suggests that there are practical problems in the banning of same-sex marriage. However, we are not discussing how a ban on same-sex marriage could or should be practically approached, we are discussing whether it needs to be approached in the first place."

I have already mentioned twice, same-sex marriage is already legal in 33 states. It has already "been approached".
I am simply providing a senerio of what will happen if you attempt to illeagalize same-sex marriage in those 33 states, and the logical complications. Or in other words, I am comparing the 33 states that support same-sex marriage with the other states that don't.
Why would 33 states accept same-sex marriage and the other 17 not?

"Here, my opponent accepts that a religious marriage in a church should not be legalized. Instead, he asserts that a marriage by a justice ot the peace is acceptable."

Ah. The Achilles Heel. The Compromise.

The debate is: Should gay marriage be leaglized?
The question is NOT: Should gay marriage be legalized in Church?

So you agree with me:
A marriage by the justice of peace is acceptable.
Therefore, gay marriage is acceptable.
Thus, gay marriage should be legalized.




Debate Round No. 4
JayConar

Con

Round 5

My opponent and I reach the final round and he has decided to focus upon only two aspects of the argument. The first is the practical aspect:

'I have already mentioned twice, same-sex marriage is already legal in 33 states. It has already "been approached".
I am simply providing a senerio of what will happen if you attempt to illeagalize same-sex marriage in those 33 states, and the logical complications. Or in other words, I am comparing the 33 states that support same-sex marriage with the other states that don't.
Why would 33 states accept same-sex marriage and the other 17 not?'

This argument is, as I mentioned earlier, irrelevant. We are not arguing about how the illegalization of same-sex marriage should be practically brought about in America (which is, by the way, only a single part of the world, whereas this argument is on a global scale), but whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal at all.

My opponent's second argument is thus:


OverLordSandwich

Pro

The argument in which you find "irrelevant" is besides the point.

I provided it to compare states that have same-sex marriage legalized and sates that don't, to show the logical complications and why same-sex marriage should be leagized in the remainding states.

You have not managed to provide a valid point into why same-sex marriage shouldn't be leaglized in the remainding states. Thus, I my argument stands.

"My opponent's second argument is thus:"

I don't think you finished this...

Anyways, in my previous argument I provided the following:

"Here, my opponent accepts that a religious marriage in a church should not be legalized. Instead, he asserts that a marriage by a justice ot the peace is acceptable."

Ah. The Achilles Heel. The Compromise.

The debate is: Should gay marriage be leaglized?
The question is NOT: Should gay marriage be legalized in Church?

So you agree with me:
A marriage by the justice of peace is acceptable.
Therefore, gay marriage is acceptable.
Thus, gay marriage should be legalized.

Am I right?


Thank You.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Oh wow not a single vote
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
I posted that comment 18 hours ago, you posted your argument 3 hours ago, thus you had ample time to check the comment section as you get a notification that I commented on this.

It was not my fault that DDO decided not to post half of my debate, so I should not really be penalized for it.

However, you are welcome to provide the second half of your argument in the comment section too?
Posted by OverLordSandwich 2 years ago
OverLordSandwich
I refuted the arguments that I saw...
It won't be fair if the argument you posted in this comment section counts since I didn't see it.
Thus, your comment/post should be excluded
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
We'll let the voters decide whether you successfully rebutted my argument or not :)
Posted by OverLordSandwich 2 years ago
OverLordSandwich
Sorry, didn't read your argument since it was in the comments section (I swear; just read it now).

But I win by default since you failed to post your argument in the BoP manner.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Strangely, half of my final argument didn't post, so allow me to post it here:

'The debate is: Should gay marriage be leaglized?
The question is NOT: Should gay marriage be legalized in Church?'

My opponent is correct to suggest that the debate is indeed: Should gay marriage be legalized?

This means same-sex marriage in full, including religious and irreligious marriage. Thus my opponent has conceded the debate by conceding that religious same-sex marriage should not be legalized. Thus accepting that same-sex marriage should not be legalized in full.

My opponent again asserts: 'So you agree with me:
A marriage by the justice of peace is acceptable.
Therefore, gay marriage is acceptable.
Thus, gay marriage should be legalized.'

However, I would like to remind voters and my opponent that I said 'However, I would argue that it would also be immoral to force a justice of the peace to carry out a same-sex marriage if he did not believe that it was 'right' to do so in his own beliefs and opinions of his individual faith.'

I would like to thank my opponent for his participation in this debate with me, I wish him luck.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
http://www.markregnerus.com... Here is the document for those interested - it is the actual paper for the source I used.

@flet107 - You're wrong. If all men are created equal then all men should have the same rights. Heterosexual men do not have the right to marry other heterosexual or homosexual men. Thus why should homosexual men have the right to marry other heterosexual or homosexual men? Your quoting of an archaic constitution does nothing to prove your cause.

I live in Britain. We do not have a written constitution.

Also, you're possibly right about the polls being possibly biased in Texas towards the finding of homosexuals as inept parents. However, can we stop giving my opponent easy answers to my argument please xD
Posted by flet107 2 years ago
flet107
I am not sure as to what country you are writing this debate in. In America however our constitution say that "all men are created equal". Now in the era of our founding fathers that tended to mean all white male people over 20 and who owned property however since then our understanding and definition of equality has evolved as a country. So in todays modern context under the American constitution if all men are truly created equal then gay marriage should absolutely be legal under the constitution. One thing should be noted and that would be religious rights as stated in the constitution. I would say that the equality of our society should trump the religious needs of our population. I believe that religious belief and ideals are important to many people in our society however when those beliefs begin to impede the equality of others in society then I believe that equality amongst all people should trump religious freedoms.

Also on another note I did glance over the article pertaining to polls conducted by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin. If these polls were done in Texas arguably one of the most Republican states in the country there would be a blatantly obvious predilection against homosexuals by the persons recording the information.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
I haven't read the actual papers themselves, though I don't doubt that there are probably problems with them, yet I still don't doubt that they're the best available when it comes to that kind of research. People don't like researching it, I imagine because it's edging a little bit towards attempting to back up discrimination, and I agree that it shouldn't be researched. Yes, there are differences. Do those differences make the lives of those children comparatively horrific? It's incredibly doubtful.

Pro if you use what I just said against me I'll eat you. Like a sandwich.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Hmm. Read the papers in Social Science Research that two of Con's sources were based on. Some strange choices in data analysis in those papers.
No votes have been placed for this debate.