The Instigator
shoutevenshy
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Meghannelson
Con (against)
Losing
0 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...
shoutevenshy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 79508
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

shoutevenshy

Pro

I realize gay marriage is legal in America, however this is not the case for the majority of the world. I think gay marriage should be legal everywhere, because practical advantages a married couple has, as opposed to an unmarried one. You get rid of a ton of paper-work when married, and if you decide to stay together unmarried and forget to make wills, for instance, it can have very unfortunate consequences if one dies.

If a couple decides not to marry, that is their choice - however I see no reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed these legal rights and advantages.
Meghannelson

Con

Although I respect your opinion, I have to disagree with it.
I believe gay marriage should not be legalized, anywhere. You brought up benefits from people getting married, financial wise. That's not what marriage is for, marriage is something more than money. And marriage between a man and a women is very special, not just about the benefits.
The view point im taking on this is a religious one. God put men and women on this earth for a reason, for them to create life. In the proclamation to the family it talks about how marriage is supposed to be between a man and a women, and I believe that revelation we got comes from God, yes he loves everyone, but that doesn't mean he supports gay marriage. There are two genders for a reason. Make and female go together, and can create life. That's one of gods main reasons for putting us on this earth. Trayce Hansen, a professional psychiatrist stated: "Extensive research also reveals that not only mothers, but also fathers, are critical to the healthy development of children. Swedish researchers reviewed the best longitudinal studies from around the world that assessed the effects of fathers on children's development. Their review spanned 20 years of studies and included over 22,000 children, and found that fathers reduce behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls, enhance cognitive development, and decrease delinquency.

It's clear that children benefit from having both a male and female parent. Recent medical research confirms genetically determined differences between men and women and those fundamental differences help explain why mothers and fathers bring unique characteristics to parenting that can't be replicated by the other sex. Mothers and fathers simply aren't interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. One-sex parenting, whether by a single parent or a homosexual couple, deprives children of the full range of parenting offered by dual-sex couples.

Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life." As you just read, having parents, one male and one female is beneficial to a child.
Debate Round No. 1
shoutevenshy

Pro

I respect your disagreement as well. No existing religion has patent on marriage, marriage is a legal right given by our government, and there is no reason why religious values should interfere with the rules that follow. There is a growing number of people who do not believe there is a God, and to be brutally honest, even there is a God you have little to no proof that it is the God the bible speaks of.

You mention researches that reveal the message that heterosexual couples make better parents, though I'm not gonna argue whether or not that is true, I would like to ask you - is it better to have no parents than have two fathers or mothers? Because the reality is that there are hundreds of thousands of parentless children all around the earth that homosexual couples would love to adopt. Homosexual couples cannot reproduce on their own, yet many of them desperately want children, so is it morally right to not let childless couples adopt parentless children?

What about single parents? What about widows/widowers? There are already a large number of children without a mother or a father, and as far as I know they grow up to be loving people, even though their childhood was different and more difficult than others.

At last I wanna clarify, that I did not only mean financial benefits when I talked about the advantages has. Let me paint a picture for you - we have a couple, they're called Peter and Mary. They have decided to stay together, however for some reason they do not wish to get married. Peter and Mary buy a house together that they both pay for, but since they aren't a married couple they decide to put the house in the name of Peter. They are young, and young people rarely prepare for unplanned events. However, unfortunately Peter died suddenly in a fatal car crash. As far as the government is concerned Peter is an unmarried man who bought a house. Mary is in no way related to him, and even though she helped pay the mortgage she has no right to the house. The house will therefore be given to Peter's parents. Now - let's assume Peter's parents are not nice people, so Mary is left homeless in grief. That is the reality for many couples that are unmarried by choice - it is not fair that these advantages shouldn't be given to homosexual couples.
Meghannelson

Con

Funny you bring up that there is no proof that there is a god, when we are talking about Same marriage here, not the existence of God. Whether you believe in God or not, your argument to that wasn't logical, so I'm going to move on from that.
I didn't state once about kids that don't have a home, or have on parent due to death or something along those lines. I clearly stated that it is a better environment for a kid to be in with both a mom and dad, which I clearly support with proven facts, You are saying stuff based on your opinion, no facts, as far as I know.
You're right that a gay couple could be as loving, and even more loving , but that doesn't provide a child with what it needs. Another statement made by A psychiatrist named Trayce Hansen is "
Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving toward children as heterosexual couples, but children need more than love. They require the distinctive qualities and complementary natures of a male and female parent. The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years concludes that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. This time-tested wisdom is now supported by the most advanced, scientifically sound research available.

Importantly, and to their credit, many self-proclaimed pro-same-sex-marriage researchers acknowledge that there is as of yet no definitive evidence as to the impact of homosexual parenting on children. Regardless, some of those advocates support same-sex marriage because they believe it offers a natural laboratory in which to assess the long-term impact on children. That position is unconscionable and indefensible." that backs up my opinion.
Debate Round No. 2
shoutevenshy

Pro

I didn't bring up God, you did. We have a discussion about same sex marriage, and you support your opposing view with religious values. Of course I am critical to this point of view, since I don't have any religious beliefs.

I know that you said that a child is best suited with both a mother a father, and as I said in my previous argument, I'm not gonna argue that claim, because I don't know whether that is true or not. I don't believe it, but at is completely irrelevant.
However, I asked you whether it was reasonable to let millions of children be parentless, when there are people who would like to adopt them, even though they are not the ideal according to you, do you believe they are better off without them? This was a question I asked, and instead of answering, you became defensive.
Meghannelson

Con

I believe that children should be placed in a home that they'll benefit from, in the long run. I don't believe a same sex environment home is good for a child at all. And to me, that just answered your question.
Yet there is no logic behind your question, because there is nothing backing it up, no evidence supporting the number you gave me, and no evidence that they would be better off in a home with same sex couples. There is nothing to argue if you aren't supporting your view and opinions on things.
Yes I brought up God, because it was logical in what I was saying.
You saying you didn't believe in God, and saying there is no proof that he exists had nothing to do with the argument, making your point invalid.
Debate Round No. 3
shoutevenshy

Pro

I didn't think it was necessary to bring up sources for my claims, since I thought it was a known thing that there are more orphans in the world than there are adoptive parents.

But since you need it, here is a link for you http://www.sos-usa.org...
Estimating there are 153 million orphans in the world. In America alone there are 120,000 orphans.

And you did not answer my question, you talked yourself out of it. I asked whether you think a child is better off without parents than being adopted by a same sex couple? Your answer was that you think a same sex environment is unsuited for a child - I don't see how that is answer to my question at all. So I give you one more chance to answer, if you wish. Do you think the 153 million orphans are better off without parents, than being adopted by a same sex couple?

Here are some facts about adoption - http://www.pbs.org...

There you will see that U.S. citizens adopted nearly 13,000 children from 106 different countries in 2009, and about 135,000 children are adopted in the United States each year.

Compare those numbers to 153,000,000 - Do you really think we can say no to parents wanting to adopt simply because of their sex? Are you honestly gonna deny a child a home, a family and parents because they do not fit your religious criteria?

You said the following ... "no evidence that they would be better off in a home with same sex couples. "

No, I have no evidence that they are better off in a home with a same sex couple.
Though I am gonna paint you a picture here.

Imagine an orphan in let's say Liberia. A child without parents, without a home. A child that in a few years will be forced to carry a gun into a bloody war. Because that is what they do there, in Liberia, they send their children to war (http://www.newsweek.com...)

Imagine a child hungry, thirsty and alone, and tell me that you honestly doubt they are better off where they are, than in the home of a same sex couple that has met the criteria from an Adoption Agency?
Meghannelson

Con

I did answer your question.
I would rather have a child in a home, rather then in adoption centers with bad conditions,. Putting them in a home would provide their needs physically, yes. So there's the anwser to your question, again, in a clearer way for you.
But what I'm focusing on is the effects it has on a child mentally. As I've supported with facts, it has been proven to have a negative effect on them.
Let me ask you this, is that okay to damage or ruin a child mentally? Because that's what you seem to apply at, saying its okay.
You're saying that putting a child in a home like that is better then being in an orphanage, which I agree on and won't argue with you on that, because physically it will provide for them.
I'm focusing on the long run and what it will do to the kid.
Also, Gay marriage has been legalized, and there are many other things out there that "go against what people want" so if everyone gets their way, the world is going to be worse then it already is. What's moral and right is much for important then the wants and desires of the people
Debate Round No. 4
shoutevenshy

Pro

You would rather have children in a home
- meaning you would rather have the child without either mother or father, in a home with maybe 20-100+ other children, with caretakers that are paid to be there, thus they care for the children not out of love, but because that is their job?

You believe same sex couples can ruin a child mentally
- Are you aware of how many heterosexual couples ruin and scar their children mentally and physically for life?
Here is a source: http://www.americanhumane.org...

Furthermore - your belief is that the lack of a father or mother can be mentally damaging to children, correct?
Then you ahead and ask me whether or not I believe this is okay, correct?

Before I answer your question, I'd like to ask you one first. Since you claim the lack of a father or mother is mentally damaging to children, and by asking me whether I think this is okay, I'm gonna presume you do not think that is okay, correct? So - do you think it is okay to let widows raise their children without taking on another husband? Because not having a father is mentally damaging, right? What about single parents? should single parents even be allowed to have children?

But I promised to answer your question, and so I will. No, of course I don't think it is okay to damage a child mentally. However, I do not believe living in a home with same sex parents does that.

At last I'd just want to comment on when you say 'gay marriage has been legalized'. Gay marriage has been legalized in America, the majority of the world has yet to accept this, so I don't think the battle is over.
Meghannelson

Con

You completely twisted what I said. I CLEARLY stated that a child would be better off in a home of a guy couple, then in an orphanage. Because that home could provide for them physically.
Yes, a typical mom, and father home, can effect a child in a bad way if there is fighting in such, and things along that line. But as I've read about this, a child is more prone to question there selves, and who when they have gay parents. It's not a structured environment. You clearly stated you think emotionally damaging a child is wrong, which it is. And that is what happens when they're put into that confusing environment that makes them question who they are.
And I never stated gay marriage was legalized everywhere, and hopefully it never will be. It will cause more problems in the world, as I stated before, which you seemed to completely ignore.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: roguetech// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to defend their assertion, so Con wins for arguments. Hopefully, this explanation is satisfactory.

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD is so vague that it could be copy/pasted into any debate and still be applicable. The voter could have posted this without reading a single word of the debate. There's no reference to specific arguments made, no clear idea of which points (if any) Con is winning, and it's entirely unclear how the decision itself takes shape since I can't tell if Con negated the resolution or if Pro merely failed to uphold his burdens. What assertion should Pro have defended, or which of Con's rebuttals were effective? This RFD does far too little to explain the vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
My bad, I provided the wrong voter. This is the correct vote removal:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: roguetech// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Pro argues marriage provides an advantage. Con refutes it because religion. Con rebuts it by saying not ALL marriages are religious. Con makes a spurious and slanderous claim regarding homosexuals abilities as parents, despite research demonstrating that children of homosexuals perform better in life than the average. http://papers.ssrn.com......... http://pediatrics.aappublications.org......... Pro refers to a study showing this, but rather than sourcing that research, they instead reference a quote by a person who doesn't appear to have published ANY studies. Pro, rather than pointing out that marriage is a legal designation, separate from religion, and that parenting and adoption is completely irrelevant to marriage, and that Con's claim that marriage "is [about something] very special" is overly vague, goes along with it and fails to rebut it. I hate to give the win to Con, but they did far better.

[*Reason for removal*] Most of this RFD appears to be informing the debaters about arguments they missed rather than actually addressing what was said in the debate. Much as the voter addresses arguments made by Pro and explains how they fell short, he hasn't really clarified what arguments Pro is winning with, and thus it's difficult to parse what decided this debate. If the vague arguments and rebuttals are the reasons why, it needs to be clear what they're proving and how. That's not clear from this RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ColeTrain// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Pro argues marriage provides an advantage. Con refutes it because religion. Con rebuts it by saying not ALL marriages are religious. Con makes a spurious and slanderous claim regarding homosexuals abilities as parents, despite research demonstrating that children of homosexuals perform better in life than the average. http://papers.ssrn.com...... http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...... Pro refers to a study showing this, but rather than sourcing that research, they instead reference a quote by a person who doesn't appear to have published ANY studies. Pro, rather than pointing out that marriage is a legal designation, separate from religion, and that parenting and adoption is completely irrelevant to marriage, and that Con's claim that marriage "is [about something] very special" is overly vague, goes along with it and fails to rebut it. I hate to give the win to Con, but they did far better.

[*Reason for removal*] Most of this RFD appears to be informing the debaters about arguments they missed rather than actually addressing what was said in the debate. Much as the voter addresses arguments made by Pro and explains how they fell short, he hasn't really clarified what arguments Pro is winning with, and thus it's difficult to parse what decided this debate. If the vague arguments and rebuttals are the reasons why, it needs to be clear what they're proving and how. That's not clear from this RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
@Meghannelson

Children of homosexuals do better than average:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
http://papers.ssrn.com...

Quoting someone who talks about research to the contrary is dishonest. If there's research showing it, then it should have been provided. I suspect you didn't, becausethe study in question does NOT ADDRESS homosexuality, AT ALL.

http://www.rikshandboken-bhv.se...

It states:

"It would seem that active and regular engagement in the child predicts a range of positive outcomes, although it is not possible to say exactly what constitutes fathers" "effective" type of engagement."

Go figure, a kid who is abandoned by a parent does worse.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
God had no relevance in this argument to start with.

Honestly, I don't think the statement of "questioning their selves" (I assume sexual orientation) is good enough. Because they can question their orientation in a heterosexual family. In that case, being told that who they are is wrong [etc.] can be just as damaging. Especially in an environment where they are told they will go to Hell. [And yes, I am responding in a situation where they are in a religious family.] Same can be done without religion too. With homosexual parents, you can trust in them keeping their children open-minded and accepting whether they are straight or not.

That's just me though.
Posted by shoutevenshy 1 year ago
shoutevenshy
Do you believe he created everything?
Posted by Meghannelson 1 year ago
Meghannelson
I was just messing with you, I do the same thing! Not sure I get the question, but I do believe there is only one God, and that he created this earth.
Posted by shoutevenshy 1 year ago
shoutevenshy
Sorry for that, I guess in a world dominated by men, we assume people are men until we know otherwise? haha! anyways, I'm a woman too.

Okay, one question - do you believe that your God is the universal creator?
Posted by Meghannelson 1 year ago
Meghannelson
I'm a girl actually, but thanks. Yep, God created animals. Didn't create homosexuality though. Read the proclamation to the family, has some good stuff on there! It's what I believe, and I find it pointless to sit here and argue when we have different believes. I have my beliefs, and I respect yours. It's that simple. I really need to get going, I have school tomorrow. Goodnight!
Posted by shoutevenshy 1 year ago
shoutevenshy
They're animals? I imagine as a man of faith, you do believe in a creator, correct? And this creator created all the animals of the earth, correct?

So their behavior is a result of God's creation, correct? that means God created homosexuality.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by William.Burnham 1 year ago
William.Burnham
shoutevenshyMeghannelsonTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Was this supposed to be a debate on gay marriage or adoption of children by gay couples? Both parties did bad jobs articulating their arguments, they should have prepared more for this; the entire debate got sidetracked. Also, people, check your grammar please, this debate had so many spelling mistakes in it my eyes almost bled.