The Instigator
abard124
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Moroni23
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Gay marriage should be legal

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 4 votes the winner is...
abard124
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,302 times Debate No: 15169
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

abard124

Pro

I have been reading some recent debates on here on this very popular issue, and I'm finding that most of them are, well, bad. I have done this debate a few times in the past, but I felt as though I could input my opinion, since I don't like what the others are saying.

I myself am not homosexual. I will say though, I would be very happy for my good friend Nicole, who happens to be lesbian, if she gets married. Unfortunately, that is not legal in the state of Oregon. Now, I know that marriage was originally a religious institution and most religions do not condone homosexuality, but there are legal benefits other than religious happiness in getting married, as well as non-religious psychological benefits, as well as a stronger sense of bonding that reduces the instances of sleeping around and spreading STDs. That is why religion is a moot point.

I could go on almost endlessly with reasons as to why it should be legal, but I'm not going to. Why? Since Con will argue that gay marriage should be illegal, he or she will be arguing for a restrictive law (i.e. a law that takes away a certain liberty or freedom), the burden of proof is on Con to explain why it is bad for gays to marry, as freedom and liberty are (or should be) given to groups that are not proven to hurt society.

Thank you in advance to my opponent for taking this debate!
Moroni23

Con

I am grateful for the opportunity to accept this debate, and I begin this argument by keeping it short and simple, and by pointing out simple facts, rather than personal opinion.

Marriage between a Man and A Woman is currently legal, and wreaking certain benefits from the government, for the same reason say… joining the Army is legal and wreaking benefits, incentive. The sole reason the government offers benefits to those men and woman who are in love, is to encourage them to get married and have children. Giving a gay couple the same benefits will be as giving every citizen free collage, a 20,000 dollar enlistment bonus, VA benefits, military discounts, and all the other incentives they now give the military. The government offers these benefits as incentive to those citizens who can offer it back, there service, and possibly there life. The government offers men and woman incentive to get married so that those men and woman can offer the government children.

Gay marriage is currently not illegal because of America's ‘extreme prejudice' against gay couples. Everyday America continues to become more tolerant towards homosexuality, now letting gay men and woman openly serve in the military. I ask this simple question to my opponent, what would a gay married couple, now receiving the same benefits from the government as a straight married couple, offer back to the government? As soon as my opponent realizes, that the answer to that question is "nothing that a gay unmarried couple could already give the government." The sooner my opponent realizes why Gay marriage isn't already legal.

Steven Michael Anderson
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Pro

Thank you very much for your argument!

You make a very valid point, and that is actually the only argument opposed to gay marriage that makes one iota of sense to me, but there is one fatal flaw in that argument that simply can't be ignored: 1000 years ago, maybe people married to have kids. Now, no doubt some people do, but many simply don't. Not to mention, many people are infertile. Should we let them marry? How about seniors? By your definition as to the reasons for marriage, a woman who has been through menopause equates has the same ability to make babies with a man as another man does. The law that you are defending does not recognize that. Also, for those couples who just don't want children, what are they "contributing" to society (despite the looming threat of overpopulation)? Not to mention, as of 2007, nearly 40% of babies were born out of wedlock [1]. So it appears that marriage has only a modest correlation with the making of babies. So, then, why isn't the government also rewarding people who choose not to marry? As I said, marriage used to be about making babies, but I would venture to say that today, it's generally not.

Now, heterosexual marriages do offer back to the community in some respects, but gay marriages do too, perhaps more so. Without the bond of marriage, it's harder for some people to feel bonded to one person. As a result, they might sleep around. If they do that, they can spread sexually transmitted diseases, such as the notorious HIV/AIDS virus. It goes without saying that it is fairly rampant in the Gay community. It even used to be called GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) or 4H (Hatian, Homosexual, Hemopheliac, Heroin addict) disease. Now, I have no reason to believe that homosexuals would have a gene that would make them more susceptible to AIDS. Perhaps men are more likely to use protection when sleeping around with women so as to not impregnate them, but as we see that 40% of babies are born out of wedlock, and especially considering that birth control is an effective method of contraception but it does not protect against STDs. My theory as to why AIDS is so common in the Gay community has to do with the fact that they are more likely to sleep around. My lesbian friend has mentioned that there is a lot of sleeping around within her community. It could be that homosexual people are simply immoral, but I'm not an extremist, so I won't settle for that idea. I think the most likely explanation is that they don't feel the sort of duty to their partners that married couples do. Some do, no doubt, but many don't. I'm not saying that it's right, but that's not for the government to decide. So if they don't feel that tie, they're more likely to sleep around and spread AIDS. Now, how does this tie back into giving back to the government? Well, for one, now that there is slight government regulation of the healthcare system, it will cost the government less money if fewer people get AIDS. It will also reduce the need for government sponsorships of AIDS research since it will be in lower demand. Not to mention, legalizing gay marriage will cut out all of the legal fees to pay for lawyers to defend the current law (though the DOJ has stopped defending it, Speaker Boehner has expressed interest in using tax money to have the House of Representatives defend it [2]), so legalizing gay marriage could even lower taxes.

I am looking forward to your response!

1. http://articles.cnn.com...
2. http://www.npr.org...
Moroni23

Con

Pro, I really appreciate your rebuttal, and I hope not to offend you, but I love the fact that when asked "What will a homosexual give to the government by marriage?" You answered "Less AIDS." I even used it as my facebook status.

A thousand years ago people married to have kids, but not so much now, 40% of kids are born out of wedlock. These are two very valid points, but the fact of the matter is 100% of kids are still born by a man and a woman. Many of that 60% of children who are born in wedlock, are born into families with multiple siblings. The fact still stands that when a man and a woman marry. They are more likely to have children, and multiple children for that matter, than if a man and a woman weren't to marry. As of 2007, 2.6 million babies born that year were born by a married couple, rather than an unwed couple. The fact still stands; married couples are giving the government 2.6 million babies a year.

Now, "What will a homosexual give to the government by marriage?" You answered Less Aids; Gays should get married so they don't cheat on each other, less money for Aid research, and finally, the government would stop having to spend money fighting it. If the government ever stops fighting for, or spending money on what is in our best interest as a county, I will take the first bus to Canada.

"Less money for AIDS research." I have a friend, who is suffering from the affects of HIV, he obtained his HIV from sex with his girlfriend of 1 and a half years, if Gay marriage will stop the government from supporting a cure for him, I pray every day that law will never pass.

In reference to the lesser spread of AIDS, also known as a married couple is less likely to sleep around than an unmarried couple. If a man, or a woman, has the morals to sleep with another man or a woman, when in a serious relationship, nothing, not even God himself, is going to stop that man or woman from sleeping with another when Married. This all breaks into the moral code, or standards of a being. You're going to have those gay men who will never cheat on their partner, married or not, and you're going to have those gay men who will cheat on their partner, married or not. Marriage has absolutely no affect on that matter. A university in California, year 1998 declared that in nearly 80% of Marriages, somebody had an affair. I can find no statistics to prove this point, but anybody who watches's Oprah, or Doctor Phil can agree that the stress from most Marriages drive people to an affair. Common sense declares Gay marriage will only further spread the disease of HIV/AIDS, if AIDS is directly linked to multiple partners.

The topic of why STD's are more common among gay couples is off topic, but I will address it quick to aid in your confusion. The sole reason as to why STD's are more common among gay couples is due to the fact that gay sex is completely unnatural, Mother Nature never intended things to be this way, whether is was God, Allah, or the little cells that created the human race. If a man were to ‘release' inside of another man, in an area which was created for the sole purpose of releasing feces, you're creating an environment for disease. Common sense declares Gay marriage will only further spread the disease of HIV/AIDS, if AIDS is directly linked to multiple partners.

If your goal is to eliminate the spread of STD's or AIDS between gay partners, then make being Gay illegal, don't shoot for Gay marriage hoping thats going to somehow make the male body adapt to gay behaviors.

Finally I would like to point out the obvious, we live in a democracy. Gay marriage is not illegal because the Government keeps fighting it, it's illegal because the voters aren't ready for it, and America isn't ready for it. When America is ready for Gay marriage, they will vote pro until then… VOTE CON.

1.http://articles.cnn.com...
2.http://www.catalogs.com...
3.Common sense
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Pro

Thank you! And no offense is taken as to the first sentence.

If you don't mind, I will forgo a traditional introduction and dive straight into arguments.

You said, "the fact of the matter is 100% of kids are still born by a man and a woman." This is almost, but not quite true. While it is true that a sperm and an egg do currently have to come together in order to make a baby, it completely does not require heterosexual sex. For women, it's easy: they go to a sperm bank and they get fertilized. There might even be a way to use their partner's DNA, I am not aware. Now, with men, unfortunately they will need a surrogate at this point in time, but still, to say that a man HAS TO have sex with a woman to make a baby is somewhat misguided. So while you do need the sex cells from either gender, you don't necessarily need an active member of either gender to make babies.

Now, I know it was quite rude of me to not address this in the first argument, so I apologize profusely for that, but somehow it slipped my mind to ask you how it is beneficial to the government to make more babies. Look, the total government expenditure for 2011 is estimated at $6.515 trillion [1], whereas the total government revenue is only $4.303 trillion [2]. This means that the government is losing over $2 trillion a year. Though more people means more taxes, it also means more expenditure. Not to mention, we are on the verge of overpopulation anyway, and the negative effects of overcrowded cities will also cost the government more both to maintain the cities and to deal with unhealthy people. Also, since there aren't enough jobs for our current population, the new population would have even more trouble finding jobs, thereby making less money, thereby paying less in taxes, but still being there to take their toll on society, causing an even greater net loss on them for the government. So, in short, babies don't really help the government, so your argument is kind of pointless. Again, I apologize for not saying this in my last argument.

Now, in terms of AIDS, I'm sorry for being so horribly unclear in my argument. I never once meant to insinuate that the government would stop having to fight against AIDS if we legalized gay marriage, but looking back, I completely agree that that is how it looked. What I meant to say is that it will be eradicated (or extremely reduced) much faster. I agree that the government should always be actively funding stem cell research and such, but if the goal is to eradicate AIDS, the government should take all reasonable steps to eradicate it, including legalizing gay marriage. The first step to ending a disease is to stop the spread, and the first step to stopping the spread is slowing it, and this is a good way to slow it. And I completely feel for your friend and he can have my honest support and hope that we will someday be able to see him through to a cure.

And I don't believe that people in committed relationships should sleep around, and I do understand that marriage should not have an effect, but I find that the ceremonial or "official" agreement made in marriage will at least make some people feel more faithful, and it certainly wouldn't make people less faithful. Some is better than none. If you believe that marriage causes stress but non-married partnerships don't, which you insinuate, then I don't think that's common sense at all.

In terms of gay sex being unnatural, lots of things are unnatural. If we lived our lives completely naturally, we would all die around 30, since we wouldn't have synthetic medicines to keep us alive, we wouldn't have complex surgeries since it's not "natural" to use anesthetics, and we'd all die of exposure since the "natural" way is to live in caves, which are in short supply. Obviously, I'm going to extremes here, but my point is that "unnatural" is not necessarily bad. Having looked at your profile, I noticed that you were a religious person, which is fine, but it does certainly show through in this argument, even though you attempt to connect out of it. I am a very secular Jew, and one of the 52% of Jews who doesn't necessarily believe in God, and I don't believe that any sex is "natural" or "unnatural." They all just exist. Therefore, it must be a religious matter, which means that the government is not constitutionally allowed to act on that theory.

And I really hope that your comment about making it illegal to be gay was tongue in cheek. First of all, those laws would be completely useless since we don't have surveillance in people's bedrooms, and also, that would be like making it illegal to be black: being gay is no more of a choice.

And I have full confidence that there are many states that would vote to allow gay marriage if given the chance. In Oregon, for instance, a few years ago we passed measure 36 that recognized DOMA. Now, Portland is one of the most progressive cities in the country and approximately half of Oregon's population. Portland even has a gay mayor; the first of any major city. We recently elected a governor who supports full rights for gays. I would be beyond shocked in our voters were to reject gay marriage again. The fervor has built substantially since 2004, and I think that Oregon is certainly ready now, and I'm sure other states are as well.

My opponent has argued fantastically, but I'm afraid that in the end, it just doesn't add up. As I said at the very beginning, the burden of proof is actually on Con for this debate, as the current law takes away rights, so it was up to him to explain how it is in the greater good to restrict these rights. Though he did bring up some arguments, they were effectively shown to be fallacious. His argument about heterosexual couples making babies, for instance, is fallacious since homosexual couples can have children if they so choose (not to mention adoption... They could even keep abortions from happening since they would be willing to adopt babies that otherwise would be aborted). Also, though Con claims that it would help the government to have more children, I find that, if anything, more people only hurt us. The AIDS argument was originally from me, so it was supplementary to my argument and not an integral part since I do not have the burden of proof, but Con's main issue in rebutting that one was that he used what he called common sense that was really just an opinion of his that is not necessarily common sense (perhaps Moroni23 sense). However, even if you do choose to agree with Con on the AIDS argument, that means nothing, since that was just one of many reasons why I believe that the current law is hurting us. The central issue is that Con did not provide an effective argument as to why it is so enormously important that we restrict freedom, and for that, there is no reason to vote anything but Pro. Thank you to my opponent for making this a truly interesting debate, bringing in ideas that I had not previously considered, and with that, I give him the floor!

1. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
2. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...
Moroni23

Con

Pro, with all do respect, the one thing that frustrates me more than anything in debates is when your opponent puts words into your mouth, this debate is coming to an end, so for future references please refrain from doing so.

Never once in my argument did I mention "man HAS TO have sex with a woman to make a baby." I simply said as you quoted "the fact of the matter is 100% of kids are still born by a man and a woman." I am well aware of the unnatural, but still valid homosexual experiments to make children, but, as I stated earlier, the fact of the matter is 100% of kids are still born by a man and a woman. If two women go to a sperm bank, were did that sperm come from? A man, thus 100% of kids are still born by a man and a woman. If two males invest in a surrogate, what gender is that surrogate? A woman, thus 100% of children are born by a male and a female.

In reference to your argument about the government not needing babies. I'm debating with myself as to whether or not you were being serious. America is nowhere near overpopulation.

AIDS- I stated earlier, and listed actually statistics. It's great if you personally feel that Gay marriage will stop the spread of AIDS due to less sleeping around, however I stated statistics. 80% of marriages have one partner or more who has cheated at some point or another. On top of that, I don't know if your experiences have been the same as mine, but many gay couples I know have an ‘open relationship.' Meaning they are more than ok with their partner sleeping with another. If they currently feel that way now, getting married isn't going to change any of that. How many straight couples can you think of that are in a open relationship before marriage?

"In terms of gay sex being unnatural, lots of things are unnatural." This whole paragraph has nothing to do with the debate at all. I simply cleared your confusion on as to why disease spreads threw the homosexual community. "If we lived our lives completely natural we would all die around 30." Once again this whole paragraph has nothing to do with anything. "If a man were to ‘release' inside of another man, in an area which was created for the sole purpose of releasing feces, you're creating an environment for disease."

‘And I really hope that your comment about making it illegal to be gay was tongue in cheek. First of all, those laws would be completely useless since we don't have surveillance in people's bedrooms, and also, that would be like making it illegal to be black: being gay is no more of a choice.' My comment about making being gay illegal was completely sarcastic; humoring the fact that you actually believe legalizing gay marriage would lessen the spread of STDS. Gay marriage isn't going to stop the rapid spread of STDS.

‘I have full confidence that there are many states that would vote to allow gay marriage if given the chance.' That's great… well we live in a democracy, and they do have the chance. California just passed proposition 8 last year making gay marriage illegal. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California (with the passage of Prop 8), Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, and Missouri are a few states who all were given the chance, and banned gay marriage. There is a HUGE difference between what you personally believe, and facts. You can spend an entire argument, such as your last one, stating things you ‘personally believe', but until you state the facts, your arguments mean nothing. I conclude this debate by restating my final paragraph in my last argument.

Finally I would like to point out the obvious, we live in a democracy. Gay marriage is not illegal because the Government keeps fighting it, it's illegal because the voters aren't ready for it, and America isn't ready for it. When America is ready for Gay marriage, they will vote pro until then… VOTE CON.

1.http://lesbianlife.about.com...
2.http://www.catalogs.com...
3.Common Sense
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abard124 5 years ago
abard124
As I said earlier, it's just like debating the current law, in which I would be arguing Con. It's a technicality, and honestly, I'm not a professional debater, so I don't really give a rip about "good form" when common sense or justification says otherwise.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"the burden of proof is on Con to explain why it is bad for gays to marry"

As Pro and instigator, that is poor form.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
What won me over was this; in the second round, it was consensual that Same Sex Marriage gave nothing back to society, and accordingly the marital benifits where something that could be seen as selfish (which makes no case for governmental responsibility to legalize such a thing, not to mention the monetary benefits would not be refluxed back into the economy) however Heterosexual marriage had the chance of producing offspring, and thus contributing ot the economy. that didn't let Con win the vote though because Pro made an excellant point on sterile heterosexual couples, and post-menopausal women. however Con replied that 100% of children still come from Heterosexual couples; That won the argument for me since I felt that trying to find the difference between people who would and wouldn't produce children prior to marriage would be more of an economic strain.

Therefore economically (which is how the debate come off for me) Same sex marriage should not be legalized.
Posted by Moroni23 5 years ago
Moroni23
This debate was fun I'll admit, up until the last round. Will all due respect Pro your argument for that last round just left a lot of... clearing up to do.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@abard124 Thank you :3. And I still disagree, but for other reasons that I wouldn't use in a debate here on DDO.
Posted by abard124 5 years ago
abard124
But it is a law that restricts rights. My resolution is essentially the same as saying that the law should not exist, which is a Con stance. It's just worded differently.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
Burden of Proof is always on the instigator or aff.
Posted by abard124 5 years ago
abard124
As I said, I was defining it, not shifting it. I contend that it was always on Con.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
"The burden of proof is on con"
Exact words
Posted by Yurlene 5 years ago
Yurlene
"But do you realize that this infringes on the rights of religious individuals since Marriage is something of their sanction?"

How so? Two types of marriages, civil/legal and religious marriage. Its a two way street... Religious Freedom as well as Freedom from Religious Tyranny. Atheists can be married... So.. I don't really see marriage as solely a religious concept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
abard124Moroni23Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seems to think that homosexuals would not be inclined to be less promiscuous if allowed to marry, which shows that he/she believes that homosexuality also implies inherent promiscuity, which has not been proven and Con did not address.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
abard124Moroni23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "they're more likely to sleep around and spread AIDS" - seriously?
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
abard124Moroni23Tied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments
Vote Placed by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
abard124Moroni23Tied
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: Great debate! Both sides did an excellent job of presenting their arguments. Ultimately, though, Con failed to offer a valid reason why homosexuals should be denied marriage rights.