The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
judeifeanyi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 625 times Debate No: 46142
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Mikal

Pro

Resolution - Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

This is a Shared BOP

For the purpose of this debate legal shall be defined as

Legal - A federal and state recognition of gay marriage across the board (The federal government shall give all the same rights and benefits to same sex couples as hetero sexual couples)


Rounds

Me

(1) Outline
(2) Contentions
(3) Rebuttals, Contentions, Closing


Adversary

(1) Contentions
(2) Rebuttals, Contentions, Closing
(3) Shall type "no round as agreed upon"


Rules

(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon shall result in a full 7 point drop from my adversary due to him/her having an extra round.
(2) FF shall result in the loss of a conduct point
(3) Multiple FFS shall possibly result in a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges.

judeifeanyi

Con

I accept the challenge.
Same sex marriage should not be legalized in u.s.a.
1.it will depopulate the state.
2.it turns moral wrong to civil right
3.it denies children the privilege to have different sex as parent in u.s.a
nb.....the rules are hard.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

I had a big response laid out but due to my opponents limited contentions I am going to respond briefly instead. Since he really made no argument, I don't want to put the effort into a giant argument.

Premise 1 : Homosexuals cannot control whom they attracted to.

(a) Homosexuality is found in nature

" Homosexual behavior is found in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world " [1]

(b) animals are ruled by instinct and not rationality.

Animals have urges that they cannot control and this is found in nature and is a common trend

" It was (and is) common to think that other animals are ruled by "instinct" whereas humans lost their instincts and are ruled by "reason", and that this is why we are so much more flexibly intelligent than other animals " [2]

(c) Humans are rational but cannot control what instincts they have.

There are many studies that are starting to prove that testosterone levels, parental factors, and genetics all play a roll in if someone will become homosexual. Meaning it is not their choice to be homosexual, but they have the urge at birth. While committing homosexual acts is a choice, they can no more choose this than we can choose our attraction to women.

Where once the scientific and medical establishment maintained an unqualified belief that homosexuality was a form of psychological deviance, today a solid majority of psychiatrists and psychologists themselves believe in biological theories (genes, brain, prenatal chemistry) over environmental or psychological theories. [3]


Premise 2 : The Us Constitution promises everyone the right to marry someone they love

(a) The right to marriage and equality

" The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances." [4]

(b) Loving Vs Virginia

This cases goes to prove that supreme court approves marriage equality. The overturned a law in Virginia that prohibited white people from marrying other people of different races. The irony was the law did not stop any other races from marring other races, but directly effected white people. They were only allowed to marry other white people. This law was the first step in marriage equality and goes as far as to show that gay marriage should be legalized. [5]


Conclusion

Homosexuals cannot chose what genetics and hormones they have. The have urges that is deep within them. We are promised the right to marriage equality under the 14th amendment and the supreme court even went as far as to acknowledge this in Loving vs Virginia.

Gay marriage should be legalized in the same regard. Equality is equality for all.


[1] http://www.yalescientific.org...
[2] http://cogweb.ucla.edu...
[3] http://www.pbs.org...
[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[5] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
judeifeanyi

Con

I have been cornered at a wall, indefinately parallel to my very unruffled impacable person by my opponent who conveniently chose to ignore the fact that all rights,have limitation. Ponder on what was said by my opponent, she rightly put it that in u.s.a, there is right of marriage and equity.my opponent failed to understand that there is limitation of right. Not when the right is at the detrement of the citizens. Checking the world population, they are about 50million as stated by nairaland.com and thousands of country but only few not even up to 20countries that legalized it. The benefit of the same sex marriage is what i have not seen rather it will even affect us.let me ask, why do people marry? One of the reasons why people marry is due to love and procreation. I ask again, how can one be attracted to his or her own sex? It is awkward.my opponent said that same-sex attracte individuals are from birth that it is natural, but fail to justify that argument..haven't we heard of the the scientific words that says'like pole attracts while unlike pole repels' what am i saying, that same sex marriage should not be in u.s.a owning to the fact that it is not even generally acceptable.
Premise: since the same-sex marriage cannot solve the social, political, and economic problems of u.s.a, then they should not be legalized. Let my opponent justify that in her next line of argument
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

After pondering over what my adversary was attempting to say, I am going to try to respond. I literally could not place together half that argument due to typos and bad grammar.

Response

In Vitro Fertilization is a method in " One of the reasons why people marry is due to love and procreation "
where gay couples can pro create, so this argument is null.

"Monitor and stimulate the development of healthy egg(s) in the ovaries.
Collect the eggs.
Secure the sperm.
Combine the eggs and sperm together in the laboratory and provide the appropriate environment for fertilization and early embryo growth.
Transfer embryos into the uterus"[1]

Response 2

" It is awkward.my opponent said that same-sex attracte individuals are from birth that it is natural, but fail to justify that argument "

I did justify this and in great detail, if you wish to read my argument again feel free.


Response 3

" that same sex marriage should not be in u.s.a owning to the fact that it is not even generally acceptable. "

This line of logic is a mind F**k. How would we legalize anything if it is not generally accepted? Slavery, interracial marriage, and even women voting would not have been legalized if we went off what was generally accepted.


Response 4

" Premise: since the same-sex marriage cannot solve the social, political, and economic problems of u.s.a, then they should not be legalized "

Yep sex cannot solve the problems within the US economy, lets pass a federal ban. Let's wipe out the populaces while we are it.


Response 4

" It denies children the privilege to have different sex as parent in u.s.a "

I am lost as to how to even respond to this

I am not sure how to even respond to this. My adversary is saying gay marriage denies children the right to have different sex as parents. As if by some magical force gay marriage is going to make children parents and prevent them from having rough or kinky sex. This point just killed my brain


Conclusion

I have no idea how to even type this out. This is really clear and very easy to vote on. I refuted every argument that my adversary had that was viable, while the other half he had either made no sense at all or were just irrelevant to the topic at hand.









[1] http://americanpregnancy.org...
judeifeanyi

Con

My opponent is vomiting her speech as if she is the all knowing. Indeed, there are some errors, maybe that was due to the fact that I was rushing to add my post. But that doesn't stop the argument anyway.
My opponent said homosexual couples can procreate, now she failed to give data statistical analysis of number of persons that was born through this artificial way..she equally failed to justify my argument and to rebout my stand which shows she accepted with psychological calmness that samesex marriage should not be legalized in u.s.a.
Considering the u.s.a's population, and the world population, if same sex marriage should be legalized, it will depopulate the world and reduce the military might of u.s.a.
SAME SEX MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE LEGAlIZED IN U.S.A BECAUSE OF THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS WHICH INCLUDES: Immediate Effects
Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.
If same-sex marriage were legalized,allemployers, public and private, large or small, would be required to offer spousal benefits to homosexual couples. You, as a taxpayer, consumer, or small business owner, would be forced to bear the expense of subsidizing homosexual relationships-including their higher health care costs.
Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.
A lesbian who teaches 8th grade sex education in Massachusetts told NPR that she teaches her children how lesbians use "a sex toy" to have intercourse. If anyone objects, she says, "Give me a break. It's legal now." One father wasjailedafter protesting because his son-akindergartenstudent-was given a book about same-sex couples.
Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.
Churches and non-profit organizations could be stripped of their tax exemptions and religious psychologists, social workers, and marriage counselors could be denied licensing if they "discriminate" against homosexuals. Individual believers who disapprove of homosexual relationships may face a choice at work between forfeiting their freedom of speech and being fired.
Long-Term Effects
Fewer people would marry.
In Massachusetts, where same-sex "marriages" began in May 2004, only 52% of same-sex couples who live together had even bothered to "marry" by the end of 2006. Among opposite-sex couples, the comparable figure is 91%. In the Netherlands, the figures are even lower, with only 12% of homosexual couples having entered legal civil "marriages." Giving the option of same-sex "marriage" would tell society that marriage in general is "optional," not normative, and fewer people would marry.
Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.
Among homosexual men, sex with multiple partners is tolerated and often expected. One study in the Netherlands showed that homosexual menwith a steady partnerhad an average of eight sexual partners per year. If these behaviors are incorporated into what society affirms as "marriage," then fidelity among heterosexuals would likely decline as well.
Birth rates would fall.
Same-sex "marriage" would eliminate the incentive for procreation that is implicit in defining marriage as a male-female union. There is already evidence of at least a correlation between same-sex "marriage" and low birth and fertility rates, both in the U.S. and abroad. While some people still harbor outdated fears about "over-population," demographers now understand that declining birth rates harm society.
Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow.
If a person's choice of spouse cannot be limited based on thesexof one's partner, it is hard to see how it could be limited based on thenumberof spouses either.Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.
Among homosexual men, sex with multiple partners is tolerated and often expected. One study in the Netherlands showed that homosexual menwith a steady partnerhad an average of eight sexual partners per year. If these behaviors are incorporated into what society affirms as "marriage," then fidelity among heterosexuals would likely decline as well.
Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.
Even a homosexual psychologist has acknowledged that "gay and lesbian couples dissolve their relationships more frequently than heterosexual couples." The same Dutch study that showed the high rate of homosexual promiscuity also showed that the average homosexual male "partnership" lasts only 1.5 years. As the transience of homosexual relationships is incorporated in society's image of "marriage," we can expect that fewer heterosexuals would maintain a lifelong commitment. Having given this reasons, I still maintain that same sex marriage should not be legalized in u.s.a.
Source: carm.org/gay-marriage-harm,christocentric.com/main/%3Fp%3D992,www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-top-ten-, nairaland.com
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by tennistanner 2 years ago
tennistanner
I'll debate if you could clarify how the rounds are set up
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by saboosa 2 years ago
saboosa
MikaljudeifeanyiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the pro side because she had more convincing debates
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
MikaljudeifeanyiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: As per the rules of the debate, CON loses all 7 points by arguing in the final round. This is furthered by CON saving several arguments until the last round, where PRO could not refute them.