The Instigator
ZombieLuver99
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
Skrone
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Gay Marriage should stay legal

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 9 votes the winner is...
Skrone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,295 times Debate No: 33400
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (9)

 

ZombieLuver99

Pro

People should just accept gay marriage because 1. it's not their business 2. it's not their choice and 3. People can be who ever they want to be.
Skrone

Con

First of all it is totally a choice. I knew plenty of gay guys who were gay for years and then started to bone women. Although you do have the right to be who you want to be, you being that person cannot disrupt the peace of others on their pursuit of happiness. Humans were created the way they are for a reason, a stick does match a stick, a hole does not match a hole.
Debate Round No. 1
ZombieLuver99

Pro

Yes but, it's like I told my teacher. It's fine to be gay or a lesbian if you want and it's no ones right to tell you how to live your life. If god didn't want gays and lesbians in this world he wouldn't let this become a thing. Like I'm bisexual and so I don't care if your a person who likes old men, old women, women, guys, or whatever. It should stay legal. AND THAT'S FINAL!
Skrone

Con

Firstly, in a debate that has another round, it is poor tact to say 'THAT'S FINAL' because obviously it is not. Secondly if we are bringing religion and god into this, thus is my next argument. God gave us free will, the ability to choose between good and evil. Saying God wants gays/lesbians because he made them is like saying he wants murderers/rapists because he made them too.
Debate Round No. 2
ZombieLuver99

Pro

1. It is no one else's business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to Publicly celebrate their commitment
and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples.
2. There is no such thing as traditional marriage. 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.
3. Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974"s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was " Unconstitutional under both the due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

4.Denying same-sex couples the right to marry as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.

5. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programsThe Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring over three years.
6. Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US,10,000 are waiting to be adopted. A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer problems.
6. Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them KB) that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support."
7. Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights 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. An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New 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.
8. The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association found that more than a century of research has shown "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." R32;
9. Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. 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. Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages only because the state has given them that authority.
10. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values." A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions, divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock.
11. Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.
12. If marriage is about reproduction, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. George Washington, often referred to as "the Father of Our Country," did not have children with his wife Martha Custis, and neither did four other married US presidents.
13. Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," [60] and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time."
Skrone

Con

Damn you stepped up your debate. Also I don't care enough about the topic to read it all because I am a straight man :) Vote for him
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Emmal26054 4 years ago
Emmal26054
yes it should be legalized. nuff said.
Posted by AnonyFeline 4 years ago
AnonyFeline
The semantics between "marriage" and "civil union" is important, but not as important as the benefits of the resultant "pairing". These benefits include emotional companionship, economic discounts, tax breaks, death/inheritance decisions, and finally religious benefits. No one should be denied the right to choose their life companion, husband, or wife. This would segregate anyone considered an "outsider" or not falling within the "norm" from being counted as a true equal citizen. We must all be afforded the ability to lessen our economic and tax burdens, as well as choose whom to leave responsible for us in sickness, and what we leave behind in the event of our passing (remains and property). The society would not be equal if it would allow any particular or group any more or less of these (civil) benefits. The only caveats are the those associated with religion. In the United States, "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another." --Justice Hugo Black (1947) Using this concept as a model for the aforementioned "society", and using "paring" to replace "marriage" and/or "civil union", it is clear that all individuals within the society must have access to all the above benefits, but the society cannot REQUIRE any church or religion to accept all of these individuals into their fold. If one were to establish the (hypothetical) First Church of Same Sex, that required all "paired" members to be of the same gender, then that church/religion must have the same status within the state as any other. The important thing is that any "pairing" or "coupling" must be available to all citizens of a truly equal society.
Posted by AnonyFeline 4 years ago
AnonyFeline
The definition of "marriage" is the keystone to this argument. Marriage is the the religious and/or civil union between two individuals, and should be a civil right extended to all human beings. Period. People have a number of channels in which to create a civil union of marriage (justice of the peace, ships' captains, etc.) but limited means of establishing religious unions of marriage (Christian Church, LDS Church, Catholic Church, etc). In the U.S., the first amendment mandates the separation of Church and State, which limits the overlap of the term marriage between them. Here is where semantics become paramount. Is it a marriage? a civil union? or both? If we define civil unions to be valid within the scope of the State, then we must not infringe that ability to any individual. None. We are all a part of the Society and hence each have an equal voice within that society that should neither be amplified nor muted based on our choice of partnerships and/or companionships. Civil unions are not official within any religious entity unless that entity deems it to be valid, nor is the State permitted to control the entity's acceptance or denial of any union (see first amendment). Marriage then becomes a question of a label: 1) Is marriage a church union that is also becomes a civil union? or 2) is marriage a civil union that can be validated within a particular religious institution? or 3) is marriage only a civil union without the interference of any religious entity (which is also protected by the first amendment)? So the choice becomes how we define the institution of marriage. Civil unions are open to all, just as any civil right and a church need not accept all civil unions, which is their institutional (civil) right. That being said, people should have the freedom to choose which institutions under which they wish to validate their unions. (QED?)
Posted by jonwontonb 4 years ago
jonwontonb
First amendment. All I have to say
Posted by Athill1 4 years ago
Athill1
5. Is my favorite argument because it is very hard to counter.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Pro plagiarized
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Pro had a decent first round. Thin, but relevant.

In the second round, Pro forgot to argue, just made off-topic comments. And he failed to refute Con's case. So, even though I agree with Pro, at the end of round two I expected to vote Con.

Round three didn't change that, because Pro brought up new arguments in the final round. Those have to be ignored by the voters. So, after round three, I still intended to vote Con. Really, Pro should have round three as his first round.

Except that it seems to be plagiarism. Plagiarism is a full forfeit: all seven points go to Con regardless of whether Pro was otherwise winning or losing.
Posted by Walrus101 4 years ago
Walrus101
Completely stupid on con's side. They only get the points because of pro's plagiarism.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by handywandy 4 years ago
handywandy
ZombieLuver99SkroneTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: h
Vote Placed by drhead 4 years ago
drhead
ZombieLuver99SkroneTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
ZombieLuver99SkroneTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 4 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
ZombieLuver99SkroneTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Vote Bomb(s). Also, Plagiarism.
Vote Placed by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
ZombieLuver99SkroneTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro reintroduced arguments and plagiarized entire argument.
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
ZombieLuver99SkroneTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I Bellevue that Pro made a good argument but Skrone was much nicer. and CVB to loveu.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
ZombieLuver99SkroneTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: counter walrus 101 for conduct and arguments, giving spelling and sources to pro, spelling because I want to vote as well on this debate due to forfeit, and sources because he actually used some in his arguments, and he did note where he got the info from (APA for example)
Vote Placed by loveu157 4 years ago
loveu157
ZombieLuver99SkroneTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: lol wut con didn't do anything so i votebomb pro
Vote Placed by Walrus101 4 years ago
Walrus101
ZombieLuver99SkroneTied
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: Please do not plagiarize, Zombieluver99. I googled some of your posts and found the website you copy pasted from. The last thing that this site need are more people who can't come up with their own points.