The Instigator
Stephen_Hawkins
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Pboy21
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay marriage should be legal.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,056 times Debate No: 23014
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

This debate is as simple as the title makes out. Gay Marriage, or SSM, is defined as "a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple". Civil union is defined as "a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple, but with less benefits than a Gay Marriage".

First round is acceptance and definitions.

Copy and paste of contentions is not allowed without citation, unless one is copying and pasting from one's own material (which needs to be cited clearly as your own work).
Pboy21

Con

i guess ill be on the apposing side of this debate.
I feel that gay marriage should not be legalized upon the basis as it is immoral
there are many homosexuals that do practice such lifestyle that is un common to human nature
now human reproduction is between man and women it is thus natural to have this kind reaction that is seen as natural conception
for a man and a man can not reproduce or women and women ( it still be needed as mans sperm to produce a baby.)
not only is man and man and women and women is forbidden and frowned upon in society but this has reached a point in time where present and future will be taught to young children starting at the age of five.
for my opinion i feel culturally the world has accepted this type of thinking as normal
while yes in the 1950`s there were homosexuals in that culture but it didnt become apparent until the late 70`s 80`s and 90`s
these outburst of immoral acts has left the culture in the present state that is seen today.
i feel the law should abolish this right as well all public presentation of unhumane acts between man and man and women and women
not only is this immoral but satanic
we look at biblical scripture where in the Genesis where God destroyed the cities sodom and Gomorrah not because men and women
but because of the immoral sexual and ritualistic activites that was taken place there
i feel now that if america continues in these ways just as sodom and Gomorrah willl be destoryed
now many homosexuals will say it is a choice that they have to constitution but ill say it is not apart of it
for when the fore fathers founded america they were Godly men who stood by what the bible represented against all ungodliness
continuing some say that they were born of it
now it is by choice for when God created a man he created a man.. not a girl
if he wanted you a girl you would have been one same on both sides
it is but your sinful nature that you have come to a place where you beknown of homosexual relations in which God had nothing else left to do but turn you over to your sin
i feel that america is far off from when i grew up to what it is today if this is about the okay on people unmoral and ignorance aswell disobedience for some stupid excuse to do these things then i say you might as well throw away the america that we have and rename it../.
anyone that apposes for gay marriage to be legal well be shown as destroying our future and the kids that we will raise
thank you the choice is yours
but i rather choose right for my kids and the america and beliefs i have as morally Good
I vote NO for Gay marriage today
Debate Round No. 1
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Firstly, I'd like to point out that the first round was supposed to be definitions and acceptance. This falls under conduct, which my opponent has not followed.

What is Marriage?

Marriage is defined as the social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce). But the usual point of contention is the why people should get married. I'd contend that it is out of love. Love and commitment is the modern reason for people to get married. In the words of Olson, "Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality and autonomy."[1]

In addition, marriage is a right sanctioned by the UN. The United States Article two states:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. (1)
When we bear article two in mind, and view article 16:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation ... have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (1)

The answer is obvious. In conclusion to this point, marriage should, by its definition and law, be allowed in all countries.

Won't somebody please think about the children!?

In the scenario that you believe that we should have marriage for children, then I would like to point out that homosexual parents are not just equal to, but occasionally better than, heterosexual parents. Many studies show[3] that[4] homosexual[5] parents are either equal to or stronger than heterosexual marriage. If we want our children to be happy, then it is only fair that we allow homosexual parents to marry. The allowing of IVF and other such things, especially adoption, would mean that marriage is a good idea.

The Libertarian Approach

I want to bring in a libertarian approach. If you remember the quotation by Olston, I wish to expand it: "It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation. It is not a right belonging to the State of California." In other words, it is individual liberty that is important here. The country or state enacting the law should have no say. In the words of J.S.Mill:

"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression... Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling..."[2]

In other words, we must have the state protect our ability to do as we wish, and stop social tyranny. We cannot have a system where systems "could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation". We have to give people the choice to be able to choose to act as they wish, and not force our will on others.

Financial Issues

Also, I would like to 'steal' my final argument from Bluesteel, simply due to the brilliance of his point:

""The gay marriage ban costs California $1 billion every 6 years. Marriage is a big industry that stimulates businesses (bakeries, photographers, DJ's, etc) in the state and generates tax revenue. $1 billion is a lot in California. Cutting $1 billion from the University of California's budget is ultimately what forced them to triple student fees over the last 10 years"[7]. I'd also like to state, in case my opponent uses the same rebuttal that he uses against bluesteel, that, if my opponent wishes to claim that " Including same sex couples into the legal definition of marriage would increase the tax burden", I would like to see the mathematics behind this claim.

After all, it is quite a simple one to do: get the 84,000 homosexual couples living in California[8], reduce it by, say, 50% for those who won't get married. Then, separately, work out the average married person's money return every year based on marriage tax returns, and divide it by 2 to make it per couple, then multiply it by 3 to compare it to the 349 million dollar cost that the study states. That would provide the comparison. I would very like my opponent to do this if he uses this argument."
---[6]

My final argument is an argumentum ad democratum - An argument from Democracy.

Public Opinion Regarding Gay Marriage

Date

Support

Oppose

June 1996

49%

47%

June 1999

53%

44%

December 2000

40%

44%

June 2002

46%

44%

August 2003

46%

46%

October 2004

54%

43%

November 2005

66%

32%


SSM USA Poll.


Polls around the world[9] have shown that homosexual marriage[10] is becoming more and more popular. Modern studies show anti-gay testament to be constantly becoming a minority, in Britain, 70% of people support it, Canada 66% support it, in America it has became majority opinion in favour of SSM. Denial of this union is going directly against the wishes of the people.

In conclusion, marriage should be legalised so it becomes in line with modern democracies, and in line with modern laws. It should be legalised because there is no strong reason to criminalise it. It should be legalised because it improves the financial system of where it is legal, and on philosophical grounds to protect personal liberty and freedom. Finally, the legalisation would promote the democracy of the country.

I shall wait for my opponent's response. I shall rebut his case in round 3. Thank you.

(Arguments From myself, @ http://www.debate.org...)


1 - http://motherjones.com......
2 - On Liberty, page 9.
3 - http://www.livescience.com......
4 - http://www.time.com......
5 - http://www.tandfonline.com......
6 - http://www.debate.org......
7 - http://online.wsj.com......
8 - http://online.wsj.com......

9 - http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...
10 - http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org...;
Pboy21

Con

okay well as you can see my opponet has done his research
now he shows charts and graphs but what really caught my eye was how off you was on the marriage part. obviously you must not be married or if you are then you clearly dont understand the word marriage
now yes judicial yes your court as a right but thats not what should be expressed in this matter
so response one what is marriage
Marriage is a relation between man and women
now he has pointed out none of this in full detail he just gave some liberal sense to the meaning by which you missed the point for it
marriage is a right correct .. but only for men and women
in the bible it says a man was to leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife as one
one clearly reveals there love , relations est est.. but clearly represents the type of bond there were to have .
now . not only is this satanic but obviously revealing once again your lack and care of the future and world our children must live in..
as marriage is a gift of God given to a man and women it is seen a moral and natural
while we see when a man and a man is married reveals the desception of what marriage is all about for one that act is placed upon lust and sin
sin so much that has blinded there thinking in which many today among the gay community has developed hiv and aids
not only is this a risk to personal health but of the wellbeing to others
they take what is holy and sacred as marriage and ruin what it truly represents
now this man is as far continuing to support the failure of the future and adding to the ruining of my country and is enveloped in satanic beliefs that will one day lead to the ruining of the world and belief for me it isnt about pie charts and about how i can pursued people it is about this

gay marriage is an abomination
it is taking the sacred acts of marriage of man and women
and destroying it
when God created he made man and women
because that is natural for reproduction
he can use the divorce rate and adoption excuse
but when children are raised in an inviroment as gay fathers or mothers you are saying its okay but its wrong
and even if i dont have kids yet i dont want that or this to be somthing they deal with
for if man and man and women and women was stranded on an island the population growth would die out because one thing they cant reproduce......
Debate Round No. 2
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

My opponent's entire case comes down to believing in the Bible as an accurate source of moral conduct, the only source of moral conduct, and requires that the Bible dictates how our law should work.

He states that Marriage is only between a man and a woman, but does not justify this.

My opponent states that I am using a liberal definition of marriage, but does not justify this.

My opponent states marriage is a gift of God, but does not justify this.

My opponent states that homosexuality has caused HIV and AIDS. Of course, he has not justified this.

He states Gay marriage is an abomination. He does not justify this.

He's claiming that he is right, but never justifies any claim.

Some actual points:

"for if man and man and women and women was stranded on an island the population growth would die out because one thing they cant reproduce"

This claim has no justification: my opponent needs to state why legalising gay marriage will cause all people to suddenly stop being straight. Bearing in mind there are countries and states with SSM legalised without a 100% gay population, this claim is blatantly false.

My opponent states that there is a "divorce rate or adoption excuse", yet I have not used one, so I suspect that he refers to himself. He has not made any points.

But the important issue...

None of my claims have been refuted: in fact, all have been dropped. For this, I urge my opponent to specifically address these claims.
Pboy21

Con

okay let begin with what is marriage i did yet "justify" this as between male and female thus using scripture of God creating Adam and eve.
you that it is not liberal in the thinking that you use to provide erroneous factual basis for your argument. for thus what are liberating on as allowing for Gays to get married .
you say that im the one that uses the adoption excuse nope. my friend that is where you are wrong i have not once used it as gays should adopt children but you have
you aquote ----->Won't somebody please think about the children!?

In the scenario that you believe that we should have marriage for children, then I would like to point out that homosexual parents are not just equal to, but occasionally better than, heterosexual parents. Many studies show[3] that[4] homosexual[5] parents are either equal to or stronger than heterosexual marriage. If we want our children to be happy, then it is only fair that we allow homosexual parents to marry. The allowing of IVF and other such things, especially adoption, would mean that marriage is a good idea.

now refuted that you did use the adoption scenario.

thus you Liberal approach ---->The Libertarian Approach

I want to bring in a libertarian approach. If you remember the quotation by Olston, I wish to expand it: "It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation. It is not a right belonging to the State of California." In other words, it is individual liberty that is important here. The country or state enacting the law should have no say. In the words of J.S.Mill:

so now to see that Opponent is a liar in both sides he denies that he used any liberal standpoint for his defense and also his point as he didn't use the adoption scenario which shows you did.

now concluding my justification of marriage of course you use political evidence to back of your view as human rights.. which isnt that cause of the problem it isnt just the law but what is morally correct as i have been explaining that you ....male and female is morally good and is yes right before Gods eyes my justification is based on scripture of adam and eve
but see this is where this man will show no real evidence of why...
only with a bried judicial view he uses marriage but can not fully explain what marriage is .really as male and female he shows laws and rules but doesnt show the true meaning

Marriage is defined as the social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce). But the usual point of contention is the why people should get married. I'd contend that it is out of love. Love and commitment is the modern reason for people to get married. In the words of Olson, "Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality and autonomy."[1]

In addition, marriage is a right sanctioned by the UN. The United States Article two states:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. (1)
When we bear article two in mind, and view article 16:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation ... have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (1)

now here is his defense of my second and third debateHe states that Marriage is only between a man and a woman, but does not justify this.
Marriage is also an agreement between the man and woman. Husband and wife take certain vows, to love one another, to cherish one another, and to stay together through sickness and health, for better and for worse. In most cases, this agreement includes sexual faithfulness, and a promise that each person will do what they can to make the other one happy. For some people, this agreement between man and woman takes the form of a covenant between not only the couple, but God as well. Thus, many marriages are performed within the rites of various churches and religious institutions.

My opponent states that I am using a liberal definition of marriage, but does not justify this. now see he has said this as liberal

My opponent states marriage is a gift of God, but does not justify this. it is a gift from God aswell even life itself

My opponent states that homosexuality has caused HIV and AIDS. Of course, he has not justified this. this has infact be proven among homosexuals to carry such diseases n relation to homosexuality and AIDS, the original spread of AIDS is generally attributed to the promiscuity of homosexual men. Originally the syndrome was called the "gay disease" because the overwhelming majority of patients were homosexual men.
In September of 2010, Reuters reported: "Nearly one in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major U.S. cities are infected with HIV, and nearly half of them do not know it".[1] A September 2010 report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported : "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States..."[2] In August of 2009, LifeSiteNews reported: "An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the United States AIDS is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population."[3] Of newly diagnosed HIV infections in the United States during the year 2003, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that about 63% were among men who were infected through sexual contact with other men.[4]
As of 1998, fifty-four percent of all AIDS cases in the United States were homosexual men, and the CDC stated that nearly ninety percent of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men.[5]
There is considerable controversy around the modes of AIDS transmission in Africa. In general, however, it is believed that a high proportion of cases arise from heterosexual activity or from healthcare transmission (e.g. infected needles).
Male homosexual acts account for a large proportion of AIDS transmission in the US and Europe, but AIDS transmission as a result of lesbian sex acts are low (and lower than for heterosexuals).
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexual men stating they had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent.[6] Studies report that anal sex may be an important risk factor for the relay of many diseases.[7][8][9][10][11] For example in 2004, Jeffrey D. Klausner, Robert Kohn, and Charlotte Kent reported in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases that proctitis significantly increases the likelihood of HIV infection.
On March 15, 2004 Medscape published an article entitled New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome" in which they linked HIV infection with gay bowel syndrome.
In 2004, the prominent medical website, WebMD, stated the following: "Men who have sex with men and women are a "significant bridge for HIV to women," the CDC's new data suggest."[12]
In 2006, the number of cases of HIV in children who had been sexually molested b
Debate Round No. 3
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

I shall go through each point my opponent made, again. Seeing as this is the last round, I expect that we follow common conduct and not post any new arguments here.

adoption excuse

I apologise to my opponent: regarding adoption, he stated "excuse", implying that it is defending against a criticism my opponent made. Actually, it is an "argument", that is, something my opponent needs to refute. The key word was excuse, not adoption. Also, you still did not refute this argument.

liberal definition

Firstly, ignoring the masses of difference between a traditional liberal, a Mill Libertarian, and my own position, I never referred to any definitions. Also, you still did not refute this argument.

Finally, my opponent's arguments:

God Given Right?
My opponent has presupposed God time and time again, yet still has not justified God having a position in politics, God existing, that morals come directly from God, and that God believes that homosexuality is still wrong: he has failed to even provide scripture needed to justify his position. I cannot state anymore where he is misinterpreting scripture, due to this being the final round, but my opponent has not justified this claim.

AIDS For Gays

Simply put, my opponent has shown a correlation, not a causation. I'd like to point out that the increase in AIDS has also came along with the increase of sale of computer hardware, value of the Euro and has an inverse relation with the size of the USSR, and a positive correlation with Bavarian cheese prices. My opponent needs to cite how Same Sex Marriage would lead to an increase in AIDS. Even the antigay supporters admit: AIDS is spread by promiscuity.[1] Marriage leads to lower rates of promiscuity: this is common sense. So SSM would lower rates of AIDS, if we listen to the antigay supporters. To be clear: this is a turn argument. Also, in anticipation of a defence along the lines of "legalising SSM legalises homosexuality", homosexuality is currently legal, and my opponent needs to justify why SSM would increase the rates of AIDS when people have less sex with others.

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to criticise any of my arguments, which have all been extended. My opponent has also not created sufficiently strong arguments to warrant him being given victory. I urge a vote PRO.


1 - http://www.datalounge.com...;
Pboy21

Con

okay let start with how completely my opponent has simply been dodging his actions as his liberal mind set...
first of all it doesnt matter what kind of liberalism you hold too it is still liberal "general"
i have based upon the fact that it is scriptural Genesis chapter 3 of the creation of human kinds revealing that God made aswell seen upon marriage as male and female for my aids it doesn't matter if it increases or decreases it matter that the aids epidemic in the gay community is a problem. obviously my opponent has misinterpreted that for him self.it seems to me instead of talking about the pressing issues he has simply ignored all as reality. i proved evidence of why time and time again all he has shown was facts but yet has not come to deeper understanding that gay marriage is wrong.
once more let me illustrate that marriage is between a man and women in which it is sacred . now gays will ruin what the true meaning of that is as man and man and female with female for it takes a man and women to make you.
the adoption excuse i use is an example of how in most cases with homosexuals they will use this as a card in which my opponent has
i see that this man is completely in denial on what he says.
i am looking out for the future of my children country and the world while he does not... im not saying that i will walk up and hurt a gay person im simply saying that it is satanic because it goes against everything that is moral .... i simply just dont agree with their lifestyle and i dont believe it should be legalize for its misrepresenting what is natural and is seen right plus its not like were gnna throw all gays in jail no but we will say no marriages because it is wrong ... its on you . you can side with him
cause obeviously he contradicts himself by saying he doesnt take a view or uses any excuse but simply evidences show he doesnt know what he is saying thank you
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Man, this Con guy is STUPID.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
add them into your photo section, then copy/paste (not the link, the picture)
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
I have one question:

How did you paste images into your debate?
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
pboy, you need to make your position legible and coherent before trying to debate it: seriously, reading what you wrote was painful at points, not due to the "strength" of argumentation, or the rhetorical ability, but due to the impossibility to form a sentence with adequate punctuation. I struggle to put your argument into a single contention.

Further, you did not refute anything I said, except that "My interpretation of the Bible says so, therefore all people should be forced to live by my standard". None of it was justified until the final round, where we got closest with "Genesis 3". In response, I cite Matthew 12. There's something there you need to read. Also, read Timothy and Kings. That refutes your source.
Posted by Pboy21 4 years ago
Pboy21
well it is not gnna pass so
Posted by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
It is a tenth amendment issue and need's to be handled by the state's, despite what any religous text, or what peoples moral standards say about it.
Posted by Pboy21 4 years ago
Pboy21
really and your a christian but your siding with gay marriage as being legal i think you should rethink if your truly saved in your saying this is okay 1dustpelt
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Stephen_HawkinsPboy21Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used no sources or anything to back up his claims.