The Instigator
savannah.greene241
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheTom
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Gay marriage legalizatuon

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
TheTom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 753 times Debate No: 63225
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

savannah.greene241

Pro

Gay marriage is an open opinion. It is nobody's right to judge. It is a freedom of expression, (1st amendment). It is a personal based opinion. Gay marriage should be legalized in all states.
TheTom

Con

Gay marriage is a very touchy subject. As with any controversial issue, one must consider both sides of the issue. Often the case is people seem to make up their mind before they even read the argument. I implore the reader to go into this with an open mind.

Please note, that I will attempt to argue against gay marriage without referring to anything religious. I will try to base my argument strictly on logic.

My arguments are as follows:

Children raised by homosexual parents on average tend to be:
-Much more likely to have received welfare
-Have lower educational attainment
-Report less safety and security in their family of origin
-Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
-Are more likely to suffer from depression
-Have been arrested more often
-If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
-A weaker sense of gender identity
This is not to say that all children raised by gay parents are worse off, however according to this study it seems to be the average.
reference: http://www.frc.org...

Homosexual homes defeat the point of marriage (from a purely evolutionary perspective). Normally the point of marriage is to reproduce, birth, and raise children. This is not to say that a gay couple can't raise children, however they cannot reproduce either.

Obviously there is strong opposition to gay marriage. The U.S government is in a tight situation, they cannot give in either way on the issue without upsetting millions of people. So what was their solution? Give homosexual couples all the benefits of marriage without the title. That way, they could still preserve the "sanctity of marriage" in the eyes of the opposition, without denying the benefits of marriage to gay couples. Homosexual couples now enjoy the same taxation and financial benefits that regular married couples do. However it appears this didn't cut it. All that is missing is the title. If homosexual couples are given the same benefits as married couples, without the title of marriage, what is the problem?

A short history on marriage:
Over the last few thousand years there was no such thing as marriage for love. Marriage was used to connect two families usually for political, financial, or other reasons. It was a means to create a partnership with another group of people. The fathers of each home would arrange the marriage. Only in the last century has this changed. People forget that marriage for the sake of love is a relatively new idea. This is what people are fighting over. In this context, marriage seems somewhat meaningless.

So if a gay couple can buy a house together, open a business together, adopt and raise children together, and have a family together, all while enjoying the same financial benefits as regular couples, what is really left to fight for? An empty title.

Refuting my opponent:

My opponent has taken the stance that marriage is a personal opinion, therefor it should be legalized. This is a somewhat flawed argument. Just because something is a personal opinion does not mean it should be legalized. The opinion must first match the opinion of the majority of people, their must be a concencus before changing the law. Here's an example of how that logic is flawed: My opinion is that all homes should be equipped with apocalypse bunkers in case of zombies or nuclear strike. This is my personal opinion, it is no ones right to dispute my opinion. Therefore, we should pass a law saying all homes should be equipped with apocalypse bunkers. Obviously this seems ridiculous.

In conclusion:
-Children raised by gay parents tend to be worse off
-Marriage is an empty title
-Gay marriage defeats the point of marriage
-Just because something is your opinion does not mean we should change laws to agree with it.
Debate Round No. 1
savannah.greene241

Pro

savannah.greene241 forfeited this round.
TheTom

Con

No response? That's disappointing.
Debate Round No. 2
savannah.greene241

Pro

savannah.greene241 forfeited this round.
TheTom

Con

I feel jipped, I put in a good half hour into that argument. Oh well, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by anthonyr87 2 years ago
anthonyr87
Quoting the FRC immediately invalidates your argument. The FRC has fake studies that have been debunked on every level.
in fact check out the consensus section on this Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The study the FRC cites that has been debunked is explained why it is debunked here...
http://thinkprogress.org...

Also the majority opinion does not matter when it concerns civil rights. And since marriage has been legally considered a civil right since the 1960s thanks to Loving vs. Virginia the opinion of a group of people about what another group of people can or cannot do carries no weight in a matter of debate on legal issues concerning a civil right.

If the majority has a right to deny minorities rights then what is stopping us from being allowed to vote to outlaw Christianity? Or conservatives from voting? Both are also civil rights. But since we are constitutional democratic republic, democracy cannot go against the constitution. And denying people the right to marry based on what gender the persons spouse is, is illegal since that discriminates not only on the grounds of sexual orientation, but also on gender.

And since marriage is a man made concept it in no way matters what marriage used to be 1000 years ago. Marriage today is about love and commitment and has been for over 100 years, which is a good thing since it now allows couples to pair up and live happy lives together, not because it is their duty.

Every argument against same sex marriage has fallen apart in court when confronted with facts, because they arguments against it are factless. The only actual argument they use is religious arguments, which holds no weight under government laws.

Sad the person dropped out of the debate, but I'll gladly pick up where it was left off
Posted by xjustbeyoux 2 years ago
xjustbeyoux
Agreed! Gay marriage should be legal. It's their love life, not others, so why should other people get a say in whether or not they have the right to marry. Plus, it makes them happy, and that is their right. Let them love and be loved by whoever they want. Same-sex marriage should be a right to all beings, not a sin.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jynxx 2 years ago
jynxx
savannah.greene241TheTomTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
savannah.greene241TheTomTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
savannah.greene241TheTomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: A one paragraph statement of belief does not equate to a debate. Con made much better arguments.
Vote Placed by MLG_Pingu 2 years ago
MLG_Pingu
savannah.greene241TheTomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros very first and only argument was very very short, and gave no real arguments. Pro did not use sources, had basically no conduct, forfeited most rounds, and misspelled legalization in the title. Therefore, con wins by a mile.