The Instigator
JKL
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
3 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: 3/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 22278
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

JKL

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Main Argument
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Wrapping Up

Please do not use religion in this argument, and keep it to the point. Thanks :)
16kadams

Con

Definitions:

SSM (same sex marriage): Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identity. [recognized by law aka goverment]
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I accept this debate and await the response.
Debate Round No. 1
JKL

Pro

1. First of all, are you against homosexual relationships? If not, why not let SS couples take it a step further? Allowing it will not necessarily affect you in a bad way. Why not let them enjoy the benefits of marriage? However, if you are against SS relationships, why, and how do they affect you? Think about it.

2. Secondly, SS couples are not able to have children of their own, therefore they may adopt children. I have heard the excuse that every child deserves a home with a man and a women, but how truly different can it be? Also, adopting helps take care of the growing number number of disowned children in poverty or foster care.

3. There is no point in not allowing it. As long as SS relationships are legal, couples will still live together, maybe even adopt children. All that not allowing it is denying them the benefits of marriage.
16kadams

Con

=Refutations=

---> Relationships (1)

The basis of my opponents argument is if I am for them having a relationship we should allow them to have marriage. This, is not a good reason to allow it. Also marriage and a relationship is a totally different thing. Marriage is an institution recognized by law that confers economic benefits to ensue procreative type relationships, this will be more described in my argument.

Also the basis of the argument is does not hurt anyone is a red herring and does not necessarily matter. Just because something may not hurt someone is not a reason to allow something. This argument has no weight on how people create/regulate lows on things. The Hurt argument is a red herring.

---> Adoption (2)

This argument actually helps my case as I will use the secular case against SSM, homosexual couples cannot create children, this is correct. They cannot fulfill states interests then. Furthermore my opponent must find a link between SSM and adoption. What if SSM has detrimental effects on society therefore hurt the kids? Homosexuals are more prone to higher promiscuity rates (on average) then heterosexual people. [1] This may be detrimental to the children many ways. I am not saying homosexuals should not adopt, but I am asking on how does this influence this debate? And why is this a reason to allow SSM>

---> No reason to not allow it (3)

My opponents argument here is gays will still be able to have relationships together. As I have stated a relationship and marriage are not the same things. Marriage is a legal institution with the goverment involved, and a relationship is generally a societal relationship with no government involved.

=Against SSM=

Marriage, as stated in the early part of the debate, is a legal institution where the government confers many legal benefits and economic benefits unto married couples. [2] This hints the government has a reason to be inside the marriage business, and they are in it for their gain. So one must ask: what is he states interest in marriage? This is a good question that needs to be answered, and if the answer is something homosexuals cannot form then they should be excluded from the practice of marriage. And the interest is quite simple and easy to comprehend the logic behind it: Procreative type couples.

Now, why procreative type couples? The states interests are in creating a procreative type union to create a societal climate for procreation. [3] They want to encourage people to further the human race! This is a noble goal that has simple logic in the governments eyes. Creating a procreative type environment means more children get created. Now before one can assume this benefits the goevrment, one must ask if this helps society. Having more kids does positively impact society as unless we had these heterosexuals creating children, then society might not exist at all! Now, one must now ask does it benefit the government? If the answer is yes, then it is a legitament state interest. As it already benefits society we can end there as calling is legitament, but if it helps the government it is a big plus to my case. New babies means new souls to tax, and more consumers creating a healthy economy. And a healthy economy = more money to tax.

"In a dissent to the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s decision that marriage is a form of sex discrimination, Judge
Heen stated his belief that the purpose of the marriage law is “to promote and protect propagation.” [3, 4]

As this is the case, homosexuals cannot fulfill states interests and re pay the costly benefits of marriage the government gives. The state has no reason to allow SSM.





References:

[1] http://www.bpnews.net...
[2] http://www.nolo.com...
[3] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
[4] Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 73 n.8 (Haw. 1993)

---> If you wanna access source [3] go here:
http://www.avemarialaw.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
JKL

Pro

JKL forfeited this round.
16kadams

Con

I can wait until next round. Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
JKL

Pro

Due to time shortage, I will post a shorter response. First of all, my opponent did not follow the structure of the debate (refutations were posted in round 2, instead of round 3). That in itself is a worth a penalty in voting, take note of that.


I noticed that my opponent mainly (tried to) invalidate my points about allowing it rather that providing any real reasons against it. I would like to hear actual reasons AGAINST it to understand your argument.

Refutations Refuted:

1.
It seems to me that you are beating around the bush. Why is that not a good reason to allow it? And what is your reason NOT to allow it?

2. "What if SSM has detrimental effects on society therefore hurt the kids?" What if? Does it? I have met perfectly happy children adopted into homosexual as well as heterosexual homes, as well as unstable, unhappy children from both. However, there is no proof that instability of children is more common in homosexual households.

3. Why not let the government be involved? Why not let it be legal?
16kadams

Con

As I have already refuted his arguments, I will defend mine.

D1: Procreation

extend arguments
___

As it would be kinda unfair if I refuted his arguments once again, I will let them stand (well not really stand as they where debunked). I will only refute point 1 as this is the only argument he posted that is needed for refutation. Point 2 was personal views, but I provided statistics with my point, so I still win #2. #3 is not relevant as we are debating marriage not relationships, and I already refuted this 2 rounds ago.

#1

My opponent still is pushing the reasons not to allow it. I have already presented this: Procreation.

"Marriage, meaning the institution regulating sex, reproduction, and family life, is a route into classical philosophical issues such as the good and the scope of individual choice, as well as itself raising distinctive philosophical questions." [1]

Gays cannot procreate and fulfill states interests, that's why there should be no SSM.

Conclusion:

His other 2 points where refuted and #3 is a red herring.

Conduct - tied, he FF'd I refuted too early
S/G - You decide
Arguments - His arguments where refuted, he dropped the secular case against SSM. CON.
Sources - Me, I had them. CON

VOTE CON

______________________________________
[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by PolitcsMaster 4 years ago
PolitcsMaster
This will be fun to watch how Adams wins.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
:(

nac
Posted by JKL 4 years ago
JKL
@16kadams...
2nd round is main argument, 3rd round is rebuttals.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
that's not a rule ;)

I will be shortesqe... hopefully.
Posted by JKL 4 years ago
JKL
remember to keep it short adams :)
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
religion isn't a good argument anyway.
Posted by JKL 4 years ago
JKL
christianity gives anti-gay reasoning that may not be reasonable. as an atheist, none of those arguments will make sense to me.
Posted by dizyshao 4 years ago
dizyshao
Why is it that you ban religion from this debate? Just wondering...is it because you just want to argue a specific aspect of SSM?
And yes, you do need a new interest. I search this topic out of boredom and you're in most of the debates I saw...-_-....
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
jesus I need a new interest
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
JKL16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that the government's intrest in marriage is procreation. Pro forfeited, leaving unanswered arguments.