The Instigator
jonahofdeath
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
EXOPrimal
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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
86days04hours14minutes15seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 3 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 163 times Debate No: 97347
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

jonahofdeath

Pro

First round is the acceptance round.

Everything is okay in this debate as long as it is on track to our topic.

The question is, is should gay marriage be legal?

I say yes.

I await for my opponent.
EXOPrimal

Con

I accept your challenge.
Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
jonahofdeath

Pro

My main points are:

There are many benefits that married couples get when they are married, and gay couples who can't get married aren't benefiting from them.

Some of these benefits include:
Joint tax to reduce tax burden,
Family health coverage,
Bereavement leave from work and inheritance (if partner dies)

"Traditional" marriage changes and is changing.
Interracial marriage used to be a problem and was socially unacceptable; and illegal

Marriage is a human right towards all.
It doesn't affect anyone if gays get married, and it is selfish to think otherwise. Why do you get a say in how somebody should live or what they do? (Unless it is harmful or impacts you in a dramatic way, which isn't the case in gay marriage.)

I await to hear your points.
EXOPrimal

Con

Introduction
I would first like to thank pro for opening this debate and to give us an opportunity to debate. Before starting this debate I would like to say that I am not homophobic. I have no problem with homosexual people, but I do not believe that gay couples should be able to marry. Gay couples make bad parents, Marriage is naturally straight, and the religious implications.

C1: Homosexual Parents

S1: General Adoption
A. In General Adopted Children tend to do worse overall. A study shows that adopted kids have much worse behavioral problems, and tend to to do worse in math(1). This is troubling because the children in this study were adopted my rich and loving parents.

B. Adopted children tend to develop psychological problems after they find out that they have been adopted. Adopted children tend to develop Identity and Self-esteem problems. The children also feel guilt when they try to find their real parents. They struggle with the idea that they have an entire family that they may never meet(2).

C. It is much harder for an adopted child to bond with his/her new found parents. Orphanage life is less that ideal. When a child is adopted alder there is a higher chance that he/she will will be sent back to his/her foster home. Sometimes bonds happen, but sometimes they don't happen, and that is a problem.

D. This is heavily problematic. these issues become prevalent after a child has figured out that he/she has been adopted, but with adopted parents it has always been an option to hid a adopted child's status until the child has grown up enough to cope. With gay parents this option is obviously not possible and puts the child at a greater risk.

S2: Homosexual Parenting
A. If you believe that that statistics are troubling, the statistics of children with gay parents, or with previously gay parents is horrific. This will be a main reason why homosexual people should not be able to marry. This information will be provided in a series of info graphics, all info graphics come from (4)

B.


C.


D.


E.


F. The children of parents who are gay, or were once gay are consistently at a greater risk, from unemployment to a higher rate of suicide. Gay marriage should not be allowed for the sake of these parent's kids. By allowing gay couples to adopt kids we are putting the kids at risk, and the moral implications of that is not good.

C2: Religion
A. Many religions condemn gay marriage, and we should take these into account.

S1: Christianity
A. Leviticus 18:22: " Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

B. Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

C. Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

S2: Islam
A. Quran (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)" -

B. Quran (26:165-166) - "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing"

C. Quran (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone"

S3: Judaism
A. Lev. 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is detestable."

B. Lev. 20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed a detestable act: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

C. Deuteronomy 23:17 "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a kedeshah, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a kadesh."

C3:Marriage is Naturally Straight

A. Marriage is naturally straight; two homosexuals can love each other, but there is no need for the state to step in. The implications of marriage is child rearing, and when a couple is married they are allowed under law to bear children. There is no need for the state to marry homosexual people because they cannot bear a child, so there is no need for the state to step in. this is similar to the state not allowing to teenagers to be married; the kids may love each other, but they cannot get married.

Conclusion
Homosexual people should not be allowed to marry. The adopted children of homosexual couples are at a greater risk. Major religions condemn homosexuality. There is also little need for two gay people to be married. Gay people may love, but they should not be able to marry.

For these reasons I urge you to Vote Con, Over to Pro

Citations

1.http://www.theatlantic.com...
2.https://www.mentalhelp.net...
3. http://www.livescience.com... 4.http://www.familystructurestudies.com...
Debate Round No. 2
jonahofdeath

Pro

I appreciate the information with your research on this project, however, have a few rebuttals on your claims.

For your first claim, adopting kids is entirely different than marriage. If you are against general adoption which is a major idea in your first claim, than maybe the banning of adoption should be better than the banning of homosexual marriage. While they both symbiotically coexist, they are different shades of the topic.

Gay couples certainly do not make bad parents. While you have several studies finding that they make bad parents, I have found many studies that find homosexual parents BETTER than regular parents. (1)

Here are several reasons why they could be better, all citations going to "(2)".

1. Homosexual parents are more committed.
They, with only 50% of heterosexual parents, choose to be parents. While homosexuals can't reproduce, 50% of heterosexuals didn't want a child. With that in mind, homosexual parents are more motivated to achieve what a "parent" truly means.

2. Gender Roles
With two women or two men, there are no gender roles. Therefore, a child will have a mindset that allows them to do what they need, not because of their gender, but because they are skilled at what they do.

3. Open-mindedness in General
With the experience of the parents being judged and oppressed for their homosexuality, they will raise there children in a way that gives them open-mindedness towards others.

The William Institute has even found that they are just as well off as children with heterosexual parents. They are academically successful, motivated, and are psychologically well adjusted. (3)

My only point I wish to make with this is that a few chosen studies that support your claim do not make the claim absolutely correct. There are many different studies, and they each have many different statistics and responses.

Your third claim, that we should take into account the many religions that condemn gay marriage, is utterly irrational. You are correct, there are many religions that find homosexual marriage bad, but why should that be a major point?

Religion should never have an impact on the everyday lives of people, especially the ones who don't believe in the religion. We are a country free of religion in government, and it is constitutionally wrong to allow religion to have any say in government. We are a country that is free from religion, and religions should never have the power to decide how people should live.

I would love to understand your perspective on why religion should be taken into account when dealing with homosexual marriage; or government at all.

Your forth claim, stating that marriage is naturally straight, doesn't make much sense. You are saying we shouldn't be allowed to grant homosexuals a human right because it is traditionally straight.

Using that logic, I could say that we should allow Islamic followers to get there hands cut off, to be stoned, and to keep slaves because it is just traditional. We should keep slaves, because it used to be a traditional thing, and so it couldn't possibly be okay now. However wrong it could be in one's opinion, it was okay before, and so it should be okay now.

You state, "there is no need for the state to marry homosexual people because they cannot bear a child, so there is no need for the state to step in."

Marriage is not only for procreation. If that were true, infertile couples or couples not wishing to reproduce shouldn't be married either.

However impressive your research was, it wasn't truly accurate, and until I see something more persuasive, I will most certainly not believe homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


These are my claims into further detail.

1. Marriage is a Human Right for All

a. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time." (4)
b. In 1967 the US Supreme Court unanimously confirmed in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man." (5)
c. The White House website lists same-sex marriage amongst a selection of civil rights, along with freedom from employment discrimination, equal pay for women, and fair sentencing for minority criminals. (6)

All of these reflect marriage being a human right. Therefore, there is no reason that homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal.


2. "Traditional" Marriage Changes

a. Polygamy has been widespread throughout history, according to Brown University political scientist Rose McDermott, PhD. (8) Polygamy now is considered socially unacceptable, but if it was tradition, like you say, it should be allowed because it was how marriage was traditionally. Just think about that for a second.

b. Interracial marriage was once illegal in a majority of US states, and was still banned in half of US states until the 1950s. (5) Is that okay? Or do you think that traditionally we should restrict that once again?


3. Marriage has Benefits that all People Should Be Allowed to Have

a. The intangible benefits that marriage offers many families include clarity, security, structure, dignity, spiritual significance, and an expectation of permanence, dedication, and stability.

b. There are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their kids. These are a few examples, taken from "(9)".

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.

Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.

Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.

Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.

These are just a few examples, once again.
Because of these reasons I have provided, I urge you to vote for gay marriage and not against it.

EXOPrimal

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for putting the time and research into his arguments, and I hope we can continue this debate in this mature manner.

Rebuttal
Direct Quotation(R2):"Traditional marriage changes, and is changing"

Things may be changing, but is it for the better? Change happens, many things are changing. Our debate is essentially answering whether or not this change is for the good, so this line is arbitrary.

Direct Quotation(R2):"Interracial marriage used to be a problem and was socially unacceptable; and illegal"

You cannot control your race, your born a race and you cannot change it. Homosexuality may not be completely a choice, but you are not born gay. Many people may say that people are born as a homosexual, but that isn't true(1).

Direct Quotation(R2,R3):"Marriage is a human right towards all"

Pro repeats this in his arguments but is it true? Lets look into this deeper. Life, Liberty, The pursuit of happiness, and marriage? It just doesn't make sense. There is also nothing stopping a gay person from marrying, but they just can't marry someone of their own sex. This is similar to how you can pursue happiness, but if your idea of happiness is burning down buildings, we may just restrict you.

Direct Quotation(R2):"It doesn't affect anyone if gays get married, and it is selfish to think otherwise. Why do you get a say in how somebody should live or what they do?"

I will now parody this quote."It doesn't affect anyone if someone kills themselves and it is selfish to think otherwise. Why do you get a say in how somebody should live or what they do?"

Direct Quotation(R3): "In 1967 the US Supreme Court unanimously confirmed in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

Loving v. Virginia was a case of interracial marriage(2), I have explained the different between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage already.

Direct Quotation(R3): "The White House website lists same-sex marriage amongst a selection of civil rights, along with freedom from employment discrimination, equal pay for women, and fair sentencing for minority criminals."

The white house website has a section about fighting against the discrimination of LGBT individual. There is nothing about marriage as a civil right. In fact the section that LGBT people are under is "fighting discrimination"(3)

Direct Quotation(R3):" Polygamy has been widespread throughout history, according to Brown University political scientist Rose McDermott, PhD. Polygamy now is considered socially unacceptable, but if it was tradition, like you say, it should be allowed because it was how marriage was traditionally. Just think about that for a second."

Things change, and polygamy is not acceptable. I am not arguing towards traditionally. This quote is arbitrary and doesn't really help Pro's cause.

Defence
Summery: Homosexual parents are more committed, eliminate gender roles, and encourage open mindedness; therefore making them better parents

The reason that the children are at a greater risk may not be because of the parents themselves, but because of the environment that they are in. Homosexuality is seen as "weird" and the children of these couples may be be marked because of their parents. The commitment may not be enough to justify the parenting. The other two point really don't justify the higher risk of suicide(4). Studies always go multiple ways, here is another study going my way(5).Common sense also backs my point. When something is not normal it is always antagonised. This antagonistic is not goes, but it's in human nature.

Summery: Pro completely disregards my religious argument, marking it as "utterly irrational"

75% of the American population identifies as one of the 3 religious I have specifically pointed out(6). Completely disregarding this is very naive. Antagonising these people isn't the smartest thing to do. The largest amount of LGBT people in us cities is 6.2%(7). Ignoring 75% of people over such a small percent is nothing less of stupid. Religion should be separate from the state but the influence will always be there, and acting like its invisible does not help.

Direct Quotation(R3):"Religion should never have an impact on the everyday lives of people, especially the ones who don't believe in the religion."

Pro may have meant something else, but if religion should not have an impact than praying and church should not be allowed. And the old atheist fallback is used again. Atheists are a good portion of the population but hey are only around 20%(6). Ignoring them wouldn't be smart, but tailoring everything towards them isn't the answer either. The atheist fallback is used many times, and I think its very arrogant.

For these reasons I urge you to vote Con over to Pro

Citations
1.https://socialinqueery.com...
2.https://www.law.cornell.edu...
3.https://www.whitehouse.gov...
4.http://www.familystructurestudies.com...
5.http://thefederalist.com...
6.http://www.pewforum.org...
7.http://www.usnews.com...
Debate Round No. 3
jonahofdeath

Pro

Thank you for the immense time and work being put into this debate to further identify the answers of this world. With all intentions being for the greater of this debate, I will tend to take the organization of my work to what my opponent is doing.

Rebuttals
With all due respect, you seem to be looking at a lot of biased few websites that support your opinion. Your opinion that I am referring to is: "Homosexuality may not be completely a choice, but you are not born gay. Many people may say that people are born as a homosexual, but that isn't true{(1)}."

I have researched the matter on my own and found many websites that support the idea of homosexuality being a gene at birth. I don't doubt that you have looked into the matter on both sides, however I believe the latter on being nurtured into a homosexuality. (1) (2) Even if the idea stands with evidence being on both sides, you yourself are not homosexual, and are trusting others to tell you what people feel like. However they got that information, I will never know.

You seem to think of a lot of my arguments as arbitrary. Yet, I could attack a lot of what you say as arbitrary:

Round 2: "C3:Marriage is Naturally Straight

"A. Marriage is naturally straight; two homosexuals can love each other, but there is no need for the state to step in. The implications of marriage is child rearing, and when a couple is married they are allowed under law to bear children. There is no need for the state to marry homosexual people because they cannot bear a child, so there is no need for the state to step in. this is similar to the state not allowing to teenagers to be married; the kids may love each other, but they cannot get married."

Like you said, just because it is tradition for only heterosexuals to marry, doesn't make it right. Therefore, that makes your claim pointless, using your own logic.

Your original rebuttal: "There is also nothing stopping a gay person from marrying, but they just can't marry someone of their own sex. This is similar to how you can pursue happiness, but if your idea of happiness is burning down buildings, we may just restrict you."

For one, you are supporting homosexuals not being able to show there true selves, and instead having to marry someone they aren't happy with. This is ridiculous to think that way. You are supporting being the same, and not being able to express yourself. This is not okay either. If voters are reading this correctly, they will agree with me. Further, this "similarity" you assume of is comparing apples to oranges. Homosexual marriage is not the same as property damage. One is private, and doesn't have any damages because of it. Burning down bridges is definitely damaging. Your statement, whether it is or not, sounds very close-minded towards expressing differences.

You state: "I will now parody this quote. 'It doesn't affect anyone if someone kills themselves and it is selfish to think otherwise. Why do you get a say in how somebody should live or what they do?'"

I completely agree with that statement. While that is another topic, I truly believe that we should allow people to commit suicide if they want to. It is there choice alone, and we can't make the choice for them. We should not care what other people want to do unless it truly affects us in a way that makes that has a negative effect.

This is a rebuttal to your rebuttal: "Direct Quotation(R3): "In 1967 the US Supreme Court unanimously confirmed in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

Loving v. Virginia was a case of interracial marriage(2), I have explained the different between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage already."

You are using the stick man fallacy in this statement. My intention was to not claim that homosexual marriage is supported in Loving v. Virginia case, but that it is a human right. This has nothing to do with the difference between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, so don't try to change my point to a weaker one.

Another rebuttal to your rebuttal: "The white house website has a section about fighting against the discrimination of LGBT individual. There is nothing about marriage as a civil right. In fact the section that LGBT people are under is "fighting discrimination"
They are fighting discrimination because they don't get equal treatment. They are "fighting" for marriage and other discriminatory factors, so, yes, they are fighting for marriage.

"Things change, and polygamy is not acceptable. I am not arguing towards traditionally. This quote is arbitrary and doesn't really help Pro's cause."

Polygamy isn't acceptable in our times, but back then, it was completely okay. What makes our view right and their view wrong? And you are definitely arguing towards traditionally. Like I said before, you claimed that "marriage is traditionally straight".

I do hope you give some better rebuttals, and better defences, that actually help the argument, because, with all due respect, they haven't changed my mind, and they definitely have not changed the minds of the voters.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Defense
Homosexuality is not something that people choose. That is the cheap way to justify somebodies "wrongdoings" in their eyes, like Con's. Homosexuality is something that people are born with. It is as simple as that. There are many different evidential factors that allow this to be, like the "gay" gene. (3)

Marriage is a human right, it falls right into column of the pursuit of happiness. If someone cannot be happy because they can't marry the people they love, then their human right is not fulfilled. Therefore, marriage, all happy marriage, is a human right.

If America can't fulfill something originating from the Declaration of Independence, that is, all types of marriages (to whomever is happy because of it), then America isn't constitutional and giving the citizens basic human rights.


Now, to all those voters out there that understand and have a great open-minded perspective, see the flaws in Con's argument. I await Con's final argument.


Citations
1. http://www.pinknews.co.uk...
2. https://www.theguardian.com...
3. http://www.godandscience.org...


EXOPrimal

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for this debate, and I would like to wish him luck on the rest of his endeavors.
Small Rebuttals
Direct quotation(R4):With all due respect, you seem to be looking at a lot of biased few websites that support your opinion

And Pro is using some extremely unbiased websites like "pinknews" and in his second citation in round 4 he literally linked a persuasive essay.

Direct Quotation(R4):Therefore, marriage, all happy marriage, is a human right

Pro hastily changes his argument, adding the word happy. Take what you want from this.

Direct Quotation(R4):If America can't fulfill something originating from the Declaration of Independence, that is, all types of marriages (to whomever is happy because of it), then America isn't constitutional and giving the citizens basic human rights.

The word "marriage" does not appear once in the declaration of independence(4)

Direct Quotation(R4):They are fighting discrimination because they don't get equal treatment. They are "fighting" for marriage and other discriminatory factors, so, yes, they are fighting for marriage.

We are debating over whether or not gay people should be able to marry, not whether of not they should be discriminated against. Allowing gay marriage is not the same as fighting against the discrimination of homosexual peoples.
The "Gay Gene"
A. Pro seems to think that gayness is because of a gene citing some links. He seems to intentionally bypass some quotes from the links. In fact in his third citation an entire half of the article supports the other side of the argument.

B."He stressed that a variety of factors – including genetics, upbringing and environment play a part in developing sexual orientation, which is complex and emerges over time."(1)

C."For females, sexual preference does seem to change over time. A 5-year study of lesbians found that over a quarter of these women relinquished their lesbian/bisexual identities during this period: half reclaimed heterosexual identities and half gave up all identity labels."(2)

D. If you are born gay then you can't change but this quote shows that you can, so being born gay doesn't make sense.

E. Of course homosexuality can't be changed in an instant, but you are not born gay. Gayness comes from a variety of outside influences. Also scientists have yet to identify a single gene responsible for "gayness"(1)(2). We cannot say that you are born gay before we identify this gene.(Xq28 an 8q12 are gene regions not genes)

Suicide, Gayness, and Family
Direct Quotation(R4): I truly believe that we should allow people to commit suicide if they want to. It is there choice alone, and we can't make the choice for them. We should not care what other people want to do unless it truly affects us in a way that makes that has a negative effect.

A. Suicide is a very permanent solution to a temporary problem. Anyone can understand that suicide doesn't effect only one person. Suicide effects the family, and I don't even need to cite this to say that suicide puts the family of the person into a state of near hell(3).

B. You may be thinking "but gayness isn't like suicide", yeah but coming out being gay does effect your family. If I had a kid I wouldn't want him/her to be gay, because I don't want him/her to experience the constant antagonisation of society. antagonization, imagine if a person came out as gay in an extremely religious family. It would turn the family inside out. Everything has an effect on something/someone else.

Conclusion
Please note that Pro has yet to successfully rebut 2 of my 3 points. Homosexual couples make poor parents, and the religious implications of gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with being gay, but allowing gay marriage would not benefit society. If you have thoroughly read our argument it will be clearly obvious that pro clearly lacks superior points.

For these reasons I urge you to vote Con. Please have an RFD that explains every weighted point that is rewarded.

Thank you
Citations
1.http://www.pinknews.co.uk...
2.http://www.godandscience.org...
3.http://www.healthyplace.com...
4.http://www.ushistory.org...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by EXOPrimal 3 days ago
EXOPrimal
I typed my last point during my lunch period, but its better than nothing :/
No votes have been placed for this debate.