The Instigator
rubybook
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Gay Marriage

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 1 vote the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 21999
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

rubybook

Pro

I believe that there is no good reason for gay marriage to be illegal.
The only reason it IS illegal in some states is religious reasons, and separation of church and state and freedom of religion are in the Constitution.

Another common argument is health risks- well, turns out there aren't many. Anyone who has anal sex, homo or hetero, have the same risks to AIDS and other STDS. What, do you want to ban anal sex for everyone? Do you want to ban sneezing in public or not washing your hands? Everyone knows their own risks and the government has no right to control people's sexual or health decisions if they don't hurt anyone else.

The only other reason I've heard has been "Kids need a mom and a dad, and if gay couples marry, they'll adopt". Well, gay parents tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents. And with gay marriage being legalized everywhere and more gays adopting, more children ill have homes. This leads to more commitment and involvement. Also, the children tend to be more open-minded and nurturing.
Here is an article about that by Livescience: http://www.livescience.com...
16kadams

Con

~refutations~

"I believe that there is no good reason for gay marriage to be illegal."

I will provide reasons later.

"The only reason it IS illegal in some states is religious reasons, and separation of church and state and freedom of religion are in the Constitution."

That's not the reason. I will provide other reasons later.

"Another common argument is health risks- well, turns out there aren't many. Anyone who has anal sex, homo or hetero, have the same risks to AIDS and other STDS."

That's not a good reason I agree. But it is a fact that homosexuals are more likely to get STD's through intercourse. 75% of AIDS cases occur in homosexual couples. [1] That means the aids rates among homosexuals are 50 times higher. [2] The rates of homosexuals with AIDS is increasing. [3] Gays have me partners then heterosexual couples, hence raising their aids risk. [4]

This isn't a reason to ban it, but I had to disprove your last snid bit.

"Well, gay parents tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents. "

Heterosexual marriages last longer and are actually more stable. [5] It makes better fathers as they are actually HIS children, and the mothers are better too for the same reason. [5] Kids tend to do better with mothers and fathers. [5] These marriages tend to create long lasting and good marriages that homosexual marriage seldom does. [5]

~Against Same Sex Marriage~

Marriage in the governments eyes is an institution about procreation and child rearing. [6] 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. [6, 5] 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 goverment wants two couples of heterosexual sexual preferences to create biological children to propagate society in the correct way. [8] 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. [6] 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] http://www.cdc.gov...
[2] http://www.lifesitenews.com...
[3] "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men--San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report
[4] A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women
[5] "PROTECTING AMERICA’S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
[6] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
[7] "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
[8] "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
Debate Round No. 1
rubybook

Pro

"homosexuals are more likely to get STD's through intercourse"
That is because homosexuals are more likely to have anal sex, and has nothing to do with them simply being homosexuals. And I agree... that is not a valid reason to ban it.

"It makes better fathers as they are actually HIS children"
Does that mean marriages between sterile people should be illegal, because they can only have adopted children? What does this have to do with gay marriage?

"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."
Homosexual couples can contribute to society by giving homes to children up for adoption. And, by your logic, heterosexual couples that can not have children, for whatever reason, should not be able to be married because they can not "contribute to society".
Also, the planet is obviously grossly overpopulated, and I believe that very few people would consider making babies to be a service to society. Plus, homosexual marriages will not decrease the current amount of heterosexual marriages, so unless marriage is looked at as some sort of prize for being heterosexual, it makes no sense to say that homosexuals do not "deserve the privilege". Morality varies from person to person and one group's opinions should not decide who is deserving or good or bad.
And isn't it inhumane to say that a person does not "deserve" to do something because of something they have no control over? What is the difference between sexual orientation and race on this subject?
16kadams

Con

"That is because homosexuals are more likely to have anal sex, and has nothing to do with them simply being homosexuals. And I agree... that is not a valid reason to ban it."

Anal sex has nothing to do with it, any type of sex can spread the STD. [1] And as I stated HOMOSEXUALS are MORE likely to get aids, 44 times more likely. [2]

Also all of your case is a refutation to things that I never said, hence your case is invalid.

"Does that mean marriages between sterile people should be illegal, because they can only have adopted children? What does this have to do with gay marriage?"

You didn't even refute what you quoted. Anyway.

My opponent tries to pull the sterile couple refutation, which isn't a good one. Firstly it is a misenterpretetion. The argument is the goverment want's procreative type relationships to enter these unions to enter the marital buisness. [3]

"this objection confuses between acts that are reproductive in type and acts that are reproductive in effect." [3]

Adoption next.

"Homosexual couples can contribute to society by giving homes to children up for adoption. And, by your logic, heterosexual couples that can not have children, for whatever reason, should not be able to be married because they can not "contribute to society".

As I have stated the states interest is not in adoption rather making biological children to further society. Adoption just moves the childen, heterosexual couples actually increase the population and propagate society. [4] Homosexuals cannot propagate society in this way, therefore the BOP is on pro to find reasons the state should legalize it. [4]

I already refuted infertile couples, but I will do it in a different way. These elderly infertile couples are rare, and are not worth changing a law over. [4] Overall heterosexual couples can still procreate and further society. [4]

Whichver refutation works for you, I had 2 versions. :P

"Also, the planet is obviously grossly overpopulated"

That is false. The majority of the world is vacant. [5] And you could fit the whole worlds populaiton in the state of oregeon comfortably. [5] Further more africa has anough reasources to feed the whole world, but their wars and such are stoping this production. [5] And populaiton will even decline. [5] This argument is false.


"very few people would consider making babies to be a service to society."

I actually disagree, if we where to stop creating babies society wouldn't exist.


"Plus, homosexual marriages will not decrease the current amount of heterosexual marriages, so unless marriage is looked at as some sort of prize for being heterosexual"

No, it will not decrease the number of homosexual marriage, but it will change heterosexual procreative behavior and contribute to a loss in population. [6]


"it makes no sense to say that homosexuals do not "deserve the privilege".

Your claiming if there is no reason to we should still do it. Let me give an analogy, it would benfit people if we all paid no taxes, but the govenment will never do that. Why? Because it is not in their interests to do such a thing. As I have proven it is not a state interest to allow SSM, therefore it should not.

"Morality varies from person to person and one group's opinions should not decide who is deserving or good or bad."

We're not arguing morality.

"And isn't it inhumane to say that a person does not "deserve" to do something because of something they have no control over?"

This contradicts with your last statement. If morality is subjective then to me this may be false. Also it is not immoral. As I stated, if it is not in someones itnerest to do something then why do it?

"What is the difference between sexual orientation and race on this subject?"

"Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. " [4]

States interests = procreation, races procreate, therefore is should be allowed. Homosexuals cannot procreate therefore this comparison is false. VOTE CON





[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://tech.mit.edu...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
[6] "PROTECTING AMERICA’S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
Debate Round No. 2
rubybook

Pro

rubybook forfeited this round.
16kadams

Con

Extend arguments vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
she doesn't know what it means, and your mean to me so its ok :)
Posted by 000ike 4 years ago
000ike
Then you're just being rude to a new member that's done nothing to you.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
@Ike

Then this is a noob snipe.
Posted by 000ike 4 years ago
000ike
You moron,...it's not a noob snipe unless the debate the newcomer poses is an obvious win for the contender.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
it was a noob snipe
Posted by rubybook 4 years ago
rubybook
What does that even mean? Do you actually have something to say?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
he he
Posted by rubybook 4 years ago
rubybook
@16kadams: What?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
n00b snipe
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
rubybook16kadamsTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: FF= Auto-Win, 1 point to pro for semi-effort.