The Instigator
riahx124
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 7 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,552 times Debate No: 25121
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (7)

 

riahx124

Pro

I really just needed to shove my opinion out there. What is the problem with gay marriage? Don't tell me the bible says no. The bible has nothing to do with what any man or woman should be allowed to do in their homes. The bible doesn't mean anything to non Christians., and not every American is Christian in the united states. We are not supposed to be based on one religion, so why does the bible have so much control? It shouldn't. So when someone says, the bible says marriage is between a man and woman, I just want to scream. I'm not Christian, the bible doesn't mean anything to me! So why should one dumb book be allowed to control so many people's lives? We don' t outlaw pork just because Jewish people don't eat it, do we? No no no. We are a free country. The bible isn't supposed to be allowed to control us, especially the non Christians, and the Christians that do believe homosexual people should be allowed to marry. Marriage is between two people who love each other. Whether it be a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage. Civil unions should definitely be in place as well. If two people are together their whole lives, and one of them dies, they certainly have the right to take what's rightfully theirs. I see no problem with gay marriage, and I'm not gay. I think the problem may be the older "traditional" generations. Well, what's traditional to them, isn't so much as what traditional is today.. Times change, and I believe it's time for the older generations to shut up, and let us younger people take control, because everything is indeed changing, and their holding us back from what is getting closer to the way things should be. On to my opponent.
1Historygenius

Con

Introduction

I thank my opponent for a very interesting debate. Because he is new here I will go easy on him.

Point 1: Homosexuals do Not Benefit Society

Yes, we all know that the Bible does not exactly run the country. There is a separation of church in state. However, that is not the argument here. The argument is if homosexuality should be legal, not if it is immoral. Keep in mind that the government chooses who and who should not be married. It actually makes sense for homosexuals not to be married and here is why. Heterosexual marriages have a special priviledge. This priveledge is that they can benefit society by producing more people to keep society running. In the government's eyes, marriage is about benefiting society by procreation and and the production of offsring. [1,2,3,4]

Point 2: Homosexuals are Not Good Parents

It is a fact that homosexuals do not tend to be good parents. They usually have more uneeded sexual content while their adopted child or children would be present. Furthermore, homosexuals tend to divorce more often. This can be seen through the two graphs I have provided. [5]

Heterosexual Marriage Graph

What this graph shows is the percentage of heterosexual marriages that have remained intact for many years. As we can see, typically heterosexual marriages do remain intact. This makes them generally good parents.

What this shows is that most heteroseuxal marriages have remained intact over many years. This means that they are generally good models for children. [5]

Homosexual Marriage Graph



This graph shows that a large amount of gay marriages never can remain intact over years. In fact, many barely make it to the 8 to 11 years mark. Would you say a divorce is a good influence for children? I don't. [5]

Conclusion

Homosexuals simply do not benefit society and should not be allowed to get married. They are also a bad influence for children.

Sources

1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
2. "PROTECTING AMERICA'S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
3. "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
4. "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
5. http://www.frc.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
riahx124

Pro

First off: I am female, thank you.


One: Does a marriage have to benefit society? I see no law, no rule that says: Marriage must benefit society. If marriage is just for procreation, then what happens if a male or female in the relationship is infertile? Does that mean they're not benefiting society either? Should they not be allowed to marry? What if a couple doesn't want to have children? Should they be factored out as well? Marriage isn't just simply for procreation. That is the definition of marriage according to the bible. Again, the bible does not rule the country. The true definition of a marriage is this :
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


No where does it say that procreation is a factor. That's the bibles definition.


Two: Gay marriage doesn't have to involve children. This isn't even part of the arguement, but i will state my opinion on this, too. Gay parents are no different from heterosexual parents. I have seen many terrible heterosexual parents that shouldn't be allowed to have children. First off, If two people that love each other decide that they would like to adopt a child (Gay or straight), any adoption agency isn't just going to give away children to people who cannot handle it. Adoption parents are almost always beautifully fit to be parents. Especially gay parents who want that baby so much. Imagine how many kids there are without homes. Gay people take them from the sheltersand bring them into a warm, loving envirnment. I think that definitely is a benefit. They take the unwanted children, and make them feel wanted. Second, there are so many terrible straight parents out there that shouldn't be parents, but are. So don't limit bad parenting to gays. Last, it's not up to 50% of all marriages are likely to end up in divorce, gay or not. Again, this isn't a matter of gay or not gay, this is a matter of bad coupling. You cannot limit that to gays. Many children go through a divorce. I wouldn't say it's a good influence. But, it isn't just the gays, its everyone. Maybe if gay marriage wasn't so rough for the gay population because of people like you, then maybe they wouldn't have that stress and wouldn't divorce. Imagine everyone attacking you for your lifestyle, wouldn't that put stress on you and make you want to give it up?

Conclusion: Marriage doesn't need to benefit society in any shape or form. Procreation is not a factor of marriage that is needed, we are not all following the bible here. Gay parents are definitely a benefit to taking in children who do not have what they need, and should have.


Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...
1Historygenius

Con

I do apologize for calling you a male. I had not read your profile.

"One: Does a marriage have to benefit society? I see no law, no rule that says: Marriage must benefit society."

This is because there are no laws about marriage. The federal government does not need to be involved in marriage and state governments should not have to interfere in it either. That is why they simply keep homosexuality illegal and way interfere with marriage and change laws.

"If marriage is just for procreation, then what happens if a male or female in the relationship is infertile? Does that mean they're not benefiting society either? Should they not be allowed to marry? What if a couple doesn't want to have children? Should they be factored out as well?"

Heterosexual marriages in which no children are present still will likely practice safe sex measures. That would mean that are still forming procreative type unions and are benefitting state interests. What the government wants is a climate for procreation and procreative unions so not procreative effect. If gay marriage cannot fulfill procreative type unions then the government has not reason to legalize it. My opponent has not provided the government's look on marriage while I have. I have provided a source proving that it is the government's job is to make laws that benefit society and heterosexuality does. Homosexuality does not. [1]

"Gay people take them from the sheltersand bring them into a warm, loving envirnment."

My opponent's basic argument here is that homosexuals do want children and love bringing them into a caring environment. This is almost entirely false. The amount of kids that are adopted by gay parents is extremely low. Here is the graph.

This graph shows the population of homosexuals according to the 2000 U.S. Census. As we can see, a small amount of homosexuals live in their partners households. An even smaller amount adopts children. So it irrelevant to say that a large amount does.

Most homosexuals simply do not have an urge to become parents. Very few have children. In fact, very few even live with their partners. My opponent then talks about bad heterosexual parents, but in fact that is entirely irrelevant to his debate as it is about legalizing gay marriage. As I said, gay marriages rarely remain intact past 11 years. My opponent argued that you cannot rule heterosexuals. Again, I say I can because we are not debating the legalization of straight marriage. Then my opponent accuses me and people against gay marriage of the reason gays have so many divorces, but in fact this is rather false. Most divorces occur due to what is happening in a relationship. Its not about if people hate you, its about the person you are in a relationship with. If you don't like your relationship with your partner, then you get a divorce and this is typical among homosexual marriages while it is not as much with heterosexual marriages. My opponent has provided no proof that the reason gays divorce is to give up and because people are attacking them.

Conclusion

Marriages do benefit society by production of new children into society. Procreation is a factor in marriage because the government sees it as a benefit to society. Gay parents rarely take in new children and give them homes. They also are bad role models for numberous divorces and sexual tension while children are present.

Voting:
Conduct: Equal
Grammar: Equal
Arguments: Con
Sources: Con

Sources

1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
2. http://www.frc.org...
Debate Round No. 2
riahx124

Pro

Why must it benefit society? Society does nothing but cause problems for gays, and such other groups of people. The reason Gay marriage isn't allowed is because of society. It shouldn't be anyone's business but that couple's, whether or not they get married. It should be a choice. We shouldn't be able to limit it, at all. Just as we shouldn't ever be able to keep blacks out of restaurants that white people are in. It's the same thing. Gay marriage protests are going to be in the history books just like segregation was. Equal rights for men and women. It's against the constitution to attack one group of people, and not allow them to have the same rights as anyone else. The only reason it is not allowed, is because it is against the bible. But using the bible as the rulebook is also unconstitutional. What is it to you if a man and man, or woman and woman want to get married? They aren't marrying you, are they? What they want to do in their bedroom is their thing. They should atleast be able to have the rights to each other if something happens to the other one. If a couple that has been together for, let's say, 60 years. A gay couple, that is. And, one of them dies, and they weren't allowed to get married. Let's say the house, the car, and others were in their partners name, and so there fore, they aren't entitled to what is rightfully theirs. It's wrong.
1Historygenius

Con

Why Homosexuality Must Benefit Society

To respond to my opponent, the reason homosexuality must benefit society is because its government's job to make laws that do. Homosexuality does not benefit society. Government only sees marriage as a procreation and financial partership. Without heterosexual couples, there would not be a society.

"Just as we shouldn't ever be able to keep blacks out of restaurants that white people are in. It's the same thing. Gay marriage protests are going to be in the history books just like segregation was."

This is irrelevant to a debate about gay marriage.

"It's against the constitution to attack one group of people, and not allow them to have the same rights as anyone else."

Because there is no ammendment exactly about gay marriage and wether it should be decided by the state or the federal government, its not constitutional because there is no full information on who decides it. Marriage is also not a right. There is no law that legalizes heterosexual marriages.

"The only reason it is not allowed, is because it is against the bible. But using the bible as the rulebook is also unconstitutional"

My oppponent brings no sources to back him up. So we don't know if this is true. Also, the Constitution is the rulebook. We listen to the Constitution and what is says, but it gives no explanation on who decides gay marriage and if heterosexual marriages should be legal. So governments have the freedom to legalize and outlaw marriage.

"If a couple that has been together for, let's say, 60 years. A gay couple, that is. And, one of them dies, and they weren't allowed to get married. Let's say the house, the car, and others were in their partners name, and so there fore, they aren't entitled to what is rightfully theirs. It's wrong."

Not its not. Its likely that the owner would put everything he owns in his will and then it would go to his partner.

I am actually a little confused with my opponent as he seems to be making no sense.

However, here is the conclusion.

Conclusion

I have proven that homosexuality does not benefit society because in the government's eyes it does not. I have proven homosexuals are bad parents. I have proven that there are no laws about marriage. I win the debate.

Conduct: Tie
Spelling and Grammar: Tie
Arguments: Con
Sources: Con
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ronnie21 4 years ago
Ronnie21
Have they taken into consideration that the inability to be legally married is a prevention and in a way "dismotivation" for gay couples to be happy in the relationship? If the relationship can't lead to marriage, not by choice, then why continue to engage in the relationship?
Posted by Aaronroy 4 years ago
Aaronroy
@Eiki

Mark Regnerus is an evangelical Christian sociologists. Of course he is going to be biased in his works.
Posted by Aaronroy 4 years ago
Aaronroy
@16kadams

Who honestly cares about SSM in the Netherlands? Their culture is entirely different; the value of marriage and divorce rates are not going to correlate with American marriage. In the 4 states in which SSM is legal in the US, SSMs have lower divorce rates than heterosexual marriages. Pro should have jumped on this.

but I digress

I find that divorce rates are an extremely bad value to formulate an argument on, by the way. It doesn't logically follow to prohibit one from entering a legal contract just because their is a possibility of it ending. By those methods of argumentation, marriage should be outright prohibited in totality.
Posted by Eiki 4 years ago
Eiki
Sure, the studies use random sampling and is overall quite thorough. But they simply prove that being raised in a stable family is better than being raised by a parent who had several sporadic relationships. It doesn't show any strong evidence that the problem is that the parents are gay. You could just as easily attribute the results to the horrific treatment, discrimination and harassment that homosexuals face daily.

Also, Mark Regnerus seems quite obviously biased to me, and also many others.

http://chronicle.com...

http://www.motherjones.com...
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I personally have read the studies and they use random sampling.

I agree they should look into marriage differences. Here is the catch: BOTH OF THESE STUDIES ARE THE BEST ON THE ISSUE, PRO GAY RESEARCH IS MORE FLAWED.

Meaning no strong conclusions based on the current evidence can be made.
Posted by Eiki 4 years ago
Eiki
I really disagree that those studies were done fairly. They compared children coming from "an intact biological family" with children of a parent who at some point had a same-sex relationship. These are far from even terms. It is quite obvious that it is better for the child that it doesn't have to experience divorce and break-ups. And that is what these studies show. They show that the people whose parents had a stable, lasting relationship ended up better than those who had not. For it to be a fair comparison, they would have to examine the differences between a stable same-sex relationship and a similar heterosexual one. In fact, the best thing might be to examine the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual marriage. Thanks for the link btw :)
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Here is a summary too them: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

And courts look little into the studies quality rather if they exist. And the lawyers likely have done little research on the topic.
Posted by Eiki 4 years ago
Eiki
I would very much like to see those studies, considering how contradictory they must be to this statement:

the Third District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise, and concluded that the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.[10]
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
@Eiki

That wikipedia cites the research for sure, though there is also many studies showing research before the year 2004 is all flawed. And the two newest studies (June 2012) have opposite results to that wikipedia article.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
@Aaron

His source indicates (the graph is bad) later studies in the Netherlands where SSM is legal similar results.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
riahx1241HistorygeniusTied
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 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: Arguments were generally quite poor by PRO, and needed a little more structure. There's not much else to say, really.
Vote Placed by AznWords 4 years ago
AznWords
riahx1241HistorygeniusTied
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 was used very colloquial and emotional language while Con was much more formal. Few grammar mistakes on both sides but I noticed a larger number and more grievous errors on Pro's side. Con's argument stood near the end with his arguments for most part sidetracked in Pro's response than actually directly addressed. Pro had no sources to back claims.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
riahx1241HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons R2 was plagiarized from one of my old debates, however he cited me regardless so he gets points.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
riahx1241HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Haha, I hate it when the person who takes your side doesn't do a good job :P
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
riahx1241HistorygeniusTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con easily had better arguments, sources, and spelling/grammar. Conduct to Pro because I hate those voting rubric thingies. Con easily showed that there is no need for gay marriage because it doesn't benefit society, and near the end Pro seemed to pretty much give up.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
riahx1241HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave actual statistics while Pro just seemed to rant.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
riahx1241HistorygeniusTied
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: Pro basically gave up, and displayed a lack of effort. Con induced plenty of stats and research to back up his claims.