The Instigator
Evolution078
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
DrStrangeLuv
Con (against)
Losing
9 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 4 votes the winner is...
Evolution078
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,091 times Debate No: 13473
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Evolution078

Pro

I am a firm believer that gay marriage should be leagalized within the U.S.
Simply because this country was founded for freedom of oppression. As long as gay marriage doesn't affect our social norms negativley such as the upbringing of our children, and most importnantly does not affect the economy negativley. There should be no reason why gays can not marry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thank the person willing to debate with me, my friends and family avoid confrontation.
DrStrangeLuv

Con

Hey Pro, I'd like to thank you for posting this debate. I am generally accepting of the idea of gay marriage, but for the sake of this debate I will fight against it. I am also sorry to hear your friends and family avoid this topic and am glad you found Debate.com. Good Luck!

==========================
PRO CONTENTIONS and CON COUNTERS
==========================

A) Pro decides to begin with a statement of his beliefs, which include his wish for gay marriage made a reality in the US. He goes on to state that our country was founded "for freedom of oppression", which I am going to assume means "freedom from oppression", and that gays are currently being oppressed because they do not have the right o marry. I would like to point out now that nowhere in the US Constitution does it guarantee marriage, of any sex, as a right [1], and as such should not be considered a form of oppression. The main call for homosexual marriage is that of love, and the state is doing nothing to prohibit this. The state is not stopping two homosexuals from loving each other, and since love is the crux of their argument then I do not see anyone being oppressed. Some states may even refuse to marry heterosexual couples if they are infertile or too closely related [1].

B) Pro makes the contention that as long as gay marriage does not affect social norms negatively and does not affect the economy negatively that it should be fine to legalize. My opponent offers no foundation for "social norms", so I will give examples of my own.

1) Social Norms
a) I will cede that studies have shown homosexual parents can raise children just as well as hetero couples if my opponent also agrees to cede that studies have shown they cannot. This would make child rearing a moot point.
b) Social norms are subject to change, but given the current mood of society I believe homosexual marriages will be found offensive by many, thus damaging our social norms. Though other people's opinions of gay marriage should have no effect on the legalization process, it does satisfy my opponent's point of affecting our social norms negativity.
c) Gay marriage could start a decline in the number of births in this country since homosexual couples cannot reproduce without the aid of medical intervention.
d) An increase in the number of marriages will inevitably lead to an increase to the number of divorces, which is shown to have negative consequences on society [3].

2) Economy
a) The amount of benefits married couples receive over unmarried cause a certain strain on our country. Marriage gives tax breaks and incentives one would normally not receive if single [4]. To allow gay marriage would only increase the number of married couples logically, and would therefore apply a greater strain on the economy.
b) Married couples are expected to return the favor to the state by providing stable family units, and of course children. Now, I am not saying that gays are not capable of stable, happy families, and I'm not implying that gays cannot bring children into the world (at least lesbian couples can). What I am saying is that gays require extra assistance in doing so that most hetero couples do not require. This may include more medical expenses, more people entering the bureaucracy that is child adoption, and of course both of these cause unneeded strain on the State and the economy.

=============
CON CONTENTIONS
=============

A) I have read a very good argument [2], which basically renounces gay marriage because "If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos." In other words, if you allow people to marry based solely on their love for each other, then what is to stop groups of people from marrying? What if 5 men and 2 women want to form a union of matrimony? They all love each other, and they are all consenting adults, so why not? What is to stop people from marrying brothers and sisters? According to gay marriage proponents, blood kin should marry, genetics should be no issue, because they simply love each other and are consenting adults. One can see the pitfalls in allowing blood kin to marry. Where should the marrying stop if people are allowed to wed based solely off of love? In reality, there are more things to marriage than just love.

B) Marriage is traditionally seen as the union of a man and woman because only this combination can procreate, one of the main legs of matrimony and of human existence. I do not like to discuss what is right and wrong, and I do not like to tell people what to do, but consider this thought experiment. If the world consisted mainly of homosexual couples, where would we be? Would there be later generations? Lets assume there is no medical interventions, no Invitro. Would the human race continue to exist in 100 years? Obviously the answer is a resounding no. A world with hetero couples allow procreation though, and through marriage society is able to give them benefits and the stability to achieve this goal. Maybe perhaps, marriage is an institution worth protecting and worth being made exclusive (i.e. hetero couples only)

C) I would like to add the opinion that, since the very idea of gay marriage is based off of the love of two people and nothing else, then why would not allowing them to marry effect this? Of course there are rights that should be given to those in love, and while this can be done through a reformation of the current system of civil unions, I honestly ask how being referred to as "married" will affect in any way the love you feel for each other.

I await rebuttal.

[1] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[2] http://tech.mit.edu...
[3] http://www.heritage.org...
[4] http://lesbianlife.about.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Evolution078

Pro

Thank you Con for taking this debate & also clarifying what I had meant to indicate within my statements made.
I am going to hit on the points you listed in the same order.

A) I agree with the fact that there is a need for restrictions or there could be a world/nation wide chaos. But who is to say that heterosexuality is any different in the terms of marriage. I know several people that married for benefits, all groups are heterosexual. Even if you were to prevent homosexuality there is always going to people getting married for the "wrong" reasons. How would reproduction issues be a problem based off similiar genetic code by allowing gays/lesbians to marry one another. Either way they can not have a child unless they adopt one. If we go into blood kin marrying, I am against that because of your argument of medical problems, but that is not what this debate is about. And regardless, will stopping brothers & sisters from getting married stop them from engaging in sexual intercourse? Yes there is more to marriage than just love, but if (hypothetical) Bobby & Joe can't get married, then Bobby marries Lucy & Joe marries Stacy the same problems could persist if Bobby & Joe had married. In fact it could be setting their heterosexual marriage up for failure.

B. I quote "Marriage is traditionally seen as the union of a man and a woman". This belief comes from where? Yes the bible states that Eve was made from Adams rib. But in the end what if my religion is "Mattressium" (Hypothetical) & I believe in the same sex marriage. If that view is merley argued by the bible then the constitution protects those beliefs for the freedom of religion. Homosexuality has been around since ancient times, Romans had brothels where they could pick a man or a woman to sleep with. The Spartans slept with one another to improve commorodery within their unit. The point I am making is that, Life has continued since then & In fact the populations have been increasing despite homosexuality so its impossible to say that if we we're to allow it now that life might be dwindling 100 yrs from now.

C. I agree, but that can be said for heterosexual couples as well. Before I had married my wife I argued the fact that we we're in love & there is absoloutley no need to get married. What more do we need than love? But even so she still wanted to be "Misses -" & to be declared mine. I can't explain what drives our race to want to be claimed as another, but in the end homosexuality would have the same impact as heterosexuality.

============================================================
DrStrangeLuv

Con

Thanks for the fast reply Con, I will return the favor.

==========
CON COUNTER
==========

Before I begin, I would like to point out that Pro, for whatever reason, did not respond to any of the counters I made to his initial arguments concerning social and economical norms. If he wants to rebut them in the next round I have no problem with that. If he chooses not to then I will assume he cedes these points to me.

A) Pro cedes that there is a need for restrictions or there could be a world/nation wide chaos. He then continues to say that some marriages should be legal, like straight and gay couples, but then other marriages, incestuous and groups, should not be allowed. By this reasoning, he is saying some people are entitled to marry for love, but some are not.

1)"If we go into blood kin marrying, I am against that because of your argument of medical problems," So what if heterosexual couples have genetic defects, should they be not allowed to marry? Since gay marriage proponents hold that love and consent should be the main factor for allowing marriage, it seems reasonable to assume that they would also allow brothers and sisters to marry, assuming they are consenting adults and in love. Thus, the genetics argument was meant for that, not gay couples.

2) Pro did not debate "group marriage".

3) "Either way they [gay couples] can not have a child unless they adopt one."
---Lesbian couples can conceive via Invitro fertilization.

4) This debate is not about sexual intercourse, it is about gays marrying, but yes, I cede that restricting marriage will not stop incest and homosexuality. This has nothing to do with the marriage argument though, and only goes to show that people will do what they want regardless if they're married or not, negating the issue.

B) Marriage is traditionally seen as between a man and woman because before modern medicine, it was only a man and woman who could procreate. Not to mention most, if not all, religions hold this belief and since religion is the progenitor of modern morality and tradition it seems reasonable to relate the two.

1) Pro does not dispute the fact that if everyone was gay, there would be no human race today as we know it, thus lending some illogicality to it.

2) Pro describes that despite having homosexuals, the world continues to grow. This is not what I am debating. What I am saying is that for homosexuals to live the lifestyle they want, there will always have to be heterosexual couples to propagate the human race. Case in point, procreation is unique to heterosexuals, and marriage is an institution deigned to achieve stability for them for that purpose.

C) In my final point, Pro says that there is an inherent human need to be "Mr. & Misses", but goes on to say that his wife had feelings like this, but not himself. So I believe it is safe to assume that this drives some humans but not all. By his logic, we should cater to people because of their innate desires. If I want my name to be made entirely of numbers, then I should be able to right? If I want to marry sister, then I should be able to right? The fact is, innate human desires should have no place in law. Sometimes these desires are morally wrong, sometimes they are right. But just because you feel that way does not mean it should be legal.

=============
CON CONTENTIONS
=============

A) While I am awaiting rebuttal on several other points from the previous round, I ask Pro to take those as my contentions for this round, and to consider the counters I provided above.

=======
Conclusion
=======

Before the final round begins, I ask voters to put aside personal feelings toward the matter as I have done, and consider the facts presented here today. It should be clear that my opponent is avoiding arguments and misunderstanding the ones I have made. I am trying to counter what he does present, but it seems that it is taking the debate away from unresolved issues I presented earlier. I do, however, look forward to finishing the debate and hearing my opponents final arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Evolution078

Pro

1) Some people are entitled to marry for love, but some are not. Which will be discussed with in the following paragraphs. I again would like to thank Con for accepting this debate, I wish you a good rebuttal. To the audience & to those voting, I thank you for your time.

A) Con goes on to say: "So what if heterosexual couples have genetic defects, should they be not allowed to marry? Since gay marriage proponents hold that love and consent should be the main factor for allowing marriage, it seems reasonable to assume that they would also allow brothers and sisters to marry, assuming they are consenting adults and in love. Thus, the genetics argument was meant for that, not gay couples." If a heterosexual couple has a
serious genetic disorder with in their family then they may want to look towards adoption, but that is not what this debate is about. There is not a public outcry for incestuous marriages like that of homosexuals. Homosexuality is not frowned upon as much as that of incest. And finally allowing siblings to marry would result in an increase of genetic disorders unlike a homosexual marriage.

2) Let us take a look at the definition of marriage;
(I)"The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. (B) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage ". A polygamous Marriage does not meet the same criteria recognized by our society. Marriage is viewed as monogamous in which both homosexual & heterosexuals
share.

3) After looking into some research I have come to the conclusion that I would be comfortable with the allowing homosexual couples to raise children. I go on to quote: (II) "Sociologists Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California, spent five years reviewing 81 studies of one- and two-parent families, including gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples. No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters
for child well-being, they conclude. Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures, Biblarz says." Society also agrees with the concept on (III) WWW.Debate.Juggle.Com 71% of the voters agree that
gay couples should be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals in adopting children, with only 29% being against the notion. Now let us take Invitro fertilization, Seeing as a homosexual couple are just as capable as raising children as a heterosexual couple It is safe to agree upon allowing this process to take place. Invitro fertilization would have no negative impact upon the DNA structure opposed to that of an incest couple.

4) I would like to quote Cons statement from point 1; "it seems reasonable to assume that they would also allow brothers and sisters to marry, assuming they are consenting adults and in love. Cons point 4 which goes as follows; "This debate is not about sexual intercourse, it is about gays marrying, but yes, I cede that restricting marriage will not stop incest and homosexuality. This has nothing to do with the marriage argument though,
and only goes to show that people will do what they want regardless if they're married or not, negating the issue." Con continues to seemingly contradict himself with in the points. Marriage is a contributing factor towards sexual intercourse so point 1 is a valid question & falls into the current realm and therefore must not be negated. Yes we can agree that individuals will do as they please, but marriage will just be a contributing factor which is why society had ruled out brothers & sisters getting married.

B) Con goes on to state; "Marriage is traditionally seen as between a man and woman because before modern medicine, it was only a man and woman who could procreate. Not to mention most, if not all, religions hold this belief and since religion is the progenitor of modern morality and tradition it seems reasonable to relate the two." Yes Marriage had traditionally been seen as the union between a man and a woman. Are we not living in modern times?
Modern medicine does exist with in today's society, & as we have agreed upon earlier people will end up doing as they please. Today you do not need to be married to create a baby, so how is allowing homosexuals to marry any different as long as it follows the same modern day principles? Con then argues that it is reasonable to relate to the fact that religion is the progenitor of modern day morality & tradition. (IV) "The First Amendment of the United States
Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference." This matter can not withstand to the Constitution if allowing gay marriage is solely based off religion preference."

1 & 2) Con continues on with the contradictions, I quote; "Pro does not dispute the fact that if everyone was gay, there would be no human race today as we know it, thus lending some illogicality to it." His following statement; "Pro describes that despite having homosexuals, the world continues to grow. This is not what I am debating." Since con is not debating the fact that the world grows regardless of the fact that homosexuality has been around
since Alexander The Great, I should not need to dispute the fact that if every one was gay there would be no human race today. The problem with Cons reasoning is this, not every one is gay. (V) "If we are counting those who are exclusively practicing homosexuality, it is probably the lower figure. If we are counting any who have at any time ever had any type of homosexual encounter, then the number is probably 10%, or even higher." As we have seen through
out history homosexuality had existed at all social levels. (VI) According to US Demographics from 1900-1999 The population as rose by nearly 200,000,000. Saying "If everyone was gay" Is ridiculous for the fact that not every one is. If every one was gay, we live in a modern society where invitro fertilization
does exist.

For Con's final point he goes on to over exaggerate the matter that some human beings want to be pronounced as some ones "Mr & Misses" but not all. Con then goes on to say that by this logic we should conform to all human beings innate desires, such as allowing incest. Case in point, there is a public outcry for homosexuals to be married. It is no longer a grand taboo with in the modern day to be a homosexual, it falls within society's normality's, unlike
that of incest.

My conclusion is that there is no reason why homosexuals should be denied the right to marry. There is no evidence that proves that they can not raise children as well as that of a heterosexual family. We are living within modern times with modern medication there is evidence that proves that our society will continue to grow despite sexual preference. And furthermore that religion is not an excuse to allow homosexuals to marry based off of the 1st Amendment.
-Thank you

References:
(I) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(II) http://www.usatoday.com...
(III) http://debates.juggle.com...
(IV) http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
(V) http://wiki.answers.com...
(VI)http://www.demographia.com...
DrStrangeLuv

Con

I will go through my opponents counters first, then anything he may have neglected, ending with a rebuttal of new contentions and a presentation of my own.

==Pro Counters to Con Contentions==

A) Pro, if there was public outcry to ban blacks from sitting in the front of the bus, would that make it okay? This actually happened. What I am trying to explain is that public outcry does does make it the right thing to do. You say homosexuality is not as bad as incest, but that is strictly opinion. There are some who, wrongfully I might add, consider homosexuality to be the epitome of evil, but this does not give them any weight in their argument.

2) Your definition is misleading. You are defining gay marriage in terms of traditional marriage ((B) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a TRADITIONAL marriage "). It could easily be amended to say "C) the state of being united to a group of people of the same or different sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage " for groups. You seem to just be pointing at an edited definition as proof that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage. A polygamous Marriage does not meet the same criteria recognized by Merriam-Webster. Where does M-W get its authority from anyway to define a term. I could of sworn that was up to the federal government.

3) "I will cede that studies have shown homosexual parents can raise children just as well as hetero couples if my opponent also agrees to cede that studies have shown they cannot. This would make child rearing a moot point."
---That was taken straight from my first point, which I still think you haven't read. Child rearing is too sujective to be a part of this debate. As for In-vitro, incestuous couples can have it too, and take a sperm or an egg from someone not in the relationship if they care about genetic defects so much. In the case of gay In-vitro, one of members will not be genetically related to the child at all, so genetic defects will be low.

4) Pro says: "Marriage is a contributing factor towards sexual intercourse"
--- This is false. I don't make love with my girlfriend because were going to get married, I do because I love her (and its fun).
a)"but marriage will just be a contributing factor which is why society had ruled out brothers & sisters getting married."
--- Marriage does not provoke intercourse, it is usually sexual attraction that provokes marriage. Keeping brothers and sisters from getting married discourages them from having children, not sex.

B) You realize that states can restrict even straight people from marrying if they feel they can't procreate or if their progeny will be defective. Its just not practiced often. Gay people, on their own, can't procreate. Yes, modern medicine helps, but your missing the point.
a) Our money says "In God we Trust". Case in point, separation of church and state is somewhat of a lie.

1&2) It is a thought experiment to outline the MAJOR difference between straight and gay couples: If there were no straight couples, there would be no human race. End of story. It is because of heterosexuals that homosexuals are allowed to exist. Homosexuals now want the same rights as straight marriages, when they cannot accomplish the same thing straight couples can without spending thousands of dollars to impregnate themselves. It is their choice to be gay, but to force an economic burden on society (benefits received through marriage) for their pleasure is wrong.

3) "For Con's final point he goes on to over exaggerate the matter that some human beings want to be pronounced as some ones "Mr & Misses" but not all. Con then goes on to say that by this logic we should conform to all human beings innate desires, such as allowing incest. Case in point, there is a public outcry for homosexuals to be married. It is no longer a grand taboo with in the modern day to be a homosexual, it falls within society's normality's, unlike
that of incest."
a) I say we don't conform to human innate desires: "The fact is, innate human desires should have no place in law."
Pro keeps misunderstanding my contentions.
b) It is not your place to say if it is taboo or not, that is highly subjective.

==Conclusion==

I have tried my best to counter Pro's contentions, and I find them satisfactory. Pro, on the other hand, has still failed to counter my initial contentions, which if you scroll up to round one, are:

" B) Pro makes the contention that as long as gay marriage does not affect social norms negatively and does not affect the economy negatively that it should be fine to legalize. My opponent offers no foundation for "social norms", so I will give examples of my own.

1) Social Norms
a) I will cede that studies have shown homosexual parents can raise children just as well as hetero couples if my opponent also agrees to cede that studies have shown they cannot. This would make child rearing a moot point.
b) Social norms are subject to change, but given the current mood of society I believe homosexual marriages will be found offensive by many, thus damaging our social norms. Though other people's opinions of gay marriage should have no effect on the legalization process, it does satisfy my opponent's point of affecting our social norms negativity.
c) Gay marriage could start a decline in the number of births in this country since homosexual couples cannot reproduce without the aid of medical intervention.
d) An increase in the number of marriages will inevitably lead to an increase to the number of divorces, which is shown to have negative consequences on society [3].

2) Economy
a) The amount of benefits married couples receive over unmarried cause a certain strain on our country. Marriage gives tax breaks and incentives one would normally not receive if single [4]. To allow gay marriage would only increase the number of married couples logically, and would therefore apply a greater strain on the economy.
b) Married couples are expected to return the favor to the state by providing stable family units, and of course children. Now, I am not saying that gays are not capable of stable, happy families, and I'm not implying that gays cannot bring children into the world (at least lesbian couples can). What I am saying is that gays require extra assistance in doing so that most hetero couples do not require. This may include more medical expenses, more people entering the bureaucracy that is child adoption, and of course both of these cause unneeded strain on the State and the economy. "

===

Pro even stated that if I could prove if it would be a strain on the economy that he would cede the debate. I realize this is a tough topic, and our arguments were going back and forth at some points, but he offered no rebuttal to the above contentions, so I accept them as ceded. He either missed, or just completely ignored them, even after a warning by me that he missed them last round.

I ask voters to judge based on the quality of our debating rather than their personal feelings toward the matter. I have fun with every debate I do, so I thank Pro for posting this and I hope he enjoyed himself as well.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 6 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
I don't know, I personally believe that being gay has more to do with who you are, rather than who you choose to be. Same way not everyone likes bananas, its just how they are its not a choice.
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
In sole opinion non related to this debate, i think most....or all people who are gay are gay for this sole reason. All humans eventually look for purpose weather they turn to religion or something to do, like their career, or spouse, or a family in general. I think their gay for a purpose in life; not necessarily because they were "born" gay. They chose to be.

But then again thats just my opinion based on my experiences with humans.
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 6 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
wish i could edit that now....
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Debate.org*

Not debate.com, which is what con said in round 1 :P
Posted by Evolution078 6 years ago
Evolution078
That is correct, In that case I would oppose it.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
"most importnantly does not affect the economy negativley"
So you'd oppose gay marriage if it DID somehow hurt the economy?
Posted by 20000miles 6 years ago
20000miles
I didn't know that the US is a place for freedom of oppression.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
Evolution078DrStrangeLuvTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by WhoDaFoo4 6 years ago
WhoDaFoo4
Evolution078DrStrangeLuvTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by wsu4ever 6 years ago
wsu4ever
Evolution078DrStrangeLuvTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Evolution078 6 years ago
Evolution078
Evolution078DrStrangeLuvTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52