The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
70 Points
The Contender
MrButtons22
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

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 15 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,582 times Debate No: 9338
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (15)

 

Danielle

Pro

INTRODUCTION:

I'd like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. Before we begin, I'd like to make a few clarifications regarding the resolution. First, I'd ask that my opponent avoid any semantics arguments (i.e. Gay Marriage is already legal in SOME states, etc.) as the resolution implies legalization of gay marriage at the federal level. Second, the resolution also implies that gay marriage should be recognized in the U.S. so long as heterosexual marriage is legally recognized. In other words, my opponent should not put forth the argument that marriage in general should not exist in the first place, or that it's merely a state of mind (as opposed to a legally recognized binding). That said, I hope we can agree on the simple definition of Gay Marriage to mean the legal binding between people of the same sex. Let's begin.

CONTENTIONS:

1) Sex vs. Gender
2) Minority Discrimination
3) Marriage vs. Religion
4) Civil Unions vs. Marriage
5) Sanctity of Marriage
6) Family Values

1) I'd like to begin by clarifying the differences between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological differences that make people either male or female, while gender describes cultural aspects of masculinity and femininity. In other words, a person of the male sex can identify with the female gender. As such, he can live his life as society would expect a woman to live their life, by dressing, talking, and even acting like a woman or in a feminine matter. By law, this feminine man can legally marry another woman regardless of how feminine he behaves or identifies (i.e. transvestites). Con must explain why it is the biological chromosomes and not personal characteristics or traits that are paramount in determining the law.

2) Not legalizing gay marriage is a form of minority discrimination. As new information about homosexuality emerges (i.e. the discovery of so-called gay genes and other biological evidence that homosexuality is not a choice), and exposure to forthcoming heterosexuality increases, society is becoming more accepting of the gay lifestyle and aware that homosexuals are people with the same rights as everybody else. The government believes that people have the right to marry, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Con must explain why this right applies only to people who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex. Con must also explain why it is acceptable to discriminate against people based on sex when it comes to marriage, but why it remains illegal in other institutions such as employment via the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3) Opponents of gay marriage offer that marriage is a religious ritual and as such the government has no right to legislate what is and is not considered to be marriage. However, the spiritual contract of marriage carries with it a legal binding, meaning that it is most definitely the government's business. While most denominations do not condone gay marriage, some churches and religious institutions DO recognize same-sex unions, whereas the federal government still does not. In choosing which unions it does and does not uphold, the government is discriminating based on religion which is unconstitutional.

Additionally, whatever is considered "God's will" is irrelevant in a democracy such as the United States which supports a separation between Church and State. I'm assuming I don't have to structure an argument about which "God" the government is required to obey supposing my opponent would dare to disagree with this obvious separation. In other words, one can morally be opposed to gay marriage based on their specific beliefs via their religion; however, expecting a government to use those religious beliefs in legislation is entirely immoral, anti-democratic and contrary to the founding principles of the United States.

4) To rectify the issue of religious marriages verses federally recognized unions, the government has proposed a mockery of the marriage institution otherwise known as Civil Unions. Many ignorant Americans assume that Civil Unions and Gay Marriage are synonymous; however, they are grossly misinformed. Marriage carries with it over 1,050 state and federal benefits, whereas Civil Unions only receive 300 benefits at the STATE level (and not every state has legalized civil unions, making this point almost obsolete). Thus civil unions are deprived of 750 benefits that heterosexual married couples receive.

So what exactly does this all mean? In our society, when people marry it is typically out of love and commitment. However having a ceremony is not enough; legal rights should be extended to couples who have accepted this commitment. Some examples of civil union verses marriage benefits can be seen when we look at things like TAX RELIEF (marriage couples can file for state *and* federal tax breaks, whereas people with CU's can only apply for state benefits); MEDICAL DECISIONS (couples with CU's can only make emergency medical decisions in the state of which they live and were married); DEATH BENEFITS (a marital spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits, whereas CU partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death); CHILD SUPPORT (CU partners are not required to pay child support payments if they move out of state); etc. Con has the burden of proving why these benefits should only apply to those within heterosexual marriages, despite the equal love and commitment present in partners who happen to be of the same sex.

5) Some people think that gay marriage would eliminate the so-called sanctity of marriage. In a country where a heterosexual can get married at any point in time for whatever reason (including intoxication), I'd like for someone - anyone - to explain how legalizing same-sex marriage would devalue the marriage of any other couple. Marriage is supposed to be about commitment, and yet Britney Spears was able to engage in a 55-hour long union while gay couples who have spent decades together are not able to legally wed. The point is, the divorce rate in this country is at an all-time high and that's while gay marriage is still prohibited. TIME magazine recently published an article on the rate of infidelity among married couples rising drastically, again while gays have nothing to do with this dilemma. By recognizing same-sex unions, no statement is being made about the sanctity (or lack thereof) amongst heterosexual couples. Nobody is being negatively affected.

6) Similarly, some people cite family values as a reason to be against gay marriage; however, I'd suggest the opposite: allowing same-sex marriages shows children that everyone regardless of sex, gender or sexuality is capable of love and commitment. It would also decrease discrimination and hate crimes against homosexuals; children would be taught from an early age that sexual differences are acceptable within society. Moreover, gay individuals are having children whether people like it or not (via in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc.). If gay marriage were legalized, same-sex adoption would increase thereby providing good homes to orphans who need the love, care and protection of decent parents. Additionally, it would alleviate some of the funding necessary by the State to house all of these orphans, making it economically beneficial as well (as an added bonus).

CONCLUSION:

A plethora of evidence supports that people don't choose to be gay, meaning to deny them basic marriage rights is blatant and unlawful discrimination. However even if it WAS a personal choice, Con has the burden of proving why this lifestyle choice in particular warrants discrimination, even while gay individuals are required to abide by the same laws and pay the same (more) taxes as every other American. I have proven that there are only benefits to legalizing gay marriage, whereas there are detriments in not doing so. Back to Con.
MrButtons22

Con

I thank my opponent for wanting to debate me on this topic. Hopefully, none of the problems (mine and/or hers) in our last debate will resurface. ;)

Before I begin, I would like to point out that I am just as against divorce and infidelity in marriage as I am against gay "marriage". Those who know me personally know this to be true. Therefore, arguments that include these types of scenarios make no difference to me. I would personally make infidelity a crime and divorce illegal (except in severe cases) if I had the power to do so.

1. I do not happen to agree with the stated difference between sex and gender (nor do I agree with transvestitism, by the way), but that is inconsequential, as I understand the meaning behind it. The legal reasoning behind this difference is obvious. Heterosexual couples are able to procreate and raise those children, which is a benefit to society. Male homosexual partners cannot do this in any way whatsoever, and female ones must have a donor in order to give birth. I would furthermore argue that a family needs the guidance of both a male and female figure, one of each; how can a young girl easily cope with her first menstrual cycle when both of her parents are males, for example? Also, in a November 2003 study, the Center for Disease Control found that 60% of those with HIV acquired it through homosexual sex, as opposed to 15% through heterosexual sex (1). Please see the source cited for some more interesting statistics on homosexuals and STDs. Biologically, economically, and legally, it makes no sense to promote a lifestyle that "promotes" STDs this much more than others. Also, the law should not really concern itself with "feelings". The law mostly deals with facts. Someone could "feel" like a woman one day, then "feel" like a man the next, then "feel" like a woman again, then "feel" like a goat a week after. Is the law supposed to cater to every single one of those feelings?

2. I wholeheartedly disagree with Con on this point. Discrimination has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Every single gay, lesbian, pedophile, African-American, Hispanic, atheist, astronaut, and trash man is allowed to get married, as long as they are of legal age. What is being discussed is the definition of marriage. Con desires to have the definition redefined as "a union between two adults", if I am not mistaken. So, please do not refer to it as discrimination. As for Con's question concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1964…this is the Federal government. Do they EVER make sense?

3. I do not argue from this point, as I do believe in separation of church and state (though, not to the extent that many do), and tend to not bring the religious aspect of marriage into debates on the subject.

4. I am not for Civil Unions for the same reasons that I am against gay "marriage", so there is no point arguing against this. And yes, I understand the difference, and am still against both. (Also, friendly reminder; please cite your sources for your information. Thanks!).

5. I believe that I addressed this issue at the beginning of my rebuttal. Oddly enough, a study in 2003 by Dr. Xiridou shows that even married gay partners are far from faithful. The Netherlands' gay married couples would have 16-28 different partners on average a year while still married (1). This would be extreme for the VAST majority of married couples in America. Please see the source cited for some more interesting statistics on fidelity in homosexual relationships.

6. Love and commitment are important for families, yes. It is na�ve, however, to believe that a family can thrive merely on these two things. Love is not "all you need", no matter how much I love the Beatles and their music. Children need to be provided with physical needs and a stable home as well. If the statistics on The Netherlands is any indication to how homosexual married couples would act in America, then I most assuredly do NOT want gay "marriage" here.

Finally, it is strange that Con believes the denial of recognizing gay "marriage" to be anti-democratic, when a majority of the country is still against gay "marriage". What is more "anti-democratic"; judges forcing a state to recognize this type of relationship without the legislators or executive being involved, or legislators refusing to allow for this type of relationship to be recognized because they do not want to be voted out by their constituents? It may seem unfair to Con, it may even BE unfair, but it is NOT "anti-democratic".

Once again, I would like to remind Con of the statistics of homosexual married couples' fidelity in the Netherlands. This is not something that I, or any average American, would want in this country. Imagine if these statistics were true in America: what would happen to our healthcare system (because of STDs), and our family structures (I am sure you agree that a married person having over 20 other partners per year does not help the children become better citizens.)? Marriage and families are hurting enough from the allowance of no-fault divorce, pornography, and infidelity. Why would I want to damage it even further?

I await Con's reply.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

1) Con says that he does not agree with the analysis of sex and gender being different things. Regardless of whether my opponent agrees or not, facts are facts: there ARE differences between the concepts of sex and gender and that is indisputable. One's sex - determined by reproductive organs - is different than one's gender - which has nothing to do with physical entities but rather social implications and expectations. Con says that he wishes to deal with facts in this debate rather than feelings, in which case he must accept this difference whether he feels like it or not.

Regarding the argument of children, I'd like to note that children are irrelevant in this discussion as we are talking about MARRIAGE - not parenting. As we all know, marriage is not a prerequisite to having sex OR having children, therefore any arguments regarding sex (and STDs) or children really have nothing to do with this debate. Heterosexual couples can marry and never have children. Gay people can have sex and never marry. In other words, these points are moot.

Additionally, I find it quite ignorant that Pro feels a mother would automatically be better than a father at parenting a young girl. When I began menstruating (hey - Con brought it up) it was actually my father who was more supportive and available than my mother who by nature tends to be less comfortable talking about certain things. In other words, both males and females can be excellent parents. Not to mention that just because a child may have gay parents does not mean they will not have a role model of the opposite sex in their lives as well. A mother is just as capable of teaching her son how to throw a fastball as a father is at making his family delicious home cooked meals. To presume otherwise would be to allow gender stereotypes overshadow the reality of life (which is where sex and gender differences come into play). Moreover, there are plenty of single parents out there who raise their children just fine. Again, this issue of children is irrelevant as child bearing is not the *legal* basis for ANY MARRIAGE.

Regarding STDs, I have explained why this should have NO legal bearing as being HIV free is not a requirement for heterosexual marriage. Allowing gay marriage isn't promoting a lifestyle (let alone an unhealthy one) - it's providing equal rights. Eating red meat often leads to heart disease (the #1 killer of Americans) and yet we don't ban it; we give people the option of making smart and healthy decisions. It is possible for people to eat red meat and yet stay healthy, the same way people (including gay people) can have sex and not acquire STDs if they do it responsibly. Moreover, heterosexuals are becoming HIV positive at a higher rate than ever demonstrating that it's not sexuality that determines whether or not this disease will affect you. And! While gay men may have a higher rate of being HIV positive, LESBIANS are the group with the *smallest* chance of being HIV positive. In other word, even if this argument were relevant to the discussion of gay MARRIAGE (which it clearly isn't), the entire argument would be dismantled as it would have nothing to do with lesbians who in fact seek gay marriages. In fact it would work in their
favor.

Finally on this point, Con is wrong in assuming that transexual people "feel" one sex one day and the other sex the next. I'd like to see some proof that this is the case; the reality is that these people often have BIOLOGICAL REASON to feel the way they do (and it's more common than we'd like to believe as I've learned in my Sexual Anatomy health class). The fact is that these "feelings" are derivative from biological deformities in which a fetus was supposed to develop one way but didn't. Medical tests prove that this is the case. What Con is suggesting is further discriminating against these people.

2) Con attempts to say that gay marriage shouldn't exist because marriage by definition is exclusive to be between a man and a woman. This is a very shallow argument. He has not explained why the legal definition should not be expanded to include a union being between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, the way the Constitution has been expanded and amended throughout history to reflect social progression. African Americans were once "defined" as being 3/5 of a person under the law. By Con's standards, we should accept preexisting discrepancies and injustices. Moreover, if this debate is solely about the word marriage and not the rights that accompany it, then Con's entire argument becomes invalid anyway. As I've said - I am completely for gay civil unions IF and only if they incorporated the same rights as marriage. They do not. Now call it whatever you want, but don't discriminate based on sex or sexuality. That is exactly what the word marriage by DEFINITION is doing. Oh, and using "the federal government never makes sense" is hardly a sufficient argument for defending legal inconsistency.

3) It's true that my opponent has not brought the ignorant argument of religion into politics for his defense of the Con position; however, what he HAS brought in are ignorant assumptions about gender stereotypes which are just as dangerous. In order for his words about facts as opposed to mere opinions being relevant, he must provide FACTS about why gay MARRIAGE - not gay sex or parenting (!!!) is harmful to society.

4) Con says that he is just as opposed to civil unions as gay marriage. If gay people are going to continue having sex and having children whether you like it or not... and it's FAR from being considered a "disorder" in the mental community (as science and psychology has caught up with sociology) then I don't see a good reason to be opposed to such a thing, especially since gays are expected to endure the same restrictions and responsibilities of citizenship as everyone else without the opportunity to marry whomever they wish (of legal age and sound mind). In other words, this benefit is only extended then to heterosexual people proving that anti-gay marriage laws ARE discriminatory.

5) Fidelity rates have nothing to do with this discussion. You can not legislate morality! People are INDIVIDUALS and what Con is doing is lumping all people into one category which is unfair and unconstitutional. Not to mention that his fidelity statistics once again only apply to gay MEN and not gay WOMEN making them even more irrelevant than they already were. Even if gay people were less faithful than straight people, this statistic has NO USE as gay people are NOT MARRIED whereas straight people are. Not to mention that there is no honest and foul proof way of obtaining these statistics, and heterosexuals are just as capable of cheating as any other group so this is a moot point. Black people may be more LIKELY to serve time in prison than white people; however, we now have a black President... the point being that you cannot make assumptions or restrict the rights of others based on the immoral decisions of a select few.

6) Con writes, "Children need to be provided with physical needs and a stable home." I agree entirely, which is why I find it odd that Con would rather a child live in a broken home than in a loving and SAFE home with stable gay parents. Now onto his anti-democratic argument, I must simply point out to Con that democracy involves PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY. It is fallacious to assume that a majority opinion is necessarily the right one, making his point that most people in the U.S. oppose gay marriage completely useless to his position (it is also uncited and not true).

And in conclusion, I'd like to point out that my opponent's source of the Traditional Values Coalition should be considered useless and irrelevant as it is COMPLETELY biased (it is a Conservative Christian group). If I had more characters available - perhaps in the next round - I will provide my own links proving that this is so.
MrButtons22

Con

I thank Con for her timely response.

First of all, I would like to reiterate some of the points that I have already made:

1) While I did say that I disagreed with Pro's definitions of both sex and gender, I said that I did understand her meaning behind it. I am aware of the fact that, for example, some men act more effeminate than others, etc. Why is Pro trying to make it seem otherwise?

2) I DO NOT APPROVE of infidelity or divorce (in most cases for the latter). Arguments stating things such as, "Con would rather a child live in a broken home than in a loving and SAFE home with stable gay parents." do not fly here. This is a typical argument put out by Pro's side, and it does not hold water in this debate. I would rather that child be raised in a loving home, wherein reside his two, loving, biological parents. Once again, I AM JUST AS AGAINST INFIDELITY AND DIVORCE AS I AM AGAINST GAY "MARRIAGE". Statements like these seem to be maliciously ignoring what I already said.

3) My sources come from an article written by a conservative Christian organization, yes. But the data research? Not so much. The Center for Disease Control and the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service are not generally thought of as bastions of evil conservative propaganda. Here are some more sites that Con may want to look over:
http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.washingtontimes.com...

I will ignore (for now) the many inconsistencies, misrepresentations, and manipulations against my statements and focus on the issue at hand: gay marriage benefits. And here, I must return to the study on gay marriage in The Netherlands:

If Pro could show that gay couples are, when married, monogamous, then it would be much harder for me to prove my point. The facts are, however, that the large, vast majority are not only unfaithful; it is considered the norm.

I would assume that Pro is against legalizing polygamy, or any type of relationship involving multiple people, as marriage. The trend in The Netherlands, according to this study, is that these gay marriages are not, in fact monogamous. So, what is the next logical step for the progressive mind? Bob loves Larry, but he also loves Sam. Bob wants to marry because he wants the legal benefits of it, and wants to have his husband covered under his insurance, etc. So Bob marries…Larry. No, Sam. Okay, Bob decides to marry Sam. But, he still loves Larry, so now he writes his legislator, saying that he wants to marry both. Why can't he? Then Bob picks up another guy at the gay bar named Jim and wants to marry him (remember: according to the study, just ONE of the married partners will sexually be with 8 other people in ONE YEAR. AVERAGE.) because Jim fell on some hard times and can't afford healthcare anymore. Gay people decide to march in Amsterdam , demanding their right to marry multiple people. The government gives it to them, and you have an economic nightmare. Health insurers are now having to cover an undetermined amount of partners in the marriage, making premiums go up, etc. Children are then, by osmosis, being taught that commitment to your loved one is nothing. That idea of commitment inevitably flows into other areas of those children's lives: jobs, promises, friendships, etc.

Gay marriage in The Netherlands does not help the society, does in fact degenerate it, and leads to polygamy. "That is so far fetched. You can't link the two in any way whatsoever," Pro might say. "Far fetched"? Not really.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Pro must prove that allowing gay "marriage" into America will not bring about polygamy and polymory. We must think about the consequences of our actions, not act passionately and without thought.

Also, Pro: PLEASE show your sources for your (sometimes) outrageous claims. I cannot accept hearsay as truth.

I await Pro's reply.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

1) Con agrees with the differences between sex and gender, so my original point stands: Con is okay with a man living as a woman (in dress, mannerisms, behavior, identity, etc.) and being married to another woman as is currently legally allowed by law. Con can argue that he is against transvestism , etc, but the fact remains that the LAW does not discriminate against these identities. It merely discriminates based on sexuality. So, if I wanted to marry a woman, I could have surgery and obtain legal status as a man and then be allowed to marry a woman. This to me seems non-sensical.

My point here is the fact that the law and Con seem to care only about SEX in terms of marriage qualifications. Con has said that he values TRADITIONAL male-female relationships and parenting; however, a male-female relationship could consist of two masculine or two feminine partnerships. Just because one might have a penis doesn't mean that he identifies as male, making Con's argument irrelevant. A child can be the biological product of a male and yet his father figure could be exceptionally effeminate... meaning he wouldn't be receiving the "traditional" parenting that Con is trying to preserve, and yet it is perfectly legal.

2) The argument about "what's next" if you allow gay marriage, i.e. the ridiculous idea that next people will be marrying their dogs or something else equally absurd, is entirely fallacious as it encompasses the Slippery Slope mentality which is logically flawed. So, again I pose the challenge to Con to explain why what is "traditional" is necessarily right or why a man and a woman = BETTER. Is Con also against biracial marriage? Bi-nationality marriage? Where do you draw the line?

3) Next Con cites a source that says 2/3 of males living with HIV are gay. This does absolutely nothing for his argument. Since HIV is transmitted through SEX and not MARRIAGE, I fail to see how this is pertinent. Gay people can still have sex and spread HIV, so this is a moot point. If anything, inhibiting gay marriage promotes infidelity or the idea that their relationships should be taken less seriously. This would only further contribute to the epidemic. Moreover, Con completely ignored my argument that this HIV statistic does NOT apply to lesbians once again making it irrelevant. To reiterate, lesbians are the group LEAST LIKELY to contract HIV.

As long as we're talking about statistics, let's address the fact that 40% of men's sexual relationships are not consistent as in with regular partners, and that even if more gay men currently have HIV than straight, it is not necessarily indicative of more risky or promiscuous behavior.

4) Con writes, "If Pro could show that gay couples are, when married, monogamous, then it would be much harder for me to prove my point." Well, if Con can show that all heterosexual married couples are monogamous, it would also be easier to prove his point... however, the fact remains that this is simply not the case. Infidelity is becoming more and more common in marriages today. And while Con may disagree with that reality - as I'm sure most of us do - that does not change it nor does it change the fact that heterosexuals are still allowed to marry. So, if Con's argument is that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married because statistically they're more likely to cheat, we can observe that (1) Homosexuals are cheating outside of wedlock -- who is to say that they would necessarily cheat in marriage? (2) Just because SOME people cheat doesn't mean that it should be held against everybody (3) Cheating is not illegal nor detrimental to society; only to a relationship (4) Heterosexuals are still allowed to marry despite increasing infidelity rates, meaning to discriminate only against homosexuals would be blatant bigotry.

Gay people can be faithful to each other, so what other standard is important to the government? People want different things out of their marriage, and apparently the government's only requirements are legal age, mental proficiency, non-incestuous relations and sex differentiation. The last requirement does not make sense. I would like for Con to explain why the government should REQUIRE that the two engaging parties be male and female. It can't be because of what these people "offer" their children as I've explained that parenting is irrelevant to the argument, and also that just because one is male does not mean that he is masculine, etc. Not to mention that not all married couples have children.

5) Next, Con writes, "I would assume that Pro is against legalizing polygamy, or any type of relationship involving multiple people, as marriage." Actually, I am not necessarily against this in all cases. Mormons are allowed to spiritually marry more than one individual; however, only receive the legal benefits of having one partner. I would be perfectly okay with this being offered to homosexual couples as well. I don't care how many people one spiritually marries so long as the government only recognizes one. The whole Bob/Larry/Sam argument also reeks of the Slippery Slope fallacy; this debate is not about some twisted love triangle but about gay marriage. The same ridiculous scenario could be said about Bob/Susie/Beth. It is not exclusive to homosexuals. Throughout this debate, Con is making it appear as if homosexuals are the only ones capable of contracting AIDS, infidelity, polygamy, etc. This is ridiculous. Not to mention that his cited Washington Times article source was written by THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHRISTIAN VOICE, a pro-family lobby. It is an article rooted in opinion; not factual evidence or true journalism.

6) As I've said, gay people are already spiritually married and living and acting as married couples (so all of Con's points are really useless). The problem is that they are being denied LEGAL rights while still being expected to act in accordance with other laws and guidelines of citizenship, such as paying taxes, etc. In other words, when Con says that gay people are free to marry just as heterosexuals are, what he is then suggesting is that it would be okay for a homosexual to marry someone from the opposite sex just to obtain the legal benefits, even if they are spiritually committed to someone of the same sex. He may say that he does not endorse this behavior; however, why shouldn't someone reap the legal benefits of marriage just because they're gay? If that's not discrimination, I don't know what is. The only option for equality therefore is to enter a dishonest heterosexual marriage. This dismantles all of Con's arguments about the sanctity of marriage. If what he is saying is that marriage is about commitment in the traditional sense, then what he should be advocating is that people marry whom they love and feel like being committed both legally and spiritually to.

7) It's funny that Con talks about children being raised to undermine commitment. What marriage seeks to do is establish and reaffirm commitment in a more permanent way. By not granting equal rights to gay couples, what you're actually telling children is that you must conform in order to be accepted; that certain people are more valuable or worthy of certain rights than others; promoting homophobia from an earlier age, etc.

8) Moreover, once again it is absurd to assume that only gay people would marry for health benefits. Keep in mind that with marriage benefits also comes responsibility and other binding legal obligations. I highly doubt that people would obtain marriage licenses solely for health benefits (life isn't an Adam Sandler movie, after all). As far as legit commitments go, yes, I think it is HIGHLY unfair that my co-worker's partner might be able to receive health benefits because she is heterosexual, whereas my partner might not be able to because we are not. Please explain to me how this is a fair trade off in society.

More in the next round - No more characters...
MrButtons22

Con

I thank Pro for her response.

Once again, I feel as though my words and points are being manipulated by my opponent. Please do not purposefully try to make what I say sound as though I am arguing something else. There are FAR too many inconsistencies between what I said and what Pro manipulated it to mean. I cannot waste the space to address them all. I will go over some of the main points:

1) "Homosexuals are cheating outside of wedlock -- who is to say that they would necessarily cheat in marriage?" (Pro)

Gay MARRIAGE, which is what Pro is arguing in favor of, is a sham in The Netherlands, according to an unbiased study by the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service. The AVERAGE GAY PARTNER in these marriages is sexually involved with 8 other people in a YEAR. Not most; average. The higher end was 14. This is not a civil union, or a "spiritual marriage"; this is exactly what Pro is arguing for; gay marriage. WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZE A UNION THAT IS BARELY EVEN RECOGNIZED (LET ALONE RESPECTED) BY THOSE IN IT? This is NOT, once again, a biased study. Show me a heterosexual married couple with this track record, and try to claim that it is the norm.

2) My connection of polygamy/polyamory to gay marriage is not "slippery slope fallacy", as this exact thing is now happening in The Netherlands. This is not a hypothetical scenario; it is something that has been happening and advancing in a country that has already legalized gay marriage.

3) Pro needed to show that my statistics on gay marriage were false. Instead, she purposefully misread it to "assume" I was talking about those in cohabitation.

4) Pro did not give ANY citations to any of the "facts" she made, after I asked her to do so multiple times. I can only assume then that her "facts" are, in fact, made up.

5) Pro states that, "Mormons are allowed to spiritually marry more than one individual; however, only receive the legal benefits of having one partner. I would be perfectly okay with this being offered to homosexual couples as well." First of all, I once again see no citation for this claim. Secondly, this is NOT (in accordance to Pro's own previously stated views) equal rights in marriage, and is therefore discrimination, at least by her judgment. The "others" in the marriage are not given the legal benefits of that marriage, making it unsatisfactory (as she is against civil unions due to the fact that they do not give full marriage rights). If full rights in gay marriage are to be given for the sake of "equal rights", one can easily argue for full marriage rights for polygamy/polyamory, as was done in The Netherlands.

I feel as though I am mostly rehashing the points that I have already made. I have nothing new to add. We now enter the voting period.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by anonymouse 5 years ago
anonymouse
No it's shouldn't. Who you sleep with is not a civil rights issue. Gays are not a race of people
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
A woman can't marry another woman! What will be next? A woman marrying a hair dryer, a man a car?
Posted by Ulota 7 years ago
Ulota
I have to wonder whether either Pro or Con bothered to read Con's sources! Xiridou's study does not address marriage at all! In fact, though the study was published in 2003, the data was collected in 1995-1996; homosexual marriage was not legalized in the Netherlands until 2001! Cons's claim, indirectly citing Xiridou via a white paper by the Traditional Values Coalition, that "The Netherlands' gay married couples would have 16-28 different partners on average a year while still married" misquotes the Traditional Values Coalition paper, which cites that range for "Those who considered their sexual relationships "casual"", a far cry from "while still married"! This misrepresentation of sources is appalling behavior in a debate.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
C: Tie
S&G: Tie
A: Pro - Pro's initial arguments were solid. Con's attempts to show gay marriages as socially harmful did little to show why these unions should not be legal. As Pro correctly pointed out, the majority of Con's points could be applied as easily to heterosexual couples.
S: Tie - Neither side provided sources that significantly aided their case.
Posted by MrButtons22 7 years ago
MrButtons22
Who was the first voter? Because she/he voted literaly a minute after I posted my final response. Hmmm... I wonder if they voted based on the argument, or based on their own bias...
Posted by MrButtons22 7 years ago
MrButtons22
Please Explain Your Point Distribution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
My laptop is up and running again so I can reissue the adultery debate whenever you are ready.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
"No fault divorce does not serve society in ANY way whatsoever: It cheapens marriage immensely"

Well, marriage doesn't serve society in any way whatsoever either. It actually does the opposite in granting tax benefits to married couples. At best, marriage helps with PARENTING, but that's different. Anyway, the part I find hypocritical with this argument is that people cannot seem to decide whether they want marriage to be about a spiritual, personal commitment, OR if they want it to be one concerning the government. It can't be both. The government cannot interfere or impose bureaucratic instructions on people's personal lives. And spiritually, people should be able to marry whomever they want (love and cherish).

I fail to see how or why the government should violate that right. "Marry" is just a word that essentially means to commit to, and anyone can have that with anyone else without the government's blessing. What this debate discusses is marriage in the legal sense; in other words the government's recognition of ONE contract... because legally speaking - that's what marriage is - a contract - not a spiritual union (we'll leave that to the Churches and individual's spirituality). So, as I've said in the debate, the government should recognize one union per person with legal benefits regardless of sex, sexual orientation, etc. To say things like "love" should be required is now stepping into territory where the government is trying to control things they really shouldn't/can't. It's unenforceable. As Con said, people get married for the "wrong" reasons all the time. More about this in the debate : )
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
I noticed that and tried to fix it... I think I only made the mistake once though lol not sure.
Posted by MrButtons22 7 years ago
MrButtons22
Haha, I've been calling theLwerd Pro and Con; so has she! Oh well :)
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kristoffersayshi 6 years ago
kristoffersayshi
DanielleMrButtons22Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
DanielleMrButtons22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
DanielleMrButtons22Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Orangeman333 7 years ago
Orangeman333
DanielleMrButtons22Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by MelB4Ever 7 years ago
MelB4Ever
DanielleMrButtons22Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
DanielleMrButtons22Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Ulota 7 years ago
Ulota
DanielleMrButtons22Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
DanielleMrButtons22Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by silntwaves 7 years ago
silntwaves
DanielleMrButtons22Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
DanielleMrButtons22Tied
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:70