The Instigator
NPerez
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Gay Marriage

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: 3/21/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 759 times Debate No: 22196
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

NPerez

Pro

No matter where one lives, one should be able to marry the same gender.
16kadams

Con

P1: Procreation

Heterosexual marriage laws the ground work for a relationship that creates and raises children. (sperm + egg). Now, the goverment gives many benefits economically, tax wise, etc to married couples. [2] The reason they only give them to traditional couples is because of their ability to procreate. Having children is the only way to continue society and advance our culture and race. As the heterosexual couples are the only people who can advance society in this way, and well pay back the benefits they get through marriage, then they deserve a state recognition. The goverment makes laws based of of interests, and their interest in this case is procreation. Therefore allowing gay marriage would be unjust as it debars the special recognition the heterosexual couples deserve.

P2: Is marriage about love?

People who are pro gay marriage usually have the claims that marriage is about love, but this is far from true. If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved? They are involved due to some sort of interest. If the goverment cared about love, then they would attempt to regulate and control friendships or non marital relationships. The reason they regulate marriage over these other relationships is because marriage is where you are meant to produce a larger workforce.

The reason they do not regulate other relationships is because they have no good reason to do so, at all. The goverment in marriage needs two things: 1) legal commitment, 2) procreation and the ability to raise a child. A boyfriend girlfriend relationship may produce offspring in the process, but as they are not legally binding situation it is easier for them to break apart, and they will not be able to raise the child. A homosexual relationship will be lacking the legal bind, and the ability to produce offspring. Even if we did give them a legal bind, they would not be able to create children therefore not fulfilling the states interest fully.

P3: Infertile couples

One argument used against the procreation argument is the infertile argument. This objection is a misunderstood rebuttal, they do not understand the debate at point. The argument is not fully based of of the ability to reproduce, but rather a type of relationship in which procreation is possible to start off. It is not an argument fully based of of the argument they can make kids, but also an argument based of of the ability to have the similar effect, a procreative type union.

P4: Benefits

My opponent without a doubt will start to argue as marriage has benefits isn't it fair homosexuals receive them too? Any society, goverment, or institution that distinguishes marriage in a certain way will prohibit some types of marriage. A prohibition of SSM does not violate the equal protection clause as we must first have a definition of what marriage is. You cannot confirm that a SSM ban is unconstitutional unless we determine exactly what marriage is, and what it is for. [3] It is only unconstitutional if they are unjustly debarred the right. Ex: Is it unconstitutional if we debar a murderer from a gun? No. That is a just cause, and with my secular case against gay marriage I have proven they are justly debarred the right. By saying it is unconstitutional you are saying it discriminates without just cause, and that this group deserves the right. As murderers do not deserve a right to a gun, then it is constitutional. In the states eyes homosexual couples cannot produce offspring therefore do not fulfill states interest, and do not deserve the right. Just because something may have inherent good effects does not mean they deserve the legal benefits. The challenge to my opponent, and the argument he needs to press is: What are the states interest in giving these couples rights? If the State has no reason to give you benefits then why should they? Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits. I urge a Con vote.

sources:



Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" [3]
Debate Round No. 1
NPerez

Pro

People should have the right to marry who they want to. Gay couples share the same love as heterosexual couples. Nothing should be able to put a hold on their ability to get married. Many gay couples adopt children to raise as their own. Many kids are put up for adoption and since gay couples can't reproduce they're own, they adopt children who don't have caregivers of their own. This is advantageous because these kids are put into homes with people who will love and care for them. I have heard many stories of kids who have same-sex parents. One wouldn't even be able to tell that they had parents of the same sex; they aren't raised any different.
If the couple lives together, maintain a household and raise children just as a heterosexual couple does, why can't they get married just like this couple. The only difference in this situation is solely that one person is not the opposite sex. Considering that there is not much to differentiate of the two couples, why treat them differently and give more rights and benefits to only one. The outcome of both marriages would have a minimal difference. They are both in it for the same reasons.
Being married is a significant desire for some. If a person wants to get married to another, they should not be denied for whatever reason. The government may not view marriage as a ceremony to join two people that are in love; however, that does not change the way people view it. Just because the government gets involved for certain reasons that doesn't prove anything about how the people view it. Many people view marriage as a beautiful ceremony that they will cherish for the rest of they're lives. They deserve the right to share this union just as much as others do.
16kadams

Con

Rc1: Love, kids, and adoption

I already refuted the premise about love, and kids as homosexuals cannot have them.Adoption must matter only if it is linked to marriage. My opponent must link it to marriage to make it apply to marriage.I will refute the adoption part, as homosexuals are not the same as heterosexual ones.

--> Promiscuity

Gays have on average 8 partners per year a study says. Another study says they have 500 sexual partners in their whole lifetime! [1, 2] (these studies are from areas where SSM is allowed) Gay culture promotes these actions, unlike heterosexual monogamy. [3] This is bad for the children as they are exposed to a lot more sexual stuff at younger ages. [3]

--> How long relationships last

Graph:


vs


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

This is bad for the hcildren as they would see divorces and, well, have to move very often. I have proven gays are different from homosexuals. VOTE CON. He has not refuted my procreation argument.








[1] Xiridou, 1031.
[2] Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research
[3] Ryan Lee, "Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows," Washington Blade
[4] Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States,"
Debate Round No. 2
NPerez

Pro

NPerez forfeited this round.
16kadams

Con

I urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
I am really curious why people like this are even on this site. Why do they go through the process of making an account when they're not even interested in arguing anything?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
She's just gonna FF the entire debate, so don't bother.
Actually, go ahead and do it xD
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Semantics...Should I?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
NPerez16kadamsTied
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: Easy vote is easy.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
NPerez16kadamsTied
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: Pro forfeited and left Con's arguments unanswered. con's comparison of marraige length to current relationship length is bogus, because "current relationship" includes dating -- but Pro didn't attempt to refute it. Pro loses conduct for forfeit.