The Instigator
cameronl35
Con (against)
Tied
14 Points
The Contender
Mr_Anon
Pro (for)
Tied
14 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,725 times Debate No: 19990
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (7)

 

cameronl35

Con

Unfortunately I have never had an adequate debate on this topic before so I will try one last time.

Full Resolution: Gay Marriage should be legalized everywhere

I will arguing that gay marriage should not be legal everywhere. No semantics and please try not to forfeit a round.

For clarity I will provide several definitions:

same-sex marriage-the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

legalized-to give legal validity or sanction to

STRUCTURE:

1st Round- Acceptance

2nd Round- Cases

3rd Round- Rebuttal

4th Round- Conclusion/Summary

I await my opponent's response!
http://www.merriam-webster.com......
Mr_Anon

Pro

I accept this argument given the agreed definitions in the comments that "everywhere" refers to worldwide legalization, and that the con is arguing that it should not be legalized everywhere, as well as that this debate refers exclusively to homosexual marriage, rather than whether homosexuality is morally wrong in itself, so that my opponent does not pursue such a line of logic.
Debate Round No. 1
cameronl35

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate and I agree that we will not be debating the morality of homosexual behavior but its legal validity across the globe.

Observation: To win this debate all I have to do is prove that there is a country/society that should not legalize gay marriage. Due to the fact that the resolution states everywhere proving any country/society would negate the resolution, as my opponent accepts.

C1: Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values related to procreation.
To truly understand what marriage is, we have to consider the state's interest for it is the most potent factor when we determine if same-sex marriage should be legalized or not. Marriage is not a recognition of love and compassion. Marriage entails love and compassion however the underlying principle of marriage is procreation. If marriage was simply a recognition of love and compassion why would the state have any reason to recognise marriage? The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation.[1] To allow same-sex marriage, or SSM as we will refer to it throughout this debate will defeat the very purpose of marriage, to recognize procreation. As I stated earlier the purpose is to maintain the sanctity of society. That is, marriage is fundamentally about children and the civilization of society both now and for the future. My opponent must provide a sufficient reason for the state to recognize SSM. Just because the homosexual population may be relatively large in the U.S., doesn't meant that the state should recognize marriage. This means that the state should grant rights to the relationship between two homosexuals, not grant marriage. In other words, I am advocating for "separate, but equal". This can be practiced through civil unions. Thus the state's interest in marriage is for procreation and the state has no apparent reason to grant marriage, to homosexual couples.

C2: Due to the fact that this debate about all countries, the governments of countries have no reason to grant marriage to such a minority. My opponent must provide a compelling reason for granting SSM in EVERY country, as I clearly stated in the first round. That means, that if I can find one country that shouldn't recognize SSM, I have won the debate. Many countries do not have large homosexual population. For instance a survey in the United Kingdom found that only 1% of Britons were gay or lesbian. [2] Also, in a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had a homosexual experience sometime in their life. [3] The point is, many countries are at an extreme deprivation when it comes to homosexual populations. Thus they have no reason to recognize marriage for them. There is no evidence in many countries that homosexual marriage is wanted. In fact some countries consider homosexuality an abomination, such as Angola, Ethiopia, Iran Tunisia, and Trinidad and Tobago. [4] The reason for this differs from religious beliefs to pure bias. I am not advocating that this is correct by any means, but that certain countries have no obligation whatsoever to grant marriage due to lack of population and lack of aspiration. Thus there are several countries that have no reason to recognise marriage, and my opponent must provide reasons as to why they should.

C3: There are apparent health risks that come with homosexual behavior. This doesn't mean necessarily that homosexuality is bad, but that for a government to encourage homosexual behavior would hurt the sanctity of a society. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. [5] In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25. [6] One might argue that these statistics are outdated, however as of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men. [7] As we can see there are several potent health risks that come with homosexual behavior. The reason for this is promiscuity. If my opponent would like I can provide more, but for the sake I debate I will end the statistics here. The point is, if every country recognizes gay marriage, these numbers might go up due to the fact that homosexuality is illegal in countries. To argue that the number will not go up is fallacious. When one advocates the practice of something, especially globally, numbers will go up. Thus, countries who encourage homosexual practice will cause an increase in health risks and will negatively impact humanity.

Conclusion:
The state's interest in recognizing marriage is procreation. To allow SSM would destroy the purpose of marriage. Marriage would no longer be solely based on procreation, but rather love and compassion. If marriage based off of love and compassion, what interest does the state have? Also, many countries have an minuscule homosexual population. In many countries homosexuality is an abomination and is illegal. There is no apparent reason for every country to recognize SSM. Finally, there are several potent health risks that come with homosexuality, which SSM encourages. For these reasons the resolution has been negated and I wait to hear my opponent's rebuttal. Thanks.

Sources:
1. http://www.avemarialaw.edu...;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org.........
3. Sundet, J.M., et al. Prevalence of risk-prone sexual behaviour in the general population of Norway. In: Global Impact of AIDS, edited by Alan F. Fleming et al. (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1988), 53–60
4. http://www.publicagenda.org.........
5. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.
6. "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999).
7.
"Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm. (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS.)
Mr_Anon

Pro

I will begin my argument by first refuting my opponents claims.
"C1: Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values related to procreation."
My opponent relies on two claims here. First, that the purpose of marriage is to bear children. This claim does not hold upon scrutiny. By my opponent's logic, a heterosexual pair who are biologically incapable of bearing children should not be allowed marriage either. In other words, my opponent restricts the bond of marriage to only pairs capable of biologically capable of procreating. My opponent's second claim is that a homosexual couple is incapable of bearing children. This is false, as a homosexual couple is easily capable of adopting. Studies have shown that homosexual parents are just as capable to raise children as heterosexual parents[1][2][3], thus rendering my opponent's claim null. In addition, my opponent claims that same-sex civil unions are a sufficient substitute for homosexual marriage. However, the problem here lies in the fact that it is impossible to have something "equal" in every way to marriage without it actually being the same.

"C2: Due to the fact that this debate about all countries, the governments of countries have no reason to grant marriage to such a minority."
My opponent begins pursuing this line of inquiry by citing countries that have very small homosexual populations. However, this holds the assumption that if a minority is small, does not warrant rights. By this logic, the same should hold true for ethnic minorities as well. Allowing homosexual marriage causes little harm to the heterosexual majority and gains a large amount of rights to the homosexual minority. The process of legalizing same-sex marriage is quite simple, and I will argue later on in this argument that it is a basic right for homosexuals. My opponent also cites countries that hold a bigotry against homosexuals; however, if homosexual marriage is a basic right, this should not matter.

"C3: There are apparent health risks that come with homosexual behavior."
While these health risks are true and indisputable, this does not affect the status of homosexual marriage. While my opponent argues that the acceptance of homosexual marriage equates the government "encouraging" of homosexual behavior, a valid point, my opponent proceeds to suggest that there is an intrinsic state of poor health that comes with homosexuality, despite no evidence of this. I argue that allowing gay marriage, if anything, does the opposite of encouraging promiscuity. There is evidence to suggest that marriage actually reduces health risks in gay men [4].

Now that I have refuted my opponent's main, points, I will argue why homosexuality marriage should be legal everywhere.

C1. Marriage is a basic human right
In most developed countries, the consensus on human rights is that all humans deserve the same opportunities and rights. As an example, the United States Fourteenth Amendment states "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[5] Marriage is an important right to people due to the spiritual and legal benefits in entails[6] and denying such a right to people who happen to have different sexual interests than the majority is an infringement on human rights, as it allows some people access to benefits that others do not. If marriage is a basic human right, it should be allowed universally.

C2. The alternative is worse
Because this argument is not about homosexuality itself, the alternative to gay marriage is the presence of same-sex relationships without legal security. As cited above, marriage allows same-sex partners to gain a large amount of legal and financial securities. While it is true that civil unions can hold the same securities, civil unions do not offer the same spiritual protection. In addition, (also cited above), marriage increases health in gay men, decreasing the likelihood of promiscuous sexual activity. Finally, the allowing of marriage creates a much happier environment for children that is just as good or better than that of children of heterosexual parents [7][8].

Conclusion

Despite my opponent's claims, the legalization of homosexual marriage does not affect the importance of traditional marriage, nor does it equate to the embodying of unhealthy sexual behavior. Same-sex marriage also brings benefits to the LGBT community, including legal benefits and benefiting the environment of children of a same-sex couple. In conclusion, marriage is a basic human right that should be universally legalized.

Sources cited:
1.Marriage of Same-Sex Couples – 2006 Position Statement Canadian Psychological Association
2."Elizabeth Short, Damien W. Riggs, Amaryll Perlesz, Rhonda Brown, Graeme Kane: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families – A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society" (PDF).
3.Literature review of LGBT-parented families from the Australian Psychological Association
4. http://www.cbsnews.com...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
8. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...

Debate Round No. 2
cameronl35

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his intent response. I will be first defending my case then refuting his.

Rebuttal

Infertility Objection

Even though the argument is beginning to get old for it has been proven to be an abject failure I will still go over it as if it is new and overwhelming. Pro simply just misunderstands what the contention means. The world 'in principle' means relating to the definition. Bringing up a few minuscule examples does not change what procreation is by principle and by definition. Human beings reason and make laws based on concepts and definitions. To act as if this is unnecessary and to disregard a concept and definition for a minuscule objection means you are not operating under the moral responsibility that we have as individuals and you are only acting upon your own arbitrary whim. In a heterosexual relationship procreation is always possible. In a homosexual relationship procreation is by definition impossible and can never be achieved. Thus the infertility objection is indeed an abject failure.

Homosexual Parenting

This argument is completely irrelevant to procreation. Procreation and adoption are two different things. Marriage recognizes procreation, not simply adopting children. I don't think my opponent understands what procreation is. Also Pro's studies only consist of a small survey and are questionable. Some studies show differently, see [1]. I can provide more if need be.

Are keeping Homosexual Marriage illegal and antimiscegenation the same thing?

In Pro's response to my second contention he merely states that discriminating against 1% of the population is the same as discriminating against ethnic minorities. Race and gender are two completely different things. Race is irrelevant to marriage due to the fact that marriage is for procreation. Two different races can procreate, but two homosexuals can not. This is simple and is prima facie incorrect. There are so many differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples in terms of sexual relations rather than ethnic differences. Pro then goes on to say how homosexual marriage is a basic right? Pro has to justify this later how this is a matter of equality. He does not understand that at the point at which there are numerous countries that have such a small homosexual population and it is completely frowned upon that these people do not even want homosexual marriage for it will only lead to further discrimination and more problems. So essentially in numerous countries allowing SSM will be worse for the homosexual couples.

Health Benefits

Pro agrees that the evidence is indisputable. This wasn't really the core of my case but I will defend it. Now I know that it seems like a very bigot-like thing to do, but at the point at which homosexual couples have proven to not be able to keep a relationship, granting SSM would only potentially hurt the children my opponent is advocating that they can adopt. He brings up a source that is completely biased for it was conducted by the couples. Of course when you grant them marriage they are going to say that they are perfectly fine. I don't see how encouraging homosexual practice in countries such as Iran will decrease the amount of homosexual activity.

R1: Basic human right

Not only does Pro fail to justify how marriage is a basic human right but he provides no warrant that marriage when the term was coined and the amendment was made that homosexual couples were considered. Marriage is a social institution, not a fundamental right. Pro does not justify what marriage is and we can not even come to this lavish conclusion. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson sum it up well:

"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [2]

Pro's argument is rather question-begging for it does not justify two things: what marriage is and why it is recognized legally. My opponent seems to go off of love but at the point at which it is love why would the state recognize it at all? This argument again begs the question.

R2: Alternative

Pro assumes I must endorse the alternative of a civil union. Now I do support this however this is completely irrelevant for it is only a responsiblity of the civil union institution, not marriage. This does not by any means justify marriage by stating "the alternative is worse". Also he states that marriage makes them happier and will decrease the promiscuity? I would like a warrant for this. As far as I am concerned, when adults are happy it usually leads to more "happy time".

Conclusion

Pro's objections to my case are rather old and have been proven false time after time. I have successfully defended my first contention about procreation as well as my second that proves that there is no reason for EVERY country to recognize marriage, which he has to prove. At the point at which the population is small and there is no want or need for SSM then it should not be legalized everywhere. Thus Pro has not fulfilled his BoP by any means thus far. My opponent's arguments are blatantly false for two reasons: He does not explain what marriage is and why it is recognized. So when we look thus far my opponent has not explained what marriage is, why it is recognized, and why every country should recognize SSM. At this point there is no apparent reason to vote for Pro and I urge a CON ballot.

Sources


1. http://www.ruthblog.org...

2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251
Mr_Anon

Pro

I will thank my opponent for responding. I will begin by addressing his objections to my refutations of his point and then defend my case.

Infertility and homosexual parenting

Here, Con fails to address my reasoning and merely repeats his original points. He claims that "In a heterosexual relationship procreation is always possible. In a homosexual relationship procreation is by definition impossible and can never be achieved. ". However, I pointed out a counterexample to the first statement in the form of a couple biologically incapable of procreating. If modern-day marriage were to be seen as revolving around the principle of procreation, marriage laws around the country would have to be reshaped. I brought up homosexual adoption because because it can be seen as a substitute for procreation, still allowing for the raising of children in a safe environment. The presence of homosexual adoption also strengthens my case for gay marriage, as allowing marriage between a same-sex couple benefits the children of a gay couple [1]. Note that my opponent ignored my claims regarding civil unions.

Homosexuality and minorities
My opponent tries to refute my point here by re-iterating his own argument that marriage is for procreation. However, he fails to realize that my argument was refuting the logic of his original point, which implied that the size of a country's minority dictates the rights that minority has. My opponent disputes that marriage is a right, and though I backed up my claim later, I will repeat my reasoning here. Marriage relates to human rights in the legal and spiritual benefits that it gives. Not allowing homosexuals to gain these benefits places them unequal to heterosexual couples.
Con also uses the fact that some countries are bigoted against homosexuals, implying that existing bigotry in a country is reason to deny the victims of this bigotry rights. My opponent does bring up the fact that allowing gay marriage may endanger homosexuals in such a bigoted country. However, this only shows the presence of severe intolerance in such a country.

Homosexuality and health
My opponent's primary objection to my argument is the source that I used to show that gay marriage gives health benefits to couples and reduces promiscuity. Of course, I have another source [2] that reaches the same conclusion. My opponent also seems to imply that homosexuality is intrinsically unhealthy, despite negative health in homosexual couples are a correlation, not necessarily causation.


Human rights

I have already defended my point above, but I will address Con's specific objection to this point. When relating to human rights, marriage is relevant as to the legal, social, and spiritual benefits it allows. In this sense, then, marriage refers to the granting of thee benefits in the form of a union. If all citizens are to be granted equal access to these benefits, then marriage must be a basic human right.

Alternative
My opponent claims that my argument that homosexual marriage benefits same-sex couples is unwarranted. Con has ignored the fact that marriage provides a great deal of legal benefits to gay couples [3] and the fact that it has apparent health benefits (see [2]).

Conclusion
Though Con dismisses my claims, he has failed to properly address my points and has resorted to mainly repeating his own point. I have provided examples that render what appears to be his main point, that marriage is procreation, null, and have shown why his reasoning for his second point, that some countries have a homosexual minority that does not need marriage, is fuelled by poor logic. In addition, I have provided reasons why gay marriage is necessary for homosexuals if they wish to have the same benefits as heterosexuals from their relationships. In conclusion, despite Con's claims, I have described why gay marriage is a basic human right, and that as a result, it is necessary to allow it globally. In other words, Pro's points have been refuted and mine backed up, so thus I recommend a PRO vote.

Sources
1. http://www.familydynamics.net...

2. http://www.rawstory.com...
3. http://gaylife.about.com...
Debate Round No. 3
cameronl35

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for posting his response.

Infertility Objection and Adoption

With all due respect to my opponent, he misses the point of the contention. He states that I repeat my points. He again brings up his whimsical objection that a few heterosexual couples can not procreate, but again this does not change what procreation is by principle. We make laws based on principles and definitions. If you are going to constantly bring up a few objections that doesn't change what the law is BY PRINCIPLE. To act as if this is unnecessary is simply just accommodating his arbitrary whim. Heterosexual couples are procreative in type, homosexual couples are not. The infertility objection has been debunked time after time and readers, this is not a valid argument. Pro then ignores my argument against adoption. Adoption is irrelevant to procreation. I do not think my opponent knows what procreation really is. He fails to respond to my counter-evidence and we can not prove this valid. As far as civil unions go, they can have the same laws but that isn't what I am here to debate about. I am here debating about gay marriage, not civil unions. The conduct point should be awarded to me thus far for him straying off topic.

Traditional Marriage =/= Antimiscegenation

Pro yet again completely ignores the point here. In countries where homosexuals don't even want same-sex marriage because of the ridicule that occurs when they become married in certain countries. There is no need for it to be legal when it will only hurt the couples. Pro does not justify how keeping marriage the same and antimiscegenation are the same thing. There are IMMENSE differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples but minuscule differences between those of different races. Yes, because they are procreative in type, all races get marriage. Pro never establishes how this is a fundamental right. It isn't a matter of equality, it is a matter of procreation. They can have the same rights as a normal couple but they do not have the right to destroy and redefine the purpose of marriage.

Health


Pro completely dismisses all the other countries other than the U.S. In areas where practicing homosexuality is almost impossible, the numbers are sure to go up. This would only hurt the homosexual community again. He brings up the same evidence that they were happier and healthier with SSM. Again, this confuses causation and correlation. The homosexual couples THEMSELVES reported that they were happier that way they can keep their marriage. Of course when you give a child what they want for Christmas they are going to be happier and try to behave better to keep what they have. The same is with homosexual couples. None of this has occurred in other countries that have SSM legal. Again he disregards the health risks that will come in other countries when SSM becomes legal.

Alternative

Again I do not need to endorse civil unions. Just because currently we don't give them all the benefits doesn't mean we can not. Using the excuse that "civil unions are bad" does not justify SSM.

Dropped Arguments

1. The State's interest in marriage. This seems to go unanswered throughout the debate. What interest does the state have in recognizing SSM since it revolves around love? On the other hand in heterosexual marriage it is recognized for procreation to uphold our civilization and to produce more children. There is indeed a responsibility that comes with marriage to produce a child because that is what led to the rise of the institution in the first place.

2. Marriage is a social institution. Pro fails to justify how it is a fundamental right (no warrant or solidification).

Conclusion

Pro really has two main arguments: marriage is a right and the alternative is worse. In order to prove that marriage is a right there must be some warrant from the Constitution or another legal association and that must include homosexual couples as well AND he must prove the state's interest in marriage. If it is only love, then the state has no interest. The state's current interest is procreation, which Pro uses the infertility objection to "disprove". The argument is so old and has been debunked countless times. By principle, definition, in type and more heterosexual couples can procreate. We do not make laws and reason based off of minuscule objections. Pro's other argument "the alternative is worse" is irrelevant and does not justify why homosexuals would receive marriage. Suppose I want to apply to Harvard and they do not accept me. I try to argue by saying "SF State is worse and you guys will benefit me much more". Is this logic really valid to prove the validity of SSM? I beg to differ. Patrick Lee, Gerard Bradley, and Robert George sum up Pro's arguments nicely and disprove it's validity:

"So, the state’s granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination. The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X. It is no more unjust discrimination to deny marriage licenses to couples of the same sex than to twelve-year olds, to those already married, or to polyamorous groups of three or more sexual partners: in each case, the license is denied simply because the individuals in question are unable to form with each other the kind of union that marriage is." [1]

In other words, marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive." [2]

Again, to win this debate he must prove:

1. The definition and purpose of marriage

2. How the state would be interested in marriage

If it is love like he discusses then there is no interest. Girgis, George, and Anderson explain it well:

"Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them?" [3]

I would like to thank my opponent for the great debate and urge the readers not to vote on their personal opinion, but who has presented the better arguments. I am not a bigot or a close-minded conservative, but I strongly believe in keeping the marriage traditional and upholding the social institution of procreation. Thanks and I urge a CON vote.

Enjoy this funny picture (no pun intended).




Sources:

1. Patrick Lee, Gerard Bradley, and Robert P. George, "Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Connection" The Public Discourse,http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com......

2. Maggie Gallagher, "What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law," Louisiana Law Review (2002)

3. Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage" 270-271


Mr_Anon

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting his conclusion.

Infertility
My opponent claims that my counterexamples are irrelevant to his claim that marriage as a law is dictated by the principle of procreation. A couple biologically incapable of procreating are no less in violation of this alleged principle than a homosexual couple. Con claims "Heterosexual couples are procreative in type, homosexual couples are not". He does not clarify this. He further misses the purpose of me bringing up adoption. Though adoption is not the same as procreation, I used it as a substitute because it accomplishes the same goal of procreation, which is to raise children.

Minorities

Con completely misses my point. Once again, he goes on to defend the procreation argument and brings up the irrelevant statement of miscegenation, which I never specifically mentioned in my opening argument. Instead, I attacked the apparent logic of Con's initial argument, which appeared to bring up two points: 1. The interests of an apparently insignificant minority are not the state's responsibility. 2. The presence of bigotry against homosexuals indicates that allowing marriage only leads to more harm against gays and lesbians. I attacked these claims by the following rebuttals: 1. Imagine an ethnic minority in a certain country. Just because it appears insignificant, does this mean that the state should not be concerned about its own citizens? 2. The only case where homosexuals would suffer more harm from allowing marriage is if there was an existing violation of human rights in such a country. Con did not respond to his rebuttals, instead bringing up irrelevant points about interracial marriage and focusing on whether marriage is a right, which I would discuss more later in my argument.

Health
Con does not exactly clarify what he means by "areas where practicing homosexuality is almost impossible." Still, I will assume he is referring to countries where homosexuality is illegal. As I noted, this is an existing violation of human rights and is irrelevant to this argument. My opponent also does not appear to have read the new sources I cited. One of them specifically mentioned that it was based off of doctor visits, and the information was gathered from local clinic's. In addition, my opponent has not cited any statistics that indicate his claim that promiscuity would increase by allowing gay marriage. In fact, intuition points to the opposite: that when a couple is legally bound, they are more likely to focus there sexual activities on each other.

Alternatives

My opponent forgets that he has stated several times in his argument that the benefits given by marriage to couples can be accomplished by "means other than marriage". His only example has been civil unions, which he appears to concede that I have refuted. He also appears to suggest that the only part of this argument was civil unions, when I pointed out the benefits given to children of homosexual couples. He has not responded to this, or any other part of my argument.

State interest

This argument was a part of Con's "Procreation" argument, which I did refute. Regardless, I argue that the state's primary interest is in the quality of lives of its people. I have pointed out how marriage would benefit the gay community.

Social institution vs right

Note how Con, in his conclusion, does not address my defense of my human rights argument at all and claims this as "dropped argument". I will repeat my argument.
When relating to human rights, marriage is relevant as to the legal, social, and spiritual benefits it allows. In this sense, then, marriage refers to the granting of these benefits in the form of a union. If all citizens are to be granted equal access to these benefits, then marriage must be a basic human right.

Conclusion


Con's argument mainly relies on the claim that modern-day marriage is based entirely on the principle of procreation. I have provided a counterexample (biologically incapable couples) that equally defies this principle as gay marriage but are legal in most, if not all, the world. Con repeatedly states that this argument as been refuted "countless times", despite the fact that he has been unable to face up to my counterexample. Con's other arguments, regarding health and minority rights, have been refuted. He continues to defend them by bringing up irrelevant statements about interracial marriage and false sources respectively. My opponent's only objections to my argument about gay marriage benefiting homosexual couples is repeating previous refuted arguments about health statistics and taking back an earlier claim about civil unions. Because of this retraction, he has been unable to provide a method for homosexuals to receive all of the benefits that marriage grants, thus being unable to refute my argument that marriage is a basic right.

I too would like to thank my opponent for this debate. However, due to the above reasons, I urge a PRO vote.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by cameronl35 2 years ago
cameronl35
A fact with no basis? Minimal attempts? Hmm...interesting if I may say.
Posted by cameronl35 2 years ago
cameronl35
No problem, I was too adamant as well. We'll let the judges decide.
Posted by Mr_Anon 2 years ago
Mr_Anon
Though I would disagree with your assertion, I admit my statement seemed a bit "gloating" when really I didn't mean that.
Posted by cameronl35 2 years ago
cameronl35
I know but you are almost calling it in the bag saying you won...I don't think I necessarily did but it's not definite when you didn't really justify those two points
Posted by Mr_Anon 2 years ago
Mr_Anon
No I mean compared to my last debate.
Posted by cameronl35 2 years ago
cameronl35
Nice, I would be confident too even though you never once justified how marriage was a "right" and the state's interest...
Posted by Mr_Anon 2 years ago
Mr_Anon
My first debate where I feel somewhat confident about winning.
Posted by Mr_Anon 2 years ago
Mr_Anon
OK, posted my argument just in time.
Posted by cameronl35 2 years ago
cameronl35
what did you like about it?
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
thanks con I have a good case vs gay marriage now
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
cameronl35Mr_AnonTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's strongest point, the purpose of marriage was not adequately refuted.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
cameronl35Mr_AnonTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: it was close. Con had stronger arguments, pro just repeated his arguments over and over. when it came to sources pro won. so I go with con on this. And although both had good grammar and spelling pro had a few mistakes vs con had like none.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
cameronl35Mr_AnonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to clarify why "procreation principle" suitably distinguished gay from straight couples. Con did not answer the minority rights argument. Pro erred in supposing that there was no alternative to marriage -- civil union is the alternative. But con didn't pick up the point. ... More in comments.
Vote Placed by Jellopants 2 years ago
Jellopants
cameronl35Mr_AnonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's assertion that the point of marriage is to procreate is a fallacy. Unfortunately, Pro did little to refute this assumption. Con, I believe you are making far too many assumptions on what marraige is to EVERYONE. Without a 'legal' aspect, marraige means a lot of different things to a lot of different people and as such, should not be pigeon-holed into your narrow-minded definition of 'strictly for procreation.' If you had made a definition at the start, you could have avoided a loss.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 2 years ago
KRFournier
cameronl35Mr_AnonTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was hard to judge. One the one hand, I didn't think Con had the best arguments around. On the other hand, I felt like Pro was just ignoring Con's position and repeating himself. On balance, I think Con did a better job articulating his position than Pro did rebutting it, but Pro gets a conduct point for Con's unnecessary cartoon. I know Con though it was funny, but I though it was mean spirited.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
cameronl35Mr_AnonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given the all-encompassing nature of the resolution, Con should have won this easily. However, his strongest contention - the purpose of marriage - was simply presented as a fact with no basis and only minimal attempts to defend it. In the absence of a compelling reason to withhold benefits (the rights argument fell flat), one must assume that equality should be the goal. Arguments on health were underdeveloped on both sides.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
cameronl35Mr_AnonTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate! A tought one to judge but I'm going to try to give out points where they are due. I'm going to give conduct to Pro for Con's use of a picture that had no bearing on the debate. However I'm giving arguments to Con for his successful point that marriage is not aright. Pro tried to say that since law was invlolved in marriage it was a a right when that is simply not the case. Many groups have special legal statuses that do not entail rights.