The Instigator
Nyx999
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
33 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 6 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,451 times Debate No: 31414
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

Nyx999

Pro

I am in support of gay marriage and I'm wondering if anyone will disagree with me. :)
16kadams

Con

I disgree. Proceed.
Debate Round No. 1
Nyx999

Pro

Ok, I believe that gay marriage is a completely rational thing to have, you shouldn't deny people their love in marriage just because of their sexual orientation. You can't control if you are gay or not, and it is unfair to be ridiculed for who you are. If we legalize gay marriage not only will people be allowed the freedom they deserve, but it will send a message to the world that being gay is okay, and the U.S.A. is a progressive country. We look back in time, and we are completely appaled that only a few decades ago, women couldn't vote and black people had to sit in the back of the bus. I think that gay marriage is like that, in a couple decades, we will look back in scorn at anybody who ever said that gay people marrying was a bad idea.
16kadams

Con


Introduction


The debate over gay marriage is essentially about what marriage is. Only when we understand what marriage is, and why the state regulates it in the first place, can we form proper opinions on the issue. Marriage is an institution, an institution which regulates human behavior to achieve certain goals. Institutions have a “purpose to achieving certain goals” and “successful societies create institutions that constrain private incentives.” Although containing private incentives often sounds like a bad things (indeed, some forms of regulations can have counter-intuitive effects) societies that have institutions creating “optimal rules” generally outperformed those without these rules [1].


So, the question is what marriage is, which is directly related to the institution, and in turn the health of society itself.


What is marriage?


The government is aware of what marriage is, and why it should support it. Marriage is an institution founded upon responsible procreation and child rearing [2]. As Ryan T. Anderson writes, “[m]arriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.”[3]


Indeed, it is a simple and straightforward argument. Only societies that reproduce, and raise children properly, survive. It is simply a fact children are only produced when men and women come together, and it is also common knowledge that children do best when raised by their mothers and fathers. The state has an interest in upholding these proven social structures to ensure the good of future society.


The procreation argument needn’t be explained further, if my opponent levies a response I will expand and respond when necessary.


The argument that may lead to conflict, however, is the idea that children need both mothers and fathers, especially since “no difference theory” (a theory which argues children raised by homosexuals are no different when compared to married heterosexuals) has become very popular amongst the current population. No difference theory, however, is based mostly on flawed data and studies focusing on large sample sizes that represent the overall population generally come to conclusions that no difference theory is false. An Amicus Brief, written for the current Prop. 8 and DOMA SCOTUS cases, a group of social scientists wrote, “there is no dispute that a biological mother and father provide, on average, an effective and proven environment for raising children. And it is reasonable to conclude that a mother and father function as a complementary parenting unit and that each tends to contribute something unique and beneficial to child development.” And they note before this statement, “[large studies find] significant differences in the outcomes of children raised by parents in a same-sex relationship and those raised by a married biological mother and father.”[4]


The fact children do worse when raised by homosexuals gives the government incentive to promote traditional marriage. The more children raised in heterosexual marriage, the better off society will be. The government understands redefining marriage changes societal norms which lead to spouses not following the norms of responsible procreation and child rearing, leading to a society which is not desirable. The only way to promote society, properly that is, is to oppose redefinition of marriage.



Rebuttals


It’s about love!


If this was the case, why not call two people living together a marriage? A girlfriend and a boyfriend? Why not? Because they do not enter in procreative-type unions which raise children in the best family structure. Outcomes of children in cohabiting homes generally are similar to those raised by single parents, not married couples [5]. Marriage is simply not about love, if this was true the state (nor society) would not attempt to regulate it to the “optimal rules”. Love is simply irrelevant.


It’s okay to be gay!


Gay marriage has no bearing on this subject. Telling society to not abuse homosexuals (which is just) and allow them to practice their activities would be just. However, marriage does not need to be given upon these people. There are actually many homosexuals that oppose same sex marriage, by the way. Opposing gay marriage =/= hatred of homosexuals.


We’re progressive


We progress in a way that is logical. Opposing interracial marriage is foolish because they meet the criteria of procreation and child rearing, unrelated to their skin. Homosexual orientation is directly related to these criteria, and therefore it is not logical to allow homosexual unions.


Scorn the anti-gays!


The fact your preaching future hatred towards people like me but telling me we need to be all loving is laughable. Further, although I think the populist argument is irrelevant, it does not seem as though gay marriage is inevitable, with almost ¼ of Americans undecided on gay marriage, and American voters (non-voters are less important in politics) have a 60% agreement rate with the statement “marriage is between a man and a woman”[6].





1. Douglass W. Allen. “An Economic Assessment of Same-Sex Marriage laws” Journal of Law and Public Policy, (2006).


2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2010).


3. http://www.heritage.org...


4. http://www.adfmedia.org...


5. Maggie Gallagher. “What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law.” Louisiana Law Review, (2002).


6. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Nyx999

Pro

True, marriage is an institution, but I still don't see why that institution can't apply to two males or two females. And although marriage was originally only about procreation and child-rearing (in the days of arranged marriages and women being married off against their will), it's not only about that anymore, since we as humans have evolved in our ways of thinking. Now, marriage is also about love, and it is also about the state recognizing the incredible bond between two two people. A lot of people are married without having children, and it's as much a marriage as any marriage between a couple with children.

Of course only societies that reproduce survive, but who's to say that a gay couple can't raise a child properly? It is evident that a lot of straight couples can't raise a child properly, and so I think that we are in no position to judge a person's child-rearing skills on their sexual orientation. Most gay couples are in fact better at raising children since they have the courage and the righteousness to stand up against public prejudice and live their life. I bet not many gay people will stand by while their husband or wife beats their child, since most openly gay people are obviously willing to risk harm to protect the ones that they love. There are no studies that show that children do best with a mother and a father as opposed to two mothers or two fathers, and I would like you to show me one. (Oh and it can't be one of those blogs by those people who were accusing Obama of being muslim while he first ran, those people are just ignorant and narrow-minded) And as for your Amicus Brief, it doesn't say that a gay couple provides a bad environment for raising children, they just said that the children from a gay couple and a straight couple are different. Of course, we don't know what kind of different. They could mean a good difference since children raised in a gay household are less likely to be exposed to ignorant and prejudiced parents. Or that the children are more willing to accept another child who is different since they have seen how the world scoffs at their own parents.

So in fact, you actually have no proof that children do worse when raised by homosexuals, and I ask you to present the information that says otherwise. Gay marriage is becoming popular everywhere, and most people estimate that we are on a fast track to a less biased world. Already many states in the U.S.A. allow gay marriage, and who's to say that the rest won't follow? The government recognizes that we are evolved and that gay marriage is a completely reasonable request.

Rebuttles to your rebuttles :)

Marriage isn't only about rearing children, there are PLENTY of couples that are married and don't have children. Two people living together CAN be a marriage, if they go to fill out the right paperwork. Marriage is the recognition of the state of the love. The love can already be there, but it isn't a marriage until they go through the process of marrying one another so that the state can see, why these people are married, they are probably in love.

Those who are gay who oppose gay marriage are ignorant, just like those who are straight who oppose gay marriage. I recognize that opposing gay marriage is not the same as a hatred of homosexuals, but I see that gay marriage is a sign. It isn't always about how gay people want to get married, it's actually mostly about how homosexuals deserve the same rights that heterosexuals. It's ridiculous that there is not gay marriage right now, because it suggests that homosexuals are sub-human and are not deserving of the holy sacrimony of marriage. Gay marriage is as much about symbolism as it is about financial perks and a better chance of raising children perks. By the way, a couple who is married is WAY more likely to be able to adopt a child than a couple who isn't, and so if a gay couple wants to have a child, they may not get a child until they are allowed to get married.

I already refuted your third rebuttal (If you haven't noticed, I'm lining up my paragraphs with yours for the sake of organization) :)

I'm not preaching future hatred towards you. I scorn the stupid not the ignorant, there's a difference. I pity the ignorant. I believe all who oppose gay marriage are ignorant because they just can't see the good in it as much as I can. It's like you're colourblind, and you can't see the most obvious things... but it's not your fault, you are just too set in your ways to ever change your mind, and that's okay. Oh and could I please have the sources for your numbers that 1/4 of Americans are undecided and 60% agree that marriage is between a man and a woman? I know you included sources in the bottom, but I don't know where the numbers fit in, and in the future could you please put the sources right next to your numbers? Thank you. :)

By the way, I will give you a source whenever you ask for one, just as I expect you to do with me. So... ask me for sources because you're not drilling me nearly as much as I feel I need to be drilled! :) I'm also sorry it took me two days to respond, I was on, and still am on, vacation. :)
16kadams

Con


1. Defense


My opponent’s most potent rebuttal is laughable. He merely states our views of marriage can change, and therefore the conjugal view of marriage is obsolete. This viewpoint is called the constructivist viewpoint. The viewpoint is that marriage has no objective purpose, which is only dictated by social views, and therefore the argument is unsound. So let’s assume this is true. First, the child rearing argument cannot become outdated because the rights of children should always be imperative in a policy debate. So even assuming the state has no interest in marriage, or what marriage is, the state would then have an interest (still) in helping the next generation flourish. The fact child-rearing is always relevant should be considered. Even still, the procreative-type unions is inherently valuable because in that marriage, and only that marriage, can procreation which binds the mind, body, and soul be accomplished [1]. If anything, the “outdated” or “it was made too long ago” arguments have no bearing on the states interest in marriage. Further, the economic case against SSM (cited previously) already noted institutions can change, but only for good reason. So, since the marriage institution is still surviving as it has for thousands of years, it merely shows how the needs and benefits of marriage still apply to society today. Indeed, recent developments in the marriage debate only prove what the definition of marriage actually is (and, by the way, the fact the idea was created during “arranged marriages” does not matter, that is guilt by association fallacy. Regardless, marriage is about procreation, not arrangement, and that point has no bearing on the debate). Many court cases, in dissents, majority opinions, all of the above, mention procreation as the states interest in marriage [2].


My opponent then makes a few statements that show he/she (I don’t know) is unaware of any study opposing Same-Sex Parenting, and then merely states the Brief did not claim children raised by heterosexuals did worse. Not only does this show he/she did not read the brief, he/she has not even read the quote presented. Let me re-quote the brief, “there is no dispute that a biological mother and father provide, on average, an effective and proven environment for raising children. And it is reasonable to conclude that a mother and father function as a complementary parenting unit and that each tends to contribute something unique and beneficial to child development. … [large studies note] significant differences in the outcomes of children raised by parents in a same-sex relationship and those raised by a married biological mother and father.”


So,


1) A biological mother and father (not mother-mother, or father-father) are the best family unit for children. Implying the benefits of heterosexual, not homosexual, parents.


2) Homosexual children display many differences, and any logical person would note the differences are generally bad differences because it was stated heterosexual parents already do the best.


I shall also name specific studies:


1. Regnerus 2012 – nationally representative sample


2. Allen et al. 2012 – Uses Census data, critique of pro-gay study. Patterson (pro-gay study) did respond, though I can respond to the criticism by Patterson if needed.


3. Abbot 2012 – literature review. Says heterosexual parents likely best.


4. Schumm 2011 – critique of lesbian studies


5. Schumm 2006 – using an expanded dataset from Camerons 1996 report, replicates findings.


6. Potter 2012 – finds children raised by homosexuals do worse in school. Nationally representative random sample.


7. Stacey and Biblarz 2001 – examines pro-gay research, finds them flawed. When corrected, data shows studies support the “anti-gay” position.


8. Cameron & Cameron 1996 – finds children of homosexuals more likely to be homosexual. Nationally representative and random sample.


9. Sarakantos 1996 – homosexual children do worse in school. Large, but non-random, sample. Marks 2012, however, says it is more powerful than almost all of the pro-gay literature.


This is a small sample of studies of the more I can cite if needed. This refutes that point.


My opponent’s last point is “people love it!” As pointed out, that poll I used was merely a side point which I de-emphasized because this point is a bandwagon fallacy. It is irrelevant. It is merely a response to “it’s inevitable” – which itself is a fallacy.


2. Rebuttals


-> my opponents response is, again, laughable. The two people that marry must be heterosexual, and most people who marry wont simply sit around and do nothing. They will procreate. And it is the procreative type union, not the effect, and therefore the infertile argument (they don’t have kids!) is irrelevant.


-> Ad hominem fallacy. And the fact gays will adopt more is actually a problem, as noted… And why should the government give them “perks” if they do not uphold a state’s interest? You need a reason to get money. The “perk” point merely proves my point.


-> My opponent claims I am ignorant… lol. Am I uneducated on this topic? I cite 9 studies on same sex parenting, multiple law reviews on same sex marriage, you give nothing, emotion, misrepresentation of an Amicus Brief, Bob Carter said on global warming “who are the deniers now?” It can be used now as “who is ignorant now?” The fact my opponent cannot rationally defend his point, yet calls me ignorant, really tells me how politicized this topic is (obviously it was, but the irrationality in it is gargantuan).


-> Why drill on sources? Give what you want, it’s your argument style…


CONCLUSION


I am ignorant guys, yet my opponent has not provided one coherent argument in favor of SSM.






1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2010).


2. John C Eastman. “Full Faith and Republican Guarantees: Gay Marriage, FMPA, and the Courts.” Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law (2007).


Debate Round No. 3
Nyx999

Pro

My argument is laughable? Please, tell me, why is it so laughable? Your rebuttal that my argument is unsound is completely unsound. Many things have no objective purpose, and yet we still do them. Let's take the marriage rings. They have no purpose, not really, they are just adornment that do not contribute to your institute whose only purpose is for procreation. To procreate you don't need rings, you just need a man and a women who don't even need to love each other. The reason we have rings is because the rings mean something. The reason we have marriage is because it means something, not for procreation. If our only goal was procreation for marriage, I could think of a myriad of other ways we can make procreation more efficient. Have a soul dude, seriously. And you still don't know how to site sources correctly. For the, what was that study called, the study where you quoted it in bold, YOU STILL DIDN'T GIVE ME A LINK, A TITLE OF A BOOK, NOTHING. Please, give me a source! Then, you proceeded to list a many other studies, BUT YOU DIDN'T GIVE ME A LINK OR ANYWAY I COULD GET TO THESE STUDIES. (Sorry, I don't want to put in caps, but I don't know how to make my words bold. :P I'm technologically handicapped. :) Anyway, and I would like you to QUOTE from those studies, many people can percieve studies in different ways.

Therefore, I am forced to write off all your studies since you don't know how to quote and send me links, books, whatever, properly. Please, give me sources, you can't just give me the names of the studies, expect me to find them on my own, and expect me to be able to rebuttle them properly if I don't know to which parts you are referring to, or where I can find them. (Remember, I am technologically handicapped) I am exasperated since I really have nothing to rebuttle to, since you just put down a list of names of studies without anything else. Oh and by the way, you can be ignorant and educated at the same time if you are also narrow-minded, and it seems to me that half of America has their blinders on and insist on sticking to tradition, no matter how ridiculous tradition is. I reccomend you read the short story The Lottery. Maybe you can realize the error of your ways. I'm sure you will be a valuable player to have on my side as soon as you take your blinders off. (since you are a truly magnificent debater even though I am slightly frustrated at your inability to quote and post links properly)
16kadams

Con


The defense


My opponent here makes bare assertions, and enters an incomprehensible text of angriness. She merely says “it’s not laughable, how is it? Your argument is unsound”, and things to that effect. However, it is like she does not even lift a finger to refute the argument, merely reiterates assertions which is not debate, discourse, or anything of the form: it’s like facebook arguing.


As I explained, there has to be an objective purpose, or else your whole argument fails. First, if marriage is ever changing, then there is no reason to support SSM, because since nothing in marriage is “wrong” than barring homosexuals from marriage isn’t wrong. My opponent must accept marriage has a true nature, or her point cannot logically stand. I also noted how the nature of marriage has survived throughout time, so even if the consequentialists are correct they still must provide valid reasons to change the institution. As we can see, my opponent has not offered a single reason.


My opponent claims marriage is not necessary for procreation. However, pre-marital (or post-marital sex) is not “responsible”, for lack of a better word. The state is not only focused on procreation, but also the true nature of marriage which consists of mind, body, and soul. The procreative act merely consummates their love, and procreation is a secondary good – as the good of marriage is intrinsic not extrinsic. Even assuming the mind, body, and soul nature of marriage has no good, the state is also obligated to support child rearing. Children raised by single or cohabiting parents tend to do worse than those raised by biological married parents. Little proof indicates marriage stabilizes same sex couples, by the way.


My opponent claims my citations (it’s spelled with a ‘c’, not an ‘s’) are incorrect. This is untrue. For the footnotes, I have the author, title, and date. For the studies, I provided the date and author with a description, and a simple google search often leads to the desired result. Further, I did not need to provide a link, as my opponent was only looking for the studies. Merely naming them fulfills the request, and invalidates her rebuttal. My opponent, since she is not able to cite opposing data, essentially concedes the point and has to act like her request was different in order to get a knee jerk vote that I was vauge. The Regnerus study is all over the headlines, the Allen study is on pro-gay blogs where they scream at it with little data to ponder upon, and the other studies are so well known PDF’s are available online. The fact my opponent cant copy, past, and hit ‘search’ is not my dilemma.


As we can see, the parenting point was not the only argument posted, rather my opponent saw I have extensively researched the issue and shut down. She offers no intellectual insight. She merely, after complaining about references, rants on how she hates tradition and how I need to wake up. Something I read, I forgot where, will be posted here now. I will paraphrase:


What a logical argument


So you’re on my side now?


Of course not!


Why not?


Because it’s my right to oppose the truth.


My opponent, though not admitting I had a sound argument, could not refute the premise or conclusion. She ranted, yelled, and essentially focused her energy at the end to call me a fool. To quote Bob Carter again, “who are the deniers now?”


Thank you, and a con vote is obvious.


Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by baylorj 3 years ago
baylorj
"We are Progressive."

Not all man-woman marriages procreate. So are they not married if they don't?

Also, Gay people won't have kids, whether it's legal for them to be married or not. Saying that we should not allow a gay couple to be married because they won't have kids and "progress America" is irrelevant. In fact, if anything, they are doing us a favor by not having children, considering in the current economy, nobody can find employment.
Posted by SeantheScot 3 years ago
SeantheScot
Why not.

If gays want to get married and be miserable like everyone else why not.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by teddy2013 3 years ago
teddy2013
Nyx99916kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won this debate hands down,used logic, good sources, and convincing arguments, and better grammar. Although I already strongly agree with cons strong opposition to gay marriage, I think anyone who was undecided would have been swayed by his superior arguments. Con remains one of the best defenders of traditional marriage on this website.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
Nyx99916kadamsTied
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 got owned on this one. I can not even give him spelling points because he used *ick* emoticons... Pro used no sources at all and asked Con to flesh out his! Con's argument's were sensible and not based on emotions. Pro got his butt whooped pretty good.
Vote Placed by MattHarrison 3 years ago
MattHarrison
Nyx99916kadamsTied
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: Pro, I agree with you all the way. But con had the best argument against gay marriage that I have ever heard. You took on an impossible debate and won it. Points to con.
Vote Placed by dragonb95 3 years ago
dragonb95
Nyx99916kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was better organized, but he seemed to miss the point of the debate and cloud it with semantics. The debate is not on the definition of marriage, but on whether gays should be able to marry. Con missed the entire point of the debate. Also his refutations were vaguely insulting.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
Nyx99916kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had well organized and decent arguments. Pro couldn't meet those arguments. Saw more grammar mistakes on Pro.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
Nyx99916kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments seemed to be rants. Con's were well organized, heavily sourced, and just better than pro's.