The Instigator
boredinclass
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
MrCarroll
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Gay marriage can and should be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
boredinclass
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,435 times Debate No: 14892
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

boredinclass

Pro

i'm going to switch it up a little and give the burdon of proof to my opponent. I'd like for them to prove to me that gay marriage is not good and is illegal. I don't want to hear religous arguements and I want studies to back up claims.
MrCarroll

Con

Thank you for the debate.
I'm not going to give reasons why homosexuality (not gay marriage) is wrong, since if you do not believe in God, then there is no reason it should be wrong. I completely understand this. My case will be that gay marriage destroys marriage. That if we allow anyone, and anything to marry, why does marriage exist at all? I will begin with the case for gay marriage (point I) and then move on from there.

I. Why does marriage have to be between MALE and FEMALE? Why cannot marriage be between two people who love each other? We should allow gay marriage.

II. Why does marriage have to be between two HUMANS? We should allow marriage to be between all species and creatures. Humans should be allowed to marry animals.

III. Why does marriage have to be between TWO beings? We should allow groups of people to get married at once.

IV. Why does marriage have to be between ADULTS? If two people love each other, then they should be allowed marriage. Adults should be allowed to marry children.

V. Why cannot marriage be between RELATIVES? Obviously, because their children will have birth defects, however, the children need not be their own children. Also, they may be gay anyway. Relatives should be allowed to be married.

a. Gay marriages cannot reproduce. Then what is the meaning of sex? If it is merely for pleasures sake, then it should not be associated with marriage at all. Sex should be between anyone if it fulfills its purpose of pleasure.

b. Read Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, a futuristic book where sex and reproduction lose all meaning.

c. Lesbian marriages will use often use artificial insemination from a donor to have children. These children will never know their true father. There is nothing necessarily wrong with a child not knowing their true parents, but when a child is missing a male or female influence, some issues will arise.

Although studies show there are many children of gay couples who have no unusual issues, many of these studies are specifically made to support gay marriage. I would like to commend those who are successful without considerable fatherly or motherly influence caused by gay marriage, but still, I do not think the studies show the whole story. Part of the issue is that many children from heterosexual parents are lacking in a father of mother influence as well due to poor parenting or divorce. Most of the time, homosexuality in males is caused by a negative experience with his father [1]. This shows that a good fatherly influence is very important in a boy's life. Conversely when they are without fatherly influence at all, there are often negative results. "Many adult sons abandoned by their fathers have difficulty developing and sustaining self-esteem, forming lasting emotional attachments, recognizing their feelings, or being expressive with their adult partners and children." [2]
Obviously, a lack of a father or mother does not necessarily adversely affect children in all cases, showing that peoples' character is not necessarily influenced by their environment. However, I still stress an importance of a fatherly or motherly figure in a child's life.

d. The only way all the purposes of marriage can be fulfilled is between a man and a woman. You have romantic love, physical love, reproduction, and raising a family in a proper manner. Allowing gay marriage is the precursor of destroying marriage altogether.

[1] http://fathersforlife.org...
[2] http://www.highbeam.com...
Debate Round No. 1
boredinclass

Pro

I thank my opponent for the debate, and I'm glad that he followed my rules. I'm just tired of the religous offense. Unfortunately, this sh**ty server at my school doesn't let me access the secind study's link. But I thank you for giving me some research

Since this was just for me to see some arguements against homosexual marriage that are not in a sexual context, I'll just go on a line-by-line of what the opposition, And i'll give a contention that I want to see any possible refutation from my opponent.

>>>>if we allow anyone, and anything to marry, why does marriage exist at all?
if two or more consenting people wish to marry and truely love all other parties, Then I don't see what's wrong with that. We only have one life so we should all be happy

>>>>Points II, IV
- This is a logical fallacy, (slippery slope, and post hoc ergo procter hoc) His only points are proven false, because this has already happened in other countries. And this hasn't led to people marrying their pets, children

>>>>Point IV
-I don't think hardly anyone supports NAMBLA, but there is a difference, Homosexual adults know what they are doing, they are consenting and their minds are fully devolped, And besides, a bill to legalize adult-child relations would never pass, because nobody would support it.

>>>>Point III
-Historically, that is how it has worked. besides, there is no problem with that. And It is only a fallacy

>>>>Point I
-I'm not going to argue that, because that is my point.

>>>> gay marriage destroys marriage
-The majority of people will still be straight only about 22% of males and 23% of females are gay. Straight marriage will still occur more than gay marriage.

>>>>Point a
-This is a 3 point arguement so let me start with
>Then what is the meaning of sex
-pleasure, why is that bad, ask any young person, they'll tell you that's why they have sex
>If it is merely for pleasures sake, then it should not be associated with marriage at all
-My opponent talks about marriage as if it's merely for reproduction, It is, for alot of couples, passion, excitement, romance, adventure

>>>>Point b
-Did he really just say that sex would become boring? And his only example is a work of fiction. Besides, sex looses meaning when you have it with someone you don't love. And straight couples do that alot more than gay couples

>>>>Point c
-I'm glad that my opponent was able to site some study or opinion about this, But These issues will arise in straight marriages. They aren't preventable. People find father figures no matter what.

>>>>many of these studies are specifically made to support gay marriage.
-I will agree that a bias exists in some studies. But notice that he said many and not all. Not all studies that say that there are no problems are bias. These studies should be accounted for.
>>>> This shows that a good fatherly influence is very important in a boy's life.
-I agree but extend that people find father figures without a dad. In some cases, It matures the boy much more quickly than normal

>>>>Many adult sons abandoned by their fathers have difficulty developing and sustaining self-esteem, forming lasting emotional attachments, recognizing their feelings, or being expressive with their adult partners and children
-Extend that gay parents are better than regular parents, They are less likely to abandon the child and cause problems in the house.

>>>>I still stress an importance of a fatherly or motherly figure in a child's life.
- I totally agree, but gay parnets can be just as equally good compared to a deadbeat of divorced parent

>>>>Point D
-gays give romantic love, physical love, and raise children in a correct manner. And there are still enough straight people to reproduce without homosexual help

Contention1:Love
Some of you may be tired of this arguement. But i'll bring it up again. Marriage is about sharing your life with someone you love very dearly. It's about love, not just reproduction. It is about being supported through your life by someone you love. And no matter how much we hate to admit it, We are going to die, our lives must be full of happiness. If you're not happy, then whats the point of living. And as fellow humans, then we must make life better for everyone. Marriage makes people happy. And happinies is the ultimate benefit. We must give all the happiniess we can. And gay marriage gives that.

I'd just really like to thank my opponent for joining me in this debate. I'm glad that people can argue against homosexual marriage without pulling the religion card

Gay-children studies
http://www.time.com...
http://www.narth.com...

Other-
http://www.people.com...
http://articles.cnn.com...
http://www.gallup.com...
http://www.narth.com...
MrCarroll

Con

Points II, IV –– This is not a slippery slope fallacy, and I'll explain why. A slippery slope fallacy is "if x happens, then y will happen." I am contending that if "x should be allowed, then y should be allowed." In order for point I to be consistent, similar rights should be given to those with pedophilia, zoophilia, and so on.

Point IV –– Children can have consent, and the brain fully develops at age 25. [1] And on your last point, a hundred years ago, no one would support a bill to legalize gay marriage.

Point III –– It is not a fallacy, and you are basically supporting polygamy. Why don't polygamists have rights in America?

Gay marriage destroys marriage
–– "Straight marriage will still occur more than gay marriage." This is an actual slippery slope fallacy. But I don't even think I said gay marriages will occur more than straight marriages.

Point a
a1. Like I said, sex is not merely for pleasure's sake. Reproduction, is a pretty important part of sex. Homosexuality completely disregards this. Again, I say, if it is merely for pleasure's sake, then sex should not be associated with marriage. Why doesn't everyone just have sex with anyone they feel attracted to? It is no longer a covenant between two people, it is nothing but an act of pleasure.
a2. It is not just for reproduction, I agree. But it not just for pleasure either; it is a covenant between a man and woman.

Point b –– I said, sex may become meaningless. And this is a warning more then anything. "Sex looses meaning when you have it with someone you don't love." This makes sense, however, sex can also lose its meaning in the ways I have already argued. The last statement is unfounded.

Point c
c1. "These issues will arise in straight marriages. They aren't preventable." Not ultimately preventable, but so are other things such as murder. We still try to stop murder despite the fact it will always occur. Now, I'm not comparing the two deeds. I am saying that children should be allowed to have a mother and father. This is not ultimately preventable, but we should still try give these children male and female parents. A fatherly figure is not the same as a father, and more than anything it is a sad situation. A father was never there for his boy, so his boy goes off to find another. Sure, he found a father figure, but he never should have had to look for one in the first place.

c2. These studies are not convincing to me. They say there is not much of a difference between kids from gay or straight couples, and I would agree since many kids have their own family problems as well. Still, the main point is that these kids will never have either a mother or a father, and I do not see how that could be a positive thing. "Some 22 million kids in the U.S. today grow up in homes in which the biological dad is absent; roughly half of them see their fathers once a year or less." [2] Is this positive for children? Sure they will find another fatherly figure, but that is still neglect on the father's part.

c3. "In some cases, It matures the boy much more quickly than normal." I'm not so sure if "behaving in less traditionally masculine ways" and "lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters" are positive things [2]. You'd think men should be masculine and females should be feminine. I guess its how you look at things.

c4. "They are less likely to abandon the child and cause problems in the house." This is another sad statement about the American culture. Personally, I feel divorce is probably worse than gay marriage. "Some 22 million kids in the U.S. today grow up in homes in which the biological dad is absent; roughly half of them see their fathers once a year or less." [3] Is this positive for children? Sure they will find another fatherly figure, but that is still neglect on the father's part. Either way, you understand my point about the importance of a mother and father. Gay marriage only makes this worse.

Point d
Gay couples do not raise children in a correct manner. They don't raise their children in ways harmful to them or anything like that, but gay marriages do lack either a father or a mother.

Contention 1: Love
This whole contention goes back to my first two points. If we allow marriage to any who love each other, then we should allow the previously mentioned types of marriage as well. As much as I would hate to admit it, it means giving NAMBLA rights. It means giving marriage to polygamists and animal-human relationships (I cringe when I hear it). It means giving marriage to whoever asks it as long as all parties love each other. And sex loses its meaning if it is not to reproduce. Otherwise, they would just make babies from the "London hatchery."

Conclusion: I think I repeated myself quite a bit in the last round, so I do not feel the need to use a proper concluding sentence. I would just be repeating myself more. Just consider the first argument was my main one. a–d were directed at various possible consequences and problems with gay marriage. To voters, I think most people on this site are pro gay marriage, so at least give me points on spelling and grammar ;)
I thank Pro for the debate.

[1] http://www.examiner.com...
[2] http://www.narth.com...
[3] http://www.people.com...
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
Er... using NARTH as a source? Really? Fatherforlife.org caters directly to NARTH... Sad...
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
But did you really say sex would become boring?
Posted by krom 6 years ago
krom
MrCarrol's writing style is very specific, right to the point and concise. I am impressed by his organized writing as well as his points he put down. He used adequate vocabulary and his style of writing makes his points more convincing.
His ideas were quite original such as how if gay marriage should be allowed, that humans should be allowed to marry animals, or even groups of people be allowed to marry each other.
Boredinclass's points were quite subjective and his writing sucked.

I can't vote cause I'm from Asia, but this site doesn't let Asians vote.
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
Sorry about my contention my gf was sitting next to me and we were listening to a sap song
Posted by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
@Freeman, what is the meaning of sex? It is to reproduce. Procreation is not a requirement of marriage, but it is one of the main purposes. This point alone does not outlaw gay marriage, but it does destroy the meaning of sex and marriage.
Posted by Robikan 6 years ago
Robikan
Oh I so want to chime in here, but I don't want to interfere with the debate!
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
"Gay marriages cannot reproduce."

The ability to procreate has never been a requirement for marriage. Sterile people and old people can get married. The Supreme Court has ruled on this numerous times.
Posted by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
Forget that I said "more like evidence than a fact" cause that makes no sense.
Posted by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
@KikoSanchez182 My main argument is not a slippery slope fallacy, which is "if x happens, then y will happen." I cannot prove that Huxley's Brave New World will occur, it is more of a prediction and warning; more like evidence than a fact. BUT my argument is that "if x is allowed, then y should be allowed." We're talking about the law here. I am asking, what is the standard of marriage? What is the meaning of marriage? That is the point I'm trying to get across.
And about the reproduction thing, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I said, "there is nothing necessarily wrong with a child not knowing their true parents, but when a child is missing a male or female influence, some issues will arise."
Posted by Robikan 6 years ago
Robikan
This should be interesting. MrCarrol is a skilled debator, but I cannot see how any of these claims can be proven. I'll be watching with interest!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
boredinclassMrCarrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided many arguments that were so logically fallacious it made it hard to read. He also offered no studies but only criticized others but of course with no evidence. He was also extremely offensive when he said that homosexuality occured because of a distant father figure. This mode of argument belongs in the nineteenth century with the rest of his arguments. Pro refuted all of con's claims in a very respectable manner.
Vote Placed by Haasenfeffor 6 years ago
Haasenfeffor
boredinclassMrCarrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Won
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
boredinclassMrCarrollTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: McCarrol had better arguments. Boredinclass offered incorrect fallacy accusations and didn't address all the issues.
Vote Placed by Robikan 6 years ago
Robikan
boredinclassMrCarrollTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Con definitely used more/better sources, and went into more depth in his arguments. Ultimately, though, Con's arguments were bordering on fallacies.
Vote Placed by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
boredinclassMrCarrollTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: This was hard. I thought this could have been a lot better. I feel Con did the best he could seeing as there aren't logical reasons to keep gays from marrying. I think Pro did not do as well as he could have. In the end, I thought that Pro did better because Con said a lot of things that amounted to "I don't believe that" and didn't back it up.