Debate Rounds (4)
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 :)
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.
---> 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.  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.
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.  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.  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.
 William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
 Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 73 n.8 (Haw. 1993)
---> If you wanna access source  go here:
JKL forfeited this round.
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.
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?
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.
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." 
Gays cannot procreate and fulfill states interests, that's why there should be no SSM.
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
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that the government's intrest in marriage is procreation. Pro forfeited, leaving unanswered arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.