The Instigator
Littlelarge15
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
21MolonLabe
Con (against)
Winning
16 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 3 votes the winner is...
21MolonLabe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 73962
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Littlelarge15

Pro

The issue of same-sex marriage is highly charged and hotly debated, encompassing a wide variety of beliefs and viewpoints. Those against it usually maintain that marriage is between a man and a woman, that same-sex marriage will weaken the institution of marriage, that it could be a slippery slope to all non-traditional relationships being accepted, and some also object to it on religious grounds. Those who support same-sex marriage are typically of the opinion that two consenting adults have the right to be in a relationship with each other and receive the social, emotional, and financial benefits of marriage.

Why should same-sex marriage be legal? The argument that traditional marriage will be weakened isn"t strong enough, because with divorce, blended families, cohabitation, polygamy, and the structure of the animal kingdom, traditional marriage itself can be objected to in several ways or seen as "unnatural." There are many arguments against traditional marriage and people who don"t believe in it, but that doesn"t mean that people can"t enter into these marriages, so the same should be true of same-sex marriages. It doesn"t hurt anyone else, or their marriage, if two committed individuals, who happen to be of the same sex, marry each other. In fact, statistics show that it has the opposite effect, often lowering divorce rates.

Delving further into the issue, children often come into the debate or the equation. Some people argue that traditional marriage is about procreation, but that definition excludes infertile couples, couples who don"t want to have children, and older couples. When it comes to same-sex couples, children exist whether people agree with it or not, and they need protection and rights. Their families shouldn"t be stigmatized or denied stability and legal protections. Aside from children that already exist in same-sex households, there are a lot of children waiting to be adopted, that could be adopted by married same-sex couples. If the stigma and legal issues were lifted, more children would have loving homes.

Aside from arguments about marriage, social statistics, and children, there is also a moral and compassionate side to this subject. If we don"t personally know what it"s like to be gay, lesbian or bisexual and be told we"re not allowed to marry the person we love, then we can"t put this on other people. It"s not just about standing at an altar and saying "I do." Of course it"s about love and affirmation, but it"s also about filing taxes jointly, being able to visit each other in hospital, inheritance, making decisions, children, and all of the everyday things that most people take for granted.

The final point is that commonly held viewpoints vastly change over time, and that"s how society moves forward and serves its citizens. Just because something has been a certain way for an extended period of time, doesn"t make it right. Status quo should always be challenged and amended. There was a time that interracial marriage was illegal and segregation existed. There was a time when women couldn"t vote and gender inequality was a lot worse than it is now. There are so many other examples about how society has evolved over time, for the better. And making same-sex marriage legal is no different.
21MolonLabe

Con

Thank you Pro for challenging me to this debate. Since the Resolution is a little unclear, I will make it more specific: Resolved: Same-sex Marriage should be recognized by the state.


Semantics:

Love: a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Rebuttals:

Pro Copied and Pasted his entire argument without providing the source, also known as plagiarism. The purpose of this website is to use your own writing, not let other websites do it for you. Hence, I am not going to rebut Pro's argument as the writing is not original. Here is the link he used:
http://essaycamp.com...



Arguments:

What is Marriage?

There are two views of what marriage should be. The first of which is called the Revisionist view, which solely includes love and romantic feelings. The sole difference between this union and others is that the state recognizes it. We soon run into a problem with this view of marriage: There are multiple relationships that exist because of love that are not recognized by the state. You can have love for a friend without the state recognizing it. While marriage cannot last without love, love itself is not enough to have a union recognized by the state. We can see that this view has no legitimate foundation for its argument. There is no purpose for the state to recognize it.[1]

The second view is called the Conjugal view. This view holds that two people unite for a common purpose which is procreation. The goal of this union is to share a life that is oriented towards child-bearing. Now only one union can accomplish this goal of procreation, the union of one man and one woman. Marriage in this sense is not like any other union as it has a purpose. [1]

The New Family Structures Study found that young-adult children of gay fathers reported statistically significantly higher levels of depression than young-adult children of heterosexual parents and were five times as likely to have thoughts of suicide. When children of lesbian mothers were asked if they had been touched sexually by a parent, they were eleven times more likely to say "yes" than those of heterosexual parents.[2] When they were asked if they were forced to have sex against their will, they were four times more likely to say "yes" than children with heterosexual parents.[3] You can see that adopted children of same-sex do not fair as well as those of heterosexual couples.

With this information we can argue the following:

P1. If the state regulates marriage, then marriage must have some purpose and it must have a definite meaning.

P2. Because the state regulates marriage, the purpose must benefit society.

P3. The logical purpose of marriage must be procreation and child-rearing.

P4. Unions that contrast this definition of marriage must not be recognized by the state.

C1. Same-sex marriage must not be recognized by the state.

Defense of Premises:

P1 and P2 are generally understood.


P3 is explained my opening paragraphs.

P4 is logical as unions that do not fit the definition of marriage do not have the societal benefit that procreation and biological parents have.

C1 holds true.

Conclusion
The Revisionist idea of what marriage should be would serve no purpose to the state, resulting in the state not regulating it. Since the government DOES regulate marriage, there must be some purpose for it to do so. The reason it regulates marriage is for the purpose of procreation which same-sex marriages cannot provide. As a result, it should not be recognized by the state.
Sources:


http://discussingmarriage.org...

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

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

Debate Round No. 1
Littlelarge15

Pro

Gay marriage should be legalized because it is uncivilized and unmerited. Our civil rights and the Constitution give us many liberties. One of our civil liberties is the pursuit of happiness, which homosexual people are not allowed to chase. They cannot be married to the person they love and it violates their freedoms. According to professorshouse.com, "In Alaska, Nevada, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Nebraska, Missouri, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama, not only is gay marriage banned, but so are civil partnerships."

Others might ask why gay marriage should be legalized, but my question is this: why should other people be able to choose who marries who? If a man and a woman get married, no one seems to care. They are two people who feel affection for one another and those two people want to start a family. If we change the scenario a little bit and a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, try to get married it causes uproar. They are not allowed to be married or raise a family together.

Imagine waking up one day to a world that was completely opposite from the world we went to sleep in, meaning gay people are now straight and all straight people are now gay. Do you think the newly straight people would fight for the newly homosexual people"s rights? America is the land of the free, but we are not free to marry whomever we would like. After everything straight people have put homosexual people through, in this scenario, homosexual people would most likely vote for their rights because they would want their rights to be voted for. We are equals in this world whether we are Black, White, Hispanic, Indian, or any other race for that matter. Why should we not be equals based on sexual orientation?

The 1st amendment of the Constitution states that a person"s religious beliefs or a lack of thereof must be protected. Legislatures also cannot discriminate against marriages of the minority party which, homosexual people fall into that category. There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state, so you cannot declare that a marriage is a gift from God.

In a marriage there is one thing that truly matters: love. Yes, other things are important too, but not one couple would make it to even asking someone to marry them if there was not some love. Las Vegas, Nevada is also known for being the place where many weddings occur which are annulled within one week. These marriages are not based off love, but simply a drunken night in Vegas. High divorce rates weaken what a marriage is defined as. Why are we not able to rewrite what a marriage stands for and make it include a homosexual marriage? The definition of love, according to dictionary.com is as follows: "Very strong affection: an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion." If gay people feel this way then why shouldn"t they be able to be married? If they are happy with each other, said persons should be able to marry.
California, Hawaii, New York, and the District of Columbia all have domestic partnership laws and civil partnerships meaning it is almost a marriage without the matrimony. Civil partnerships also give couples the ability to have joint bank accounts, live in the same house, and pay bills together. Homosexual couples are not entitled to this in most states.
Marriage benefits should be available to all couples, no matter what. In places where gay marriages are banned, the gay couples are not able to have the same benefits as others. When filing for health care or insurance through a job, gay couples are not able to add each other on. Most loved ones, such as a spouse or a child, in a straight marriage, can make life altering decisions in a hospital if need be. Since gay marriage is not legal, said person"s spouse is not recognized as their next of kin and care is delayed.

Who would be affected if homosexual marriage was legalized? No one. Everyone believes there is one person who is out there to love us. Gay people feel the same way. Parenthood is a benefit of marriage and gay couples cannot have children by themselves, without some type of help, so they look to adoption agencies. In some cases gay couples are put on longer waiting lists or denied completely. There are other benefits to being married as well, such as tax breaks. On the website professorshouse.com it reads, "When we hit our mid-thirties, we wanted only true friendships- friendships that were durable." This is a perfect example of matrimony and what it should be based on. . According to dictionary.com a marriage is, "The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities." If this is a marriage why are gay people not included in this?

Even though gay marriage should be legalized, some people have different beliefs. In most religions including, Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism same sex preferences are a sin. People believe in procreation to repopulate the world, but are against gay marriage and homosexuals adopting children because they cannot procreate on their own. If this is a stand point on making or breaking gay marriage then only people who are fertile and want to procreate should be able to get married according to this bias. America has never really given gay marriage a chance, but they believe gay marriage will weaken its institution by leading to high divorce rates. On loveandpride.com I read, "One reason legislatures are denying gay marriage is because they are fearful that opening the door to allowing gay marriages will open the door to polygamy as well. This would also mean reopening cases about polygamy in the past which they are not willing to do." Others are fearful for children"s futures and they fear being raised by two fathers or by two mothers may compromise children"s mental capacities.

Even though to most people gay marriage should be illegal and should stay in its current state, I believe we need to change the world for future generations. We feared that different religions were going to clash, but now all of the religions coexist. White people had Black and Hispanic slaves, but we overcame the odds and now White men, Black men, and Hispanic men can be equals. If it is possible to overcome such fierce obstacles then we can overcome the boundary obstructing gay marriages and straight marriages alike. Gay marriage should be legalized for these reasons. Evolution will always continue and at any given point in time, something will occur that we will not like in this world, but we can overcome this. Gay marriage is a controversial issue that people have been fighting for years and it has finally come to the surface. We should take charge of it.
21MolonLabe

Con

Thank you pro for your arguments, or rather the lack thereof.

Rebutals:

My opponent has plagairized once again! Here is his source this time:

http://www.teenink.com...;

The purpose of this website is to use your own writing, not let other websites do it for you. Hence, I am not going to rebut Pro's argument as the writing is not original. I should be debateing the person with the alias Littlelarge15, not another website.

Arguments:

Extend all arguments as Pro has not bothered to rebut my arguments.

Debate Round No. 2
Littlelarge15

Pro

Littlelarge15 forfeited this round.
21MolonLabe

Con

Arguments:

Extend all arguments.


Rebuttals:

My opponent has forfeit, so there is nothing for me to refute.

Conclusion:

My opponent has plagiarized every single argument he has made. I on the other hand put forth effort and showed why same-sex marriage should not be recognized by the state, fulfilling my BoP. Therefore, arguments go to me. My opponent did not type a single word. I am the only one that has typed anything, so S&G goes to me. Pro did not cite the sources that he used whereas I did, so sources goes to me. My opponent has forfeit and I have not, so conduct goes to me. I was hoping for more effort on Pro's part.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SouthernPride12334 1 year ago
SouthernPride12334
I think 21Molonlamp is right not to mention you should not pladgerize.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MattStPaul 1 year ago
MattStPaul
Littlelarge1521MolonLabeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons for my voting ... ... because it is an important topic and ... from the looks of it, very one sided and ill argued (on Pro's part). M.StPaul
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
Littlelarge1521MolonLabeTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized and did not respond to any of Con's points.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Littlelarge1521MolonLabeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Plagiarism and forfeit. ARGUMENT: In addition to the plagiarism, pro did not even respond to con, leaving con's case 100% non-contested. SOURCES: Con catching the plagiarism alone wins this, as pointing out those sources destroyed any case pro could have otherwise been said to have. Of course con also provided some sources, but due to the overwhelming level of his victory those do not need to be reviewed.