The Instigator
missbailey8
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Tied
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 298 times Debate No: 92855
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

missbailey8

Pro

Due to some comments harrytruman made in a few forum posts, I decided to challenge him to a debate on gay marriage with him as con and me as pro.

Structure:
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Opening Statements from Pro, Rebuttals from Con
Round 3 - Defense from Pro, Opening Statements from Con
Round 4 - Rebuttals from Pro, Defense from Con

Rules:
1) No hate speech/ slander
2) No kritiks
3) No plagiarism
4) Please use citations
5) No forfeiture
6) No troll arguments
7) BoP is shared

Thank you.

harrytruman

Con

What's the resolution?
Debate Round No. 1
missbailey8

Pro

Here's the resolution:

Gay marriage should be legal.

Sorry for the confusion. Now here are my opening statements.

I. It's Not A Choice
II. Equality
III. Separation of Church and State
IV. Adoption Increase
V. What Is Marriage?
VI. Economic Benefit

Here we go!

I. It's Not A Choice

I'll start with the actual science and statistics, then I'll talk about the "choice" of being gay with hypothetical situations and questions.

"Biological gender is set in the first trimester of pregnancy; psychological gender is set in the second, when the child in the womb is exposed to varying levels of testosterone. It"s not a mutation; it"s very much like the genetic regions that determine whether you will have black or brown hair, whether you"ll be tall or short, have dark or light skin, have broad or narrow hips" in other words, it is part of the normal range of normal human sexuality. And across all societies, the percentage of people who are gay remains about the same, at between 5-8% (although there is a difference between the incidence for men and women)." [1]

If homosexuality was a choice then why would the percentage around the world be so similar? Because this is something that is predetermined, just like you gender, hair color, eye color, so on.

Now for the hypothetical situations and questions. Say you were a man in love with women. Most other people in the world are gay or lesbian. You can't help it. You can't choose to love another man the same way. Just like you can't pick your race, you can't just pick and choose your sexuality.

I'm actually a gay woman and if I could, I'd most definitely decide to be straight. But why is that? The prejudice and discrimination against LGBT+ people is unbelievable!

"Nearly a fifth of students are physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth because of their gender expression.

"About two-thirds of LGBT students reported having ever been sexually harassed (e.g., sexual remarks made, being touched inappropriately) in school in the past year."

"The average GPA for students who were frequently physically harassed because of their sexual orientation was half a grade lower than that of other students." [2]

Would someone really want to be embarrassed, condemned, and harassed due to their sexuality?

II. Equality

The Declaration of Independence states that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [3] So why don't we grant these unalienable rights? For this part, I'll focus on liberty.

Liberty- the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. [4]

Should gay couples be barred from marriage? If they are then that's oppression by authority on one's way of life and behavior. Straight couples are allowed to marry freely, so what makes people think that gay couples should be treated as lesser and unable to marry in some parts of the world?

III. Separation of Church and State

A common argument of religious people against gay marriage is that it's a sin and The Bible condemns it, so it shouldn't be permitted. But we have the separation of church and state, which is where religious beliefs can't define the government.

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [5]

Yes, this amendment prohibits the restriction of religion, but it's also for separation of church and state.

"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the 'separation of church and state.' Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of 'blue laws' is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion."[6]

So why did the U.S. prohibit gay marriage in all 50 states up until summer of 2015? It's unconstitutional to do this, as we have separation of church and state.

IV. Adoption Increase

"In 2009, 69,947 children had parental rights terminated by the courts, yet only 57,466 were adopted... Last year, 29,741 children turned 18 and left the foster care system without being adopted... Nearly 40 percent of American adults, or 81.5 million people, have considered adopting a child, according to the National Adoption Attitudes Survey. If just one in 500 of these adults adopted, every waiting child in foster care would have a permanent family." [7]

With the rapid increase of gay marriages, don't you think that more children could find a loving family to care for them? Studies show that same-sex parents have no effects or even positive effects on the child's well-being. [8, 9, 10] A child needs love and if they're able to be given love from capable parents then they should adopt children.

V. What Is Marriage?

Marriage - the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. [11]

We simply could stop it there, as the definition does, in fact, include same-sex couples, but I'll analyze this some more. Let's look at the definition used by Psychology Today.

"Marriage is the process by which two people maketheir relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the joiningof two people in a bond that putatively lasts until death..." [12]

Again, this doesn't exclude homosexual couples. But is a marriage between a straight couple and a gay couple any different? Only in minor ways, but not when it comes down to the two definitions provided. But how so?

"Scientists have found that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partnerslargely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Same-sex and heterosexual couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, loyalty and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Empirical research also shows that lesbian and gay couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples." [13] In fact, same-sex couples are usually in very stable relationships, as they're less likely to divorce. [14] Then why, with the vast similarities between straight and gay couples, is gay marriage still illegal in many parts of the world?

VI. Economic Benefit

It's already been proven that weddings help the economy due to the expenses such as entertainment, catering, attire, etc. Would gay marriages help the economy?

"The newly expanded marriage rights provide a tremendous economic opportunity for the $51 billion wedding industry, which currently employs over 800,000 people nationwide. Excluding increases in federal tax revenue or transfer payments, gay marriage in all 50 states has the potential to add $2.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy, according to a NerdWallet analysis." [15]

"The states will perhaps see $47.7 million in tax revenue as well, along with anywhere from 2,069-6,210 jobs created as a result of same-sex marriages, according to the Williams Institute." [16]

In short, ever since gay marriage has been legal nationwide, the economy has seen a giant boost, making for more tax revenue and thousands of jobs being made. I repeat, all of this is from the legalization of same-sex marriage in the states alone. Can you imagine what would happen if it was on a larger scale with the rest of the world joining?

Conclusion

In the end, you can't bar gay couples the chance to get married, as it wasn't their choice, it's oppression based on their sexuality, and the separation of church and state is undeniable. (It's in our very Constitution, after all!) The recent year of increased gay marriages can provide a boost for adopting children and the economy.

Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

Citations

[1]http://www.health24.com............
[2]http://www.pflagnyc.org............
[3]http://www.archives.gov............
[4]http://www.google.com............
[5]https://www.law.cornell.edu.........
[6]https://www.law.cornell.edu.........
[7]https://davethomasfoundation.org............
[8]http://www.sciencedirect.com............
[9]http://www.medicaldaily.com............
[10]http://www.medicaldaily.com............
[11]https://www.google.com......
[12]https://www.psychologytoday.com......
[13]http://www.apa.org......
[14]http://www.advocate.com......
[15]https://www.nerdwallet.com......
[16]http://www.ibtimes.com......
harrytruman

Con

Bs"d

1. It's a choice:

Actualy, there are a lot of fluctuations in the percent of the population that is gay based on demographics. See here {1}. And it is impossible to tell when "physiological gender" develops, first of all because there is no such thing, brains don't have genotilia, therefore no gender. Next of all, there is no scanner that tells whether you are gay or not, and they can't ask the feus if its gay, so this statisticis kind of impossible. Also, humans aren't sexualy attracted to anyone until puberty.

And I have heard your next argument before, the 'what if the world was gay and you were straught,' argument, I will respond to that with another hypothetical. Say there were a man who ran around naked, when he is arrested for public nudity, he says "but what if there were a world where everyone were naked and you prefered to be clothed, but to them that would be being naked to you!" First of all, it's an irrational, unrealistic comparison and could be used to justify anything else, what if you lived in a world where murder was considered OK? Next of all, if you thought that being clothed was being naked and everyone naked was clothed, you would get institutionalised regardless of your thoughts.


2. Equality:

It turns out that you are entitled to these unalienable rights; life, libery, and the pursuit of property. And you are improperly defining liberty, liberty is the ability to move freely not do whatever you want. Next of all, not acknowladging farse marriage institutions doesn't constitute treating someone lesser. Marriage has always been defined as something very specific; 1 man 1 woman, walking along and deciding otherwise doesn't make it so. And wanting something doesn't entitle you.

Here is a perfect comparison, if someone were giving out chocolate, and one person didn't like chocolate and instead wanted a lolypop, he isn't entitled to that. He may be equal teveryone else, but wanting something different than what is provided doesn't entitle you to that n account of wanting it. Just like a man wanting to marry a man doesn't entitle him to that. Marriage allows for a man and woman to marry wanting something else doesn't entitle you.

And Gay people are allowed to marry freely also, they just wnt us to acknowladge something not marriage as marriage also. They can go gt themselves someone f the opposite gender and marry them, wanting to marry someone of the same gender doesn't entitle them.


3. Separation of Church and state:

Thanks for bringing this up, because this is my strongest point against gay marriage. Let me explain, marriage is and always has been a religious institution, never a political institution. Therefore the church should define marriage, and under separation of church and state, the state shouldn't take this institution and goveronmentize it. And you are absolutely right, it is unconstitutional for the Federal Goverent to redefine marriage, a religious institution under separation of church and state.


4. Adoption increase:

Gay people can adopt children whether the goveronment acknowladges some farse marriage institutions or not. You don't need to be married to adopt.


5. What is marriage:

Marriage has always been defined as 1 man and 1 woman, always, whether in Native American culture, Jewish culture, Egyptan culture, it doesn't matter. Redefining it makes no difference, if there were a big pile of Bull Sh*t and the goveronment passed a law saying that it was an Ice Cream Sunday, it's still a big pile of Bull Sh*t. And yes, there is a huge difference between a straight (correct) marriage, and a gay (farse) marriage, let's start with how one is correct and one is farse, and how one follows the original definition of marriage that has always been the same since marriage was inventedd, and the other follows a false newly invented definition.

Like fiat, you can pass all the laws you want, but that pile of Bull Sh*t is still a pile of Bull Sh*t not an Ice Cream Sunday, and that peice of paper is still paper not gold, and that gay marriage is still farse, not a genuine marriage. If paper ever coud be worth gold no legal tender law would be necessary, just like if gay marriage was ever a form of valid marriage no supreme court decision wuld be necessary to have it defined that way.


6. Economic Benefit:

No, unemployment went down because they only count people who have been unemployed for over 2 years, so the same people could be unemployed still, exept they aren't counted anymore, an additional 5% of the population which has become unemployed is counted instead. I could say that since our economy was better with low unemployment a low national debt and low inflation back in the 1950's when there was no gay marriages, ad this means that gay marriage unemploys people, indebts the nation and debases our currency based on this. And another thing, our economy is getting worse, not better.


Conclusion:

The gay marriage band wagon isn't a civil rights issue, it's just the goveronment overstepping, trampling over the constitution, and redefining something which properly belongs to the church to further its liberal agendas. All that is is trying to pass a dog off as a horse for the sake of equality. And not acnowladging a farse marriage isn't barring gay people from marriage, they can get up and find someone of the opposite gender if they want, they chose not to do that, but rather try and have the goveronment decree somethhing marriage to appease them, and have something inhereinty contradictory happen. It is inhereintly contradictory for a man to marry a man, if it is a man whom he is marrying, it connot be marrying, since this implies he is marrying a woman. There is no law you can pass making a dog into a horse, just like there is no law you can pass making it possible for a man to be married to a man, all that is
happening isthat they are pretending to be married, and the goveronment is forcing everyone to play along.

{1}. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
missbailey8

Pro

I. It's Not A Choice

Firstly, my opponent uses an article from Wikipedia to justify his claim, whereas I use a professional health website. Think about that when voting. Anyways, my opponent claims that brains don't develop genitalia, so they have no gender. There is a difference between sex and gender. Here are the definitions.

Gender - the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). [1]

Sex - either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. [2]

In other words, they're much different.

To make this even simpler, I'll use two examples: me and Caitlyn Jenner. I was born a female, so my sex is female, but I also identify as a woman, so I'm a woman biologically and psychologically. Now for Caitlyn Jenner. She was born a male, so her sex was male. (Unless she got a sex change, but I don't know.) She identifies as a woman, so she's a woman. It's that simple!

My opponent gives an example to combat mine about the rest of the world being gay with the following:

"Say there were a man who ran around naked, when he is arrested for public nudity, he says 'but what if there were a world where everyone were naked and you prefered to be clothed, but to them that would be being naked to you!'"

There is one major difference here; you choose to be naked, while you don't choose who to be sexually attracted to. Here's even more proof.

Apparently, genetics, birth order, womb environment, and the mother's immune system, among others, can determine sexuality. [3]

II. Equality

Firstly, my opponent gets out unalienable rights wrong, saying that humans are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. I don't know if he misunderstood my excerpt or if it's from an unlisted source, but I wanted to point that out.

Next, my opponent claims that I'm misinterpreting the definition of liberty, saying that it's the ability to move around freely, not do whatever you want. The ironic thing is that he's misinterpreting me here. Neither of these so called definitions my opponent provides are true. I got my definition from a dictionary, while my opponent used no source to justify his view. To reiterate, I'll post my definition again.

Liberty- the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. [4]

By not allowing homosexuals to marry, you're oppressing them from how they want to live their lives with a partner. Civil unions aren't the same thing as marriage either, as they restrict access to the rights that are exclusive to marriage.

My opponent then says that a gay person can just go out and find someone of the opposite gender to marry. Again, this relates back to how homosexuality is not a choice. Think about it this way: you're a man who wants to marry a woman. Let's say someone told you that you couldn't do that and that you'd have to marry a man instead. You can't just change who you're attracted to, can you?

Then, my opponent makes the claim that gays can't redefine marriage. I'll address this in a later point in which I talk all about this.

III. Separation of Church and State

Next, my opponent claims that marriage is a religious institution, but provides no proof of this. I, however, will show why marriage isn't a religious institution.

Firstly, marriage licenses are given out by the state, not the church. [5] Why would this be if it really were a religious institution? Secondly, plenty of atheists get married, yet they aren't religious. Why is that? Also, you don't have to be married by a priest. In fact, you can be married by a judge in a courthouse. [6]

IV. Adoption Increase

My opponent says that you don't need to be married to adopt children. Yes, this is true, but I was arguing that there would be an adoption increase, not an chance to adopt.

V. What Is Marriage?

My opponent claims that marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman and that it was like this in every culture, but again, has no source or proof of this. For an example, he says Egyptian culture, but this isn't true.

"Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites’ departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge)." [7]

This proves that there were unions of same-sex couples that resemble a marriage that straight couples would have in history.

Also, here's another example of "redefining" marriage. Before it was legalized in 1967, interracial marriage was seen as unnatural marriage. In fact, interracial marriage is more similar to gay marriage than we might think. In fact, almost all the points I made in my opening statements could be made be made with adjustments in information and wording, save separation of church and state.

Anyways, when interracial marriage was illegal, it was seen as a sign of an obscene act, but now it's seen by most as perfectly normal. In a way, you could say they redefined marriage but allowing couples of different races to marry. So is interracial marriage a bad thing?

VI. Economic Benefit

No offense, but this is one of my opponent's most ridiculous rebuttals I've seen in this round. He claims that unemployment went down because they didn't count people who had been unemployed for over two years and that gay marriages makes people lose jobs, so my opponent is basically blaming gay marriage for making the economy worse. He provides no proof of this, so does this even need to be defended against?

Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Best of luck. So long and goodnight!

Citations
[1]https://www.google.com...
[2]https://www.google.com...
[3]http://time.com...
[4]https://www.google.com...
[5]http://addictinginfo.org...
[6]http://www.usmarriagelaws.com...
[7]http://www.randomhistory.com...
harrytruman

Con

1. No, gender is the same as sex, it's just that a bunch of idiot liberals decided that they are different. Bruce Jenners can think that he is a purple/green Elephant with poky dots for all I care, he is a MAN, he has a X chromosome and a Y chromosome, deciding otherwise doesn't make it so.

And actualy my comparison of being naked is actually correct, you DO chose who you marry, just like you CHOSE to be naked, you don't however chose to WANT to be naked, just like, according to you, you don't chose who you want to marry.


2. Nope, it's life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, and the definition of liberty set up during the times of the Constitution was to move freely. And the homosexuals can go live with a blood sucking cannibal for all I care, he goveronment doesn't get to say it's marriage while it is clearly not.


3. Just because marriage is currently given to the goveronment doesn't meat that's to whom it belongs, there's a reason why it's called "holy mattrimony," not something else.


4. No, they were just as able to adopt as before, why they chose to do so more frequently is not my concern.


5. Big difference, marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman, nothing else, Egyptian Culture may have had it, but that was because marriage wasn't for the goveronment to decide, so a couple perverts decided they were married, just vlike murder happening in ancient china doiesn't mean it was legal.


6. I didn't say that, I only said that coorelation is not causation, you need to prove the coorelation to be consistent, otherwise I could flip it and say that it means the opposite.
Debate Round No. 3
missbailey8

Pro

I'm afraid I'm forced to waive this round, as my opponent hasn't posted his arguments, so there's nothing I can rebut. I tried to contact my opponent via comments on this debate and on his profile, but he hasn't responded to either, despite being online. He violated the structure and there's nothing I can do about it.

Good bye. I advise my opponent to waive the next round as well.
harrytruman

Con

Maybe you're in the wrong debate, in THIS debate I DID respond to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: nevedarkwolf// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered reliable sources and resolved the burden of proof only because con did not build up the status quo. Both of you need to research the constitution for your views seem to focus on the national govt more than the state government. Do not quote amendments if you don't know what they mean. Neither of you had good conduct so no point for that. Though the argument is strong it does not change my personal views so no point for that.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter merely restates the decision without explaining it. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than just state that Pro met a vague burden of proof and Con did not do something in the debate. While the voter is welcome to offer advice to the debaters, he is still required to assess the arguments given and focus on them specifically for determining the outcome.
************************************************************************
Posted by missbailey8 5 months ago
missbailey8
>"Maybe you're in the wrong debate, in THIS debate I DID respond to your arguments."

You misinterpreted me. I said that I didn't have anything to respond to, because you didn't do any opening statements.
Posted by missbailey8 5 months ago
missbailey8
You were supposed to post your arguments. Why didn't you do that?
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
harrytruman
Resolution?
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
harrytruman
What?
Posted by missbailey8 5 months ago
missbailey8
*legal
Posted by missbailey8 5 months ago
missbailey8
Should it be lega? l/ morality. You may use religion, if you do please.
Posted by harrytruman 5 months ago
harrytruman
What's the resolution?
Should it be legal?
Is it moral?
etc.
No votes have been placed for this debate.