The Instigator
cameronl35
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,465 times Debate No: 18281
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

cameronl35

Con

Gay marriage defeats the purpose of "marriage". Modern day marriage is descended from Christianity and the Christian marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not arguing that gay couples should not get the same rights, but for what their partnership should be called.
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the debate Cameron.

1. Homosexuality is not a choice

Homosexuality has a significant genetic component: According to Time Magazine, "It's a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party -- no, an orgy -- among themselves. With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly "love song" fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line. What's going on? Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay -- and that he and Zhang made them that way. The scientists say they transplanted a single gene into the flies that caused them to display homosexual behavior. And that's very interesting, they assert, because a related gene exists in human beings." [1] In addition, according to New Scientists, "A gene has been discovered that appears to dictate the sexual preferences of female mice. Delete the gene and the modified mice reject the advances of the males and attempt to mate with other females instead." [2] In addition, many studies link being gay with pre-natal testosterone exposure (which would be determined genetically, since the fetus's genetics determine which hormones it manufactures). According to the Seattle Times, "In heterosexual women, the index and ring fingers are usually about the same length. In heterosexual men, the index finger is shorter, on average, than the ring finger. It's one of several differences between the sexes that seem to be set before birth, based on testosterone exposure. Breedlove found lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function. 'Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women,' Breedlove said. This can't be a fluke.'" [3]

2. Homosexuality in nature

The same Seattle Times article points out that sheep breeders have long known that 8% of rams refuse to mate (because they are gay). A book by Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., called Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity outlines all the different animal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. For example, 10% of silver gulls, 22% of black headed gulls, and 9% of Japanese macaques are homosexual. [4] The book is the first to document homosexual behavior on such a wide scale because the taboo nature of the subject led many previous biologists/naturalists to exclude observed homosexual behaviors from their published literature. Bahemihl documents 1500 species that display homosexual behavior. [5] If animals, which are not rational beings, engage in homosexual behavior, it must be "natural" and cannot be a "choice."

3. Equal Protection

The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law." Gay marriage opponents usually argue that "gay people have an equal right to marriage because they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender." However, since homosexuality is not a choice, gay people, by definition, cannot fall in love with someone of the opposite gender, so they do not have equal protection, unless my opponent endorses the idea of loveless marriages.

4. Separate is inherently unequal

As the Supreme Court famously said in Brown v. the Board of Education, "separate . . . is inherently unequal." Just as segregated schools were going to be inherently unequal because Southern states had an inherent disinterest in making the "black" schools as good as the "white" schools, so domestic partnership will be inherently unequal because states and the federal government (or at least many legislators) have a disinterest in making the two institutions exactly the same. So gay couples will always find it difficult, for example, to visit each other in hospitals (and be recognized as the other's proxy decision-maker), to inherit from each other, to help a non-American partner gain citizenship (and not be deported), etc. The only way to ensure gay people receive equal rights is to make the two institutions the same. Even most civil union states do not grant all the same rights to gay couples.

5. Stigma

Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married implies that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple. Let's be honest here about the true reason to try to limit marriage to "traditional, Christian marriage."

6. Utilitarianism

We should seek to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Gay marriage generates tax revenue for the state and business for a lot of people (caterers, photographers, etc), so there are benefits to allowing it, but absolutely no downsides, as we'll see later with studies of countries where it is allowed.

==Rebuttal==

R1) Traditional Christian marriage

This is the argument from tradition, which is merely the is-ought fallacy. Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is morally right for it to be that way or it ought to be that way. The same argument would justify not allowing blacks and whites to marry.

Also, the Bible is not exactly a good moral guide: it tells us to stone our children for being disobedient, for one thing. Lott, the most moral man in the Kingdom of Sodom, told the villagers that they could rape his daughters (rather than his two visitors) and had sex with his daughters and impregnated them once he fled the city. This is not exactly the best morality tale. So if the Bible should not inform our morals, we should not look to it when deciding anything.

In addition, the Bible is a work of fiction. Here are 700 inconsistencies in the Bible. [6] In addition, the account of Paul fails to mention the virgin birth, which you would think is kind of a big deal. Why should we deny real people rights based on a fictional book.

God doesn't even exist.

Proof 1:

The Problem of Evil

P1: If the Christian God exists he is aware of all suffering (omniscient), Capable of ending all suffering (omnipotent) and would desire to end all suffering (omnibenevolent).

P2: Suffering exists.

P3: Therefore the Christian God does not exist.

Proof 2:

Omnibenevolent and Omnipotence can not co-exist.

P1: An omnibenevolent being will always perform the most benevolent act, is unable not to do so.

P2: An omnibenevolent being therefore lacks free will.

P3: A being without free will cannot be described as omnipotent.

P4: A being cannot posses the characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence.

P5: Therefore God does not exist. [7]

R2) Gay marriage degrades marriage for others

This argument is inherently silly. No one goes home to his loving wife and his beautiful children and thinks, "wow, I can't enjoy any of this because those gays can get married." There is no evidence that people lose respect for the institution of marriage.

"In countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized--Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain--the rate of heterosexual marriage stability has either gone up, remained stable, or declined consistent with other countries in the region that do not recognize same-sex marriage." [8] So gay marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage.

If anything, turn this argument, gay marriage strengthens marriage because it shows that all people want to pledge themselves to each other.

Sources:
[1]-[5] http://www.debate.org...
[6] http://www.cs.umd.edu...
[7] Cerebral_Narcissist, http://www.debate.org...
[8] http://civilliberty.about.com...
Debate Round No. 1
cameronl35

Con

My opponent states that being gay/lesbian is predetermined based on things such as finger length. So, if this is true, females who have male like fingers and males who have different fingers would have to be considered gay or lesbian? This is just as irrational as gays claiming they don't have the same human rights. Is it morally correct for one to feel gay or lesbian because of their finger size? Must they make this choice? 3.5% of America is gay according to a UCLA study. According to a recent survey 83% of Americans claim to be a Christian. You can not defy the fact that a majority of Christians are against gay marriage. Why do you think gay marriage is still illegal in most states? Should the government appeal to 3.5%, or 83%?

Marriage is originated between a man and a woman. I am not arguing that Christianity is correct. I am arguing that the modern marriage is from Christianity which is suppose to be between a man and a woman. Gays have a civil union. Now, is it morally correct that civil unions do not have the same right as marriages? No, a civil union should have the same rights as a marriage. That is not what this debate is about though, it is about if gays are part of the definition of marriage, which they are not and shouldn't be a part of. Should a kid at age 7 have to decide to marry a male or female? Bringing up if God exists or not is a totally different discussion and is irrelevant. I am not a Christian but I do know what marriage is based from and that a majority of America is Christian.

Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married does imply that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple. A "traditional, Christian marriage" IS what a marriage is based off today. Like it or not, that is what marriage is. If you want to change that, debate that in a different section. Telling gay couples they can not marry is similar to telling a black man they can not be white. Does that mean they are filthy and wrong? No, it means they are different. Black people have rights now, so can gays. I promote that. But, black people do not consider themselves white. Black people consider themselves people who deserve the same rights Whites do. Why can't gays and straight people consider themselves to be couples in love who deserve the same right, just as black and whites do now? Please explain to me why it is required that you need to be considered "married" to be equal.
http://www.christianpost.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the quick reply Cameron.

==Rebuttal==

R1) Finger length

My opponent merely confuses correlation and causation. Just because you're female and have a ring finger shorter than the middle finger does not automatically make you a lesbian, but it means you were exposed to more testosterone than normal in utero and are more likely to be a lesbian. Remember, the Breedlove study found that "'Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women."

My opponent also doesn't answer the fruit fly study and the mice study that finds that homosexuality is genetically determined and thus not a choice.

My opponent also doesn't answer the Bruce Bahemihl book which proves that homosexuality is widespread in nature, again reinforcing the idea that it is natural and genetic.

R2) Homosexuality is uncommon/unpopular

My opponent cites a statistic here that says that 3.5% of Americans are gay and 83% are Christian, and then he asserts, without evidence, that all (or most) Christians are anti-homosexual. There are a lot of problems with this.

First, it is offensive that my opponent would argue that the government should appeal to the 83% rather than the 3.5%. It is firstly offensive to Christians who are not homophobic to imply that all Christians are adamantly anti-gay. It's secondly offensive for him to appeal to the tyranny of the majority – the same logic would justify denying rights to blacks, since they are only 12% of the population and whites were the majority.

In addition, a more widely accepted statistic is that 1 in 10 people are gay. According to Gary J. Gates, a Senior Research Fellow at The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, "if you define "gay" as having same-sex attractions or behaviors, you do get higher proportions that are a bit closer to the one in ten figure" than if you define it as "do you self-identify as gay." The UCLA study is flawed because many homosexuals are closeted and may not admit to others or themselves that they are gay, but people are more willing to admit to same-sex attractions.

Also, not every Christian opposes gay marriage. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 53% of Americans support gay marriage. [1] According to Andrew Sullivan, the gay marriage campaign is "one of the most successful political and social campaigns in history;" gay marriage has gone from having 41 percentage points more people DISAPPROVE than approve to having 8 percentage points more people APPROVE than disapprove in only 15 years. [1] That's truly astonishing and shows how quickly times are changing. My opponent should get with the program.

R2) Definition of marriage

My opponent continues the argument from tradition: marriage was originally between a man and a woman. Definitions change. Marriage was ORIGINALLY between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman. The argument from tradition is a total failure. "President" once meant "that white guy that lives in the White House."

R3) Civil Unions

My opponent says that homosexuals should have equal rights in civil unions. However, this will never happen since as the Supreme Court said in Brown, separate is inherently unequal. As long as homosexuals are given a separate institution, equality will lag; state legislatures will drag their feet; the INS will still deport gay partners, etc.

My opponent says, "That is not what this debate is about though, it is about if gays are part of the definition of marriage, which they are not and shouldn't be a part of." No, this debate is about whether the judge should be in favor or against gay marriage. We are not debating about the definition of marriage – that debate could be settled rather quickly with a dictionary. For example, according to Princeton's Wordnet, marriage is "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)." No mention of man or woman.

R4) ???????????

My opponent says, "Should a kid at age 7 have to decide to marry a male or female?" NO. A kid should never be getting married at age 7.

In addition, homosexuality isn't a choice. Homosexuals are attracted to the same gender because of their genetic heritage which has either exposed them to a large burst of testosterone in utero or not. So the 7 year old doesn't decide who to be attracted to at age 7. When he hits puberty (around age 14), if his peepee goes up when he looks at girls, he is heterosexual and if it goes up when he looks at boys, he is homosexual, and if it goes up all the time, well . . . that's pretty much what puberty is.

R5) Does the Christian God exist?

My opponent says, "Bringing up if God exists or not is a totally different discussion and is irrelevant. I am not a Christian but I do know what marriage is based from and that a majority of America is Christian." If he is not Christian, why is my opponent demanding we all live our lives based on what some fictional book tells us to do? The appeal to the majority is just ridiculous as well. If the majority of Americans believed in ghosts, that doesn't meant that we should model our lives after lessons learned from Ghostbusters.

So whether God exists or the Bible is correct IS relevant since my opponent never proves why we should look to the Christian Bible as a model for our lives, especially when it advocates stoning disobedient children and seems to endorse rape and incest.

R6) Filth

My opponent says, "Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married does imply that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple." I'm glad my opponent admits to being a bigot. I assume that all non-homophobics will dock him the conduct point.

My opponent says, "Telling gay couples they cannot marry is similar to telling a black man they cannot be white." EXACLTY. Back when whites held all the power and blacks had no rights, the whites told the blacks they "could not be white" since blacks had lower intelligence and other forms of eugenics research.

The problem is, the opposite is true. A gay person cannot be straight. It's simply not possible. They can enter a "re-education" program and start lying to the world, but they cannot force themselves to be attracted to the opposite gender.

A traditional "Christian" marriage was a marriage between two white people. At the very least, it was a marriage between two Christians. So by my opponent's definition, the U.S. should outlaw a marriage between a Jew and a Christian. The appeal to tradition is a bad one.

R7) Stigma

My opponent says, "Please explain to me why it is required that you need to be considered "married" to be equal."

Well, let's look to an analogy. Let's pretend that my opponent has an IQ that is under 80, for the sake of this analogy. Now "traditionally" in this country, college degrees were only for the extremely elite and intelligent (when colleges were first around), but now they hand them out to pretty much anyone who is willing to pay. So to prevent the definition of "college degree" from being tainted, we say that for people who have an IQ under 80, they can still go to college and graduate, and they can have all the same rights as a normal college graduate, but if they ever refer to their college degree, they can't call it that; they have to refer to it as their "special token."

Or to go with a slightly more crude and insulting analogy. Pretend my opponent has a penis that is only 2 inches long (or less). Now let's say women get together and decide that men with less than 2 inch penises can still have intercourse, but they can't call it sex, they have to call it "unsatisfying gyration." Imagine my opponent running to his friends when he loses his virginity and happily exclaiming, "Suzy and I just engaged in unsatisfying gyration." Words have power, and forcing someone to use a different word than the real one is insulting.

The process and the adamancy with which we would deny certain people the use of the same word as everyone else is an obvious insult. It's like saying "here gay people, we know you're choosing to live in sin, you can have your little pretend marriage, but we won't let you call it that and sully the word marriage. So go play gay and be happy, but when you grow out of this phase, let us know and you can have the "real thing.""

DROPPED ARGUMENTS

1. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that all people have equal protection under the law. Since a gay man cannot choose to marry a straight woman, since homosexuality is not a choice, gays do not have equal rights to marriage. Banning gay marriage violates our Constitution.

2. Separate is inherently unequal. Anti-homosexual advocates will never grant equal rights to gays under civil unions. The only true way to grant equal rights is for the Supreme Court to recognize gay marriage as being mandated by the 14th Amendment.

3. Utilitarianism. Allowing gay marriage generates jobs and revenue for the state, with no downsides. My opponent drops the study that in countries that allow gay marriage, traditional marriage rates have remained unchanged.

4. God doesn't exist and the Bible is wrong, contradictory, and advocates evil acts. It should not be used as a moral guide.

It should be clear from the dropped arguments that this debate is over. Vote pro.

[1] http://www.patheos.com...
Debate Round No. 2
cameronl35

Con

My opponent obviously did not even bother to read what the debate was about. He is clearly misguided in my opinions and what kind of person I am. He calls me things like "bigot", which I find very offensive, so I would like to get things clear.

1. I am not debating about whether there is a God or not for the last time.
2. I support Gay people and individualism.
3. If my opponent would have paid more attention, he would've known that this debate is about what the partnership should be called. He states " No, this debate is about whether the judge should be in favor or against gay marriage." This proves my point that my opponent has no idea what this debate is about even though it was stated in the beginning.
4. It is obvious my opponent is against religion and disrespects religious beliefs on a topic not correlated with religion, which should win me a point from the religious people

R1) You claim that i am confused with correlation and causation. You state that finger length increases likelihood of being lesbian/gay. This creates another bullying topic. For example, "Oh look at Johnny, he has female-like fingers, he must be gay!" Yes, while that isn't true, it creates another bullying topic, like we need more. It should not be stressed or brought up that finger length may correlate to being gay or lesbian unless the person is already gay/lesbian. This is just an added pressure. Although whether being gay or lesbian is a choice or not is not this debate, so how does the fruit fly study and the book written by Bahemihl relate to this debate at all? You include so many extraneous facts that have nothing to do with this debate. This again worries me that my opponent does not know what the debate is about. I think he is offended that I am some "bigot", rather immature if you ask me.

R2) I refer to Christians because that is the most dominant religion as stated in many sources. Although, other religions such as Judaism and Muslim, go against gay marriage too. I do not imply that all Christians are adamantly anti-gay, but I do imply that it is stressed in the bible
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death." The bible does go against homosexual behavior whether you like it or not, and if the Christians disbelieve in that, that already proves their bible corrupt but that is a different topic. I am not arguing that the bible is correct. I believe it has very gruesome topics and it shouldn't inform our morals. But if this is what the people believe in since this country was founded by the people for the people we must respect their decisions. We can try to change their opinions but forcing it is unjust. So if 53% of Americans support gay marriage, why hasn't the law been passed? We had votes on prop 8 and more, it hasn't won over yet, until the people change we shouldn't force the change.
R3) Definitions do change. Definitions change over time by people learning over time some difference is ok. Until that time gay marriage shouldn't be enforced. You can't just tell a huge amount of people there is a new law that goes against your biblical proportions, like it or not. That's such a great way of promoting human rights.

R4) Yes civil unions could have the same rights if their rights are rewritten.

You have no right to say what this debate is about, I started the topic and it was clearly stated in the beginning.

R5)

I never encouraged that kids should get married at age 7, but are you claiming you didn't know what marriage was? You didn't see your or your friends parents together? You had no idea what marriage was? I have known marriage since before elementary school, and the idea of homosexual and heterosexual marriage does pressure the idea of a choice regardless of the morality of a 7 year old kid's fantasy. The idea of marriage is in the kid's brain, you can't deny that.

I already addressed that homesexuality not being a choice is irrelevant.

R6) I am happy to see this! The God debate again! How many times can this come up on a GAY MARRIAGE debate?
In response to the Ghostbusters metaphor as ridiculous as it is, people would have to do research and start proving the ghostbusters theory incorrect. If sufficient research isn't done and people still believe in the Ghostbusters we must be patient and slowly the process while change. This can work eventually, as long with the gay marriage topic. But must we go against what this country was founded on (the people) immediately or let them change.

R7)
I made a typo error, I meant to say "Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married doesn't imply that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple." If you want to rant on how I "screwed up", what about you? You have mistakes too. "EXACLTY" is an incorrect way of spelling exactly. A typo does not make me deserve the name bigot. *NOTE* I would like to apologize but I am running out of space and unfortunately can't respond this section to the fullest but I will try to get as much as possible. You shot yourself in the foot on the black and white debate. Black people have the same rights white people do now, as gays can too. But we did not change the definition of a black man to be white now did we? We gave them their rights and they were happy to be different, which gays are not.
That traditional "Christian" marriage was not between two white people. What about the old Testament full of Middle Easterns? That was the typical marriage but not the only type. It never stated that opposite races can not breed.

R8) I can use this exact argument that words have power. My question for you is, for the majority who are currently against gay marriage, including marriage in their definition offends them. These words have power. For example, at a college reunion two friends attend the reunion together. They tell their former classmates they are married. But they are not married to each other, they have wives who are not attending. But this creates an opinion for the others that the two are married to each other when there is a big difference.

I will now address why people shouldn't agree with gay marriage at this moment, unless gay people change. I do not mean to be biast here but these are straight statistics. Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population. Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor. 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics. Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75% of white, gay males claimed to have more than 100 life-time male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28% claimed to more than 1,000. I am running out of characters but the facts could go on all day long. The gays must clean up their act and then acceptance into society should be easier which would change the definition of marriage. As of right now, gay marriage should not be allowed yet until several things happen. When you read this go through my opponent's arguments and look at how many extraneous facts/topics are brought up. He has spent very little time on topic and you should vote con. Gay marriage shouldn't be accepted as part of marriage at the moment. Thanks for the debate.

http://www.otkenyer.hu...
http://www.freerepublic.com...
http://catholiceducation.org...
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the debate Cameron.

My opponent says I'm hating on religious people. However, I have the utmost respect for many religious people; I'm making argument to see if my opponent can refute them, which he obviously can't. And remember, most of his case was built around the idea that we must respect traditional Christian marriages, as defined by God in the Bible. If I prove that God doesn't exist and the Bible is a work of fiction, and my opponent doesn't refute these things, then following the recommendations of the Bible is like modeling our lives after Ghostbusters, Harry Potter, or Requiem for a Dream.

1. Equal Protection

The 14th Amendment means TOTAL equality under the law, meaning if straight people can get married, so can gay people. The argument anti-gay marriage advocates currently make is that gays have equal protection because they have an equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender. However, all of my arguments to show that being gay is NOT A CHOICE are to show that this option does not satisfy the requirements of equal protection because there is no way that a gay person can have a valid, loving marriage with a member of the opposite gender (remember, a valid marriage requires consummation).

My opponent asks why being gay not being a choice is relevant. It is relevant to my arguments about the equal protection clause.

2. My opponent says "Until People Change, We Shouldn't Force the Change"

Firstly, people have ALREADY changed since Gallup found that 53 percent support gay marriage. If my opponent believes that we should always just do what the majority believes, then I HAVE ALREADY WON THIS DEBATE RIGHT HERE. The judge should go vote right now.

My opponent asks why Prop 8 passed in California (where I'm from) if 53 percent support gay marriage. The problem with Prop 8 was that it was passed during a midterm election, so the elderly went out to vote in huge disproportion to the general population and the young people voted in really small numbers. Elderly tend to oppose gay marriage and young people tend to support it in overwhelming numbers. So Prop 8 had to do with voting behavior and the election cycle. The vast majority of people in California support gay marriage – too bad the voting system is so broken and voter apathy so high.

In addition, my opponent never answers my arguments about the tyranny of the majority. If you take what my opponent has said: that we shouldn't force people to change until their opinion does" then we should never have implemented Brown v. Board, the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights Act. Black people should have been kept in slavery and in segregation until their oppressors spontaneously changed their opinion. That could have taken at least 100 additional years. The entire point of the Constitution is to protects minority rights against the tyranny of the majority, which is why the 14th Amendment is so important and should be applied to gay marriage.

My opponent says, "You can't just tell a huge amount of people there is a new law that goes against your biblical proportions, like it or not. That's such a great way of promoting human rights." That's pretty much exactly what we did when ending segregation – we told the South to just deal with it, the law was changing.

3. The Bible

My opponent quotes Leviticus. Yet he fails to refute that the Bible is a work of fiction and that God can't exist because omnibenevolence and omnipotence are contradictory. If the majority of Americans believed in ghosts, that doesn't mean that we should have to look to Ghostbusters when making policy decisions.

In addition, Gallup shows that IN SPITE of the Bible saying that homosexuality is wrong, many Christians actually believe that homosexuality is okay. Even many Christians don't take the Bible literally and realize that many of the stories were meant to be allegories, not taken literally.

4. Separate is inherently unequal

My opponent says, "civil unions could have the same rights if their rights are rewritten." Sure, but the point I was making is that the rights AREN'T rewritten. State legislatures in the more conservative states will continue to ensure that gays do not have equal rights in civil unions. Federal agencies will not recognize same sex partners as the same as married partners, for example with the INS trying to deport gay civil union partners, even though married partners can gain automatic citizenship. We tried the separate but equal thing once before – it didn't work. The discriminated against class was continued to be discriminated against and the separate aspect was just an excuse to continue the discriminiation.

5. Finger length

My opponent claims that little boys can castigate each other if their fingers are the same length for being gay. I suppose so, but few little boys read advanced studies. And this isn't my fault, honestly. The truth is the truth. All physical indicators that indicate pre-natal testosterone are similar in heterosexual men/lesbian women and heterosexual women/gay men.

6. Age 7

My opponent asks me if I knew what marriage was at age 7. Honestly, I can't remember. I knew that my mommy and daddy were married. I never really thought about it for myself though. I played and flirted with girls, but I never played pretend married.

HOWEVER, my best friend since I was FIVE had two lesbian mothers. I understood at the time what lesbians were, and I understood that he didn't have a father and he seemed just fine. In my life, never has this knowledge detracted from my desire to get married or made me any less attracted to the female gender or any more attracted to the male gender.

This argument is such an utter fail. One reason that so many more people support gay marriage now is that they are more likely to KNOW a gay person because of Harvey Milk and many other "come out" campaigns, people are more likely to have a gay friend and people who actually know a gay person are more likely to support gay marriage.

7. Typo

Ok cool. My opponent isn't a bigot. I'm sorry he made a typo, but it was kind of a major one. Well the typo was minor, but it majorly changed the meaning of that sentence. I sincerely apologize to my readers that I spelled exactly wrong – apparently when you capitalize all the letters, spellcheck doesn't work. I take full responsibility and hope my readership can move forward with me.

8. Black people can't become white

True, but my opponent agrees that they were granted equal rights. Gay people aren't granted equal rights – they can't marry. The correct use of my opponent's analogy is that a black man can't become white just like a gay man can't become straight.

9. Words have power

My opponent gives an example that if two male friends are at a re-union together (and gay marriage was allowed), that if they said they were married, people would think to each other. However, this is an unfair analogy. If I went to a high school re-union with a female friend and we said we were married, people might think it was to each other as well (rather than he to her husband and me to my wife). This possible confusion is really not unique to gay marriage. In fact, it implies bigotry to say that it's okay for people to make that mistake with me and a female friend but not with me and a male friend. That reeks of homophobia.

My opponent never answers my other two examples. Having to use a different word other than the real one implies stigma of the group that is not allowed to use the real word for what they are doing. People with small penises not being allowed to use the word "sex" and instead say "unsatisfying gyration," that's the same as saying that gays can play house in "domestic partnerships" but cannot get "married" for real. The connotation of domestic partnership is "playing house." It makes it sound like it's not a real marriage.

10. New arguments

It's annoying that my opponent brings up STD statistics in the last round. These are brand new arguments that should have been brought up earlier. Don't vote on them.

That said, I'll still refute them. Actually, sorry, I can't really since the source is so illegitimate. His source for all of these statistics is Catholic Apologetics International. The study it cites for "33% of homosexuals ADMIT to molesting little boys" is cited as "Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE." How is that a study? That's an anti-gay group in Lincoln, Nebraska. No other information is provided, such as article title, publication, etc.

The second problem with all of his studies, since they all come from the height of the AIDS epidemic, is that the only homosexuals who were openly gay during that time (this was a LONG TIME ago, when being "out" was a HUGE risk) were people who already lived extremely risky lifestyles and were willing to engage in high-risk behavior, like unprotected sex and drugs. All the normal ho-hum homosexuals were unwilling to admit they were gay at that time, so the study captures only extremely high-risk individuals.

A 12-year study by the Gottman Institute found that gay couples were no more likely to break up than straight couples and calmed down more easily during fights because they related to each other more easily, being of the same gender. [1] If anything, committing to marriage would be good for homosexuals because if my opponent is so concerned about their promiscuity, a pledge to stay monogamous (i.e. marriage) actually decreases promiscuity.

Gay men don't have more unprotected sex than straight men. "A 2007 study reported that two large population surveys found "the majority of gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners annually as straight men and women." [2]

Also, remember the record of straight men isn't much better than gay men. More than 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. According to an MSNBC poll, 28% of married men cheat on their wives. [3] Most studies find that gay men act promiscuous, much like all men, and gay women act un-promiscuous, just like other women. The issue is gender, not homosexuality.

Ultimately, even if these statistics were right – that disproportionately, people in the gay community are more likely to engage in behavior that might hurt society, that doesn't justify us denying marriage to the parts of the community who DO want to commit to a monogamous relationship. In fact, this doesn't justify banning marriage at all. Black men are more likely to commit crime and leave their families, statistically speaking. Using my opponent's logic, we shouldn't let black people get married.

==Summary==

So essentially my opponent's argument came down to: the Bible opposes gay marriage, Christians believe in the Bible, Christians are the majority, therefore don't allow gay marriage. I showed that the majority support gay marriage (not all Christians blindly follow every word in the Bible), that we shouldn't just do what majorities believe, and the Bible is not a good thing to follow literally.

My opponent's new argument is essentially that gay people disproportionately engage in risky behavior. His studies are ridiculously biased and outdated, are untrue, and a group of people disproportionately engaging in bad behavior doesn't mean we can exclude them from the protections of the 14th Amendment.

DROPPED ARGUMENTS

These two voters were dropped the whole debate:

1. The Equal Protection Clause requires that the law treat gay people exactly the same as gay people. Forcing them to call their marriages by any other name is NOT equal protection under the law since it is demeaning. We couldn't tell black people, yeah you can marry white people, but it'll say "INTERRACIAL PARTNERSHIP" on your marriage certificate rather than "MARRIED." That's bigotry.

2. Utilitarianism. This goes unanswered the whole debate. Gay marriage would generate tax revenue for states that are STRAPPED FOR CASH and would generate jobs in the marriage industry (caterers, photographers, etc), with NO downside, since I've cited studies of countries, like Canada, where gay marriage was legalized without eroding straight marriage rates. My opponent brings up new supposed downsides in his last speech, but 1) these arguments are new and 2) none of these studies prove that gay marriage makes STD's or drug-seeking behavior any worse. If legalizing gay marriage did lead to all these bad thing happening and destroying traditional marriage, why don't we see any of these things happening in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, or Spain, all of which legalized gay marriage.

For all these reasons, I urge a Pro vote.

[1] http://www.gottman.com...
[2] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
[3] http://www.infidelityman.com...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
CryBabies 11:25--Waaa waaa boo boo cry cry, if gays get married, pout yell stomp my wedding is somehow threatened, boo hoo waaa waa stab, stone, burn, kill those who question lifes origins and stand up for equal rights :)

Delusional 9:16--44% of Americans believe "the reason for everything" literally gave the land of israel to the jews as some sort of omniescent real estate broker, how cute :)

Ridicule 4:20--How can you tell the difference between a clown in a circus and a witless clown who cant think for themselves? One has a red nose and entertains children, the other sticks its nose in our politics and brainwashes our children with religous doctrine :)

CryBabies 6:15--The comfort something gives someone isn't justification for its accuracy. Just because it makes someone feel good and comfortable knowing that they have a meta physical relationship with Elvis, doesnt mean that relationship is anything less than delusional, however for some odd reason, a meta physical relationship with a being who is violent in the old testament and sexist in the new testament, this bassackward genius is also responsible for cells with a nucleus, and the beautiful universe revealed through biology, embryology, cosmology and all intelligent sciences. A Petty cry baby bully doesnt make a beautiful universe anymore than a Leprechaun exists at the end of rainbows guarding some gold :)
Posted by shioris13 4 years ago
shioris13
Look at that bible with a little more historical background and literal meaning. You'll see.
Posted by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
Plessy vs fergusen?
Posted by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
"3.5% of America is gay according to a UCLA study. According to a recent survey 83% of Americans claim to be a Christian. You can not defy the fact that a majority of Christians are against gay marriage."

can you tell us the recent study that suggests that america is against gay marriage? Because I can prove THAT study wrong. http://www.wjla.com...
for the record...
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Raymond123 3 years ago
Raymond123
cameronl35bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Homosexuality is not a choice, it just happens
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
cameronl35bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a better job proving his points.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
cameronl35bluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This is by far the best pro-Gay Marriage argument I've found on this site. Strong argumentation, evidence, and examples from the pro side. Con seemed weak when responding to Pro's arguments, but who wouldn't be?
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
cameronl35bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel hesitant to vote on arguments to avoid controversy as I am in the "conservative VB group" So I will go with sources. Pro had more sources, and from less biased websites. Also his sources where more reliable outside the realm of biased or quantity. Pro wins sources.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
cameronl35bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con misunderstood or couldn't refute the majority of Pro's points. Pro's arguments were concise, informed, and well presented.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
cameronl35bluesteelTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Forfeit GRAMMAR: Tied ARGUMENTS: Con loses the arguments via the forfeit. Moreover, PRO showed that G-d does not exist, which CON did not respond to; thus dropping the Christian tradition argument. SOURCES: PRO showed that homosexuality is not a choice.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
cameronl35bluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to bluesteel for Con forfeit and arguments to bluesteel for conclusively rebutting Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
cameronl35bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Solid from Pro, better rebuttals, more consistency, better presentation, points that weren't refuted.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
cameronl35bluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: impressive debate, but my point goes to pro for an impressive, amusing and informative argument.