The Instigator
elphaba1389
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
Advidoct
Con (against)
Losing
24 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,555 times Debate No: 1001
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (19)

 

elphaba1389

Pro

First let me say that I do not believe that you choose to be gay. I believe that you are born that way. Some of my closest friends are gay, most of which I've known for years, and they all say that they knew they were different since they were children. I do not believe that you can "cure homosexuality" as I've heard some say, nor do I believe that gays should not have the exact same rights as everyone else. Which leads me to the topic of gay marriage.

The most common reasoning behind the controversy of gay marriage is that marriage in the Bible is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and that it is declared "detestable" to lay with the same sex (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27). While I support those who are close to their faith, which explains their personal sexual lifestyle, I do not support the government trying to control someone's lifestyle. Let me explain.

According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…". While this statement implies that the government shall make the church the center of government (i.e. you have to be a certain religion to vote), this does apply to other things. Anyone remember Roy Moore? He was an Alabama supreme court justice who refused to have a monument of the 10 commandments removed from his courtroom. The controversy behind it was seperation of church and state. Moore argued for no seperation while many argued otherwise. However, when it comes to the subject of gay marriage, people are quick to throw no seperation of church and state back into the equation, when many of them thought otherwise during the Moore controversy. Also, we live in a democracy; a government "of the people". The governement makes decisions that are good for the country as a whole. So since when did the government decide that it was their place to decide who does, or in this case, doesn't get married. Shouldn't that be a choice left up to the two individuals?

Besides a piece of paper that legally binds you to another person, it also entitles you to many benefits. One of which is making life decisions for that person if something was to happen to them. But because of their lifestyle, homosexuals are not entitled to those benefits. Example, say a man & woman go to Vegas, not knowing each other. They both end up at a bar one night, get drunk, and get married. They were not in a conscious frame of mind when they got married, so it isn't within the intimate characteristics of marriage in the first place. The next day, the woman is in a car crash. If she dies, then the man is entitled to all her assets that she left behind, simply because he is her husband. If she is put in ICU, say on life support, he can now make the decision whether to leave her on life support or turn the machine off. So even though this marriage was "on a whim" because these 2 were drunk, the USA gives them all the benefits. But say that a homosexual couple who have been together a long while, and love each other, decide to get married. They can't. If one gets hurt and on life support, that partner cannot make any decisions whatsoever for their loved one. I'm sorry, but that's not right.

Also, this country has an immense history of human rights. The united states claims to be a nation of "equal opportunity" for all citizens. However, homosexuals can't get married, except in some states. And even then, they have to be a resident of that state for a certain amount of time. Also, there is also a huge debate now about Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allowed homosexuals to serve in the military. What I want to know is this: if the United States is truly an "equal opportunity" nation, then why are they so quick to dismiss homosexuals like they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else? Does a homosexual not deserve to live their life with their partner and receive the benefits that come with that union?
Advidoct

Con

Though I totally agree with you in that I believe the government should not inforce laws based on faith alone, I definately do not believe that conflicting faith is the only issue that allowing gay marriage would cause.

You have to consider our future. The United States is currently facing a moral delima in that traditional American Values are fading away. These are the same values that won us this country, the same values that held us together, and the same values that have helped grow into the marvelous success story we are today.
The vast majority of these values are learned in the home. It is scientifically proven that a father teaches certain values, and a mother teaches another set of values. Statistcally, the majority of children raised outside of the traditional nuclear family develop problems. Though they are not all dangerous (such as anxiety, mild depression, or trust issues), many are. A lot of children raised in untraditional families do not come out so fortunate. Many come out selfish due to a lack of empathy. Many become violent. Some develop habits such as drugs, alcoholism, and even crime.
The vast majority of people who develop these issues, were raised in an unstable family.

Now if we allow homosexuals to marry, then we allow them to raise our children; to raise our future. Now, on an individual bases, I am sure they are very capable, but because they lack the construct of a nuclear family, their children run a MUCH higher rate of develop problems.
They are not taught all of the values we consider requisite because they lack the father/mother influences that allow those lessons to be learned. They live a life constantly being ridiculed by the kids at school because their parents are "queer". They are much more likely to develop a lot of insecurities.

Also, you cannot say that all gays were born that way. Though many were, some have been influenced by peer pressure, or family pressure to try the different lifestyle. If our children are raised in gay homes, they are more likely to engage in homosexual activities because its what they have learned about affection by watching their parents. Though I accept homosexuality and am glad to consider them equal human beings, that does not mean I am comfortable placing our future a position were homosexuality can grow. It would start a trend that ultimately could even be bad for humanity.
We can accept it, but we cant encourage it to become more common.

Lastly, about the military. The reason people are not openly allowed to be gay is because of safety issues. First of all, the military a aweful when it comes to homosexual tolerance. Many gay soldiers have been beaten and even killed because of the hatred of other soldiers. Also, it would create problems with living quarters because the military does not allow men and women to bunk together for obvious reasons. If soldiers were openly gay, the themselves military could not be comfortable with letting sleep in a room with other men on the same ground that cant allow women to.

Its not safe for the gays, and its uncomfortable for the soldiers.
Debate Round No. 1
elphaba1389

Pro

consider our future? So what you are saying, in essence, is that because a child is not raised in a heterosexual house, they are more likely to develop problems?

Consider this. Loss of a parent, physical, verbal, sexual abuse, teasing from school, self esteem, peer pressure, and other factors can cause mental problems. Not just who their parents are. Try to recall all the cases of neglect and child abuse you have ever heard of in your life. How many of those children were from a heterosexual household? And how many were from a homosexual household? The ratio between the two is nearly 100 to 1. You can't say that because a child is raised by homosexual parents that the child is going to have problems and that we "have to consider our future". Homosexuals are just as capable of loving and raising a child as a hetersexual. Here again, it's a sexual preference, it doesn't define who that person is or what they are capable of.

As far as the traditional values go. You need to define what you mean by "traditional values". If by values you mean christian values, then you need to take a step back and re-evaluate. Christianity and good values are not just associated with heterosexual couples. Any couple can teach a child the difference between right and wrong, character, manners, respect, self-discipline, and morals. Most heterosexual couples teach their children that homosexuality is wrong. For this reason, most go through life being "homophobes" and hating gay people just because they are gay. They can't accept people for who they are if they aren't just like them. Example, Jay's (an ex-friend) father is extremely christian. When he asked his father what he thought if he was gay, his father said that homosexuality is morally wrong and that he would disown jay if he was in fact homosexual. Because if this statement, he is struggling between who he is and who everyone wants him to be. Doesn't this cause mental problems to know that your own parents won't accept you for who you are? This is the case in alot of heterosexual couples who have gay children.

Children raised in homosexual homes learn to accept others for what they are, and as far as their own sexual preference is concerned, they can make their own descision instead of feeling pressured to be one way or another. And based on your last arguement, children raised in a stable home (i.e. heterosexual christian couple) develop less problems. That must explain why 60% of the criminals, both on the streets and in the jail, were raised by stable heterosexual couples.

And what's so wrong with having a child raised by homosexual parents?! They are people just like you and me. The ONLY difference is their sexual preference. It would be the same as telling you that because you're mormon, you can't raise a family because you might teach your children paligamy, and that would be concerning our future. Or that you can't join the military because the soldiers are uncomfortable with mormon kids. Or you can't get married because you might get married multiple times and teach radical ideas. You being mormon does not define who you are. It's a part of you, and it's what makes you unique. It does not define your abilities as a human being. It doesn't define your ability to love and raise a child or your right to marry someone.
Advidoct

Con

Thats exactly what Im saying. The children would be more likely to develop problems. If you want statistics, kids raised outside of a nuclear home are 6 times more likely to develop serious emotional problems. That 3/5 kids. Not because their is anything wrong with their parents, but because of the circumstances the child faces. Its very hard on the child.
You cannot honestly tell me that u think the kid wont be made fun of at school. Sure, every kid is made fun of now and then, but these kids will be subject to 13 years of ridicule. All the parent teacher conferences, parents chaperoning. It'd be embarrassing and all that kid is gunna want more than anyting is a regular mom and a regular dad. For us to knowingly place a kid in a situation where the wont have a normal mom, and a normal dad is Sooooo unfair to the kid. It was best said by Mitt Romney.

"Every child deserves a mother and a father."

Second, I never attacked their capabilities to parent. In fact, I said that i thought they would be perfectly capable. Its not their abilities that effect the child rearing. Its just the natural values. Heres and example
The father naturally teaches their sons about controlling anger. Because of this, boys who grew up without a father 7 times out of 10 have uncotrolled anger issues.
Mothers naturally teach patience and respect. That was boys who grew up without mothers 6 times out of 10 have issues regarding recpecting autority and holding down a job.

Now in a homosexual home, you'll either have two fathers, or two mothers. They child misses certain values. Just like a single working woman cannot adopt a child, neither can a gay couple because its the same situation. Again and i stress this

Its not them, its the situation. Its the circumstances.

There is no doubt that when it comes to raising children, the BEST results come out of a stable nuclear family. Thats just a fact.
So why would we place children some place outside of those conditions?
The answer: We don't.

Anyway, I forgot to put this in my last argument. I am anti-gay marriage. We could have guessed that.
I do support sivil unions though. With a civil union, they can make decisions for loved one. They can share accounts. The works.
They would not, however, be allowed to adopt children. It Is not and ideal situation and we cannot in good concience place a child already in need of adoption, outside of a good situation.
Debate Round No. 2
elphaba1389

Pro

Considering this is my last arguement in this debate, I want to clear up some things:

I am pro-gay marriage, but if the government allows civil unions, that's great also.

I believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children. I understand that children in those situations have a hard time understanding things. Like, why they have 2 moms or 2 dads. And even though I agree with you that things will be hard for them, I simply can't get past the fact that they are being denied the pleasure of adopting a child based on one characteristic about them.

Back when we had black/white segregation, many believed that putting the two together would result in chaos and would present a bad image. Also, they believed that intergrating blacks and whites in school would cause a distraction to the students, as well as cause problems. Blacks face ridicule on a daily basis. Weren't you the one who told me about the nooses in the tree at the school in virginia? Or people calling blacks the "N" word. Everyone recieves teasing and ridicule.

I myself was teased everyday from 2nd to 7th grade, and it was a living hell. I remember there were days where I cried myself to sleep or just wanted to go away. I had so many problems as a child, including an eating disorder and attempted suicide. If I could, I would protect every child from that kind of ridicule. So what I'm saying is that a child can be teased for anything, not just who their parents are. And the gay community in general faces ridicule. Avi, one of my best friends, is gay. When I asked him how he handled the ridicule people give him, he put it like this: "I am gay. I'm not an alien life-form or some other unidentifiable thing. I am gay. I'm still Avi, I'm still a person. Just because I was born into this lifestyle doesn't mean I'm anything less. When I was younger, it was hard but i learned that your true friends and those that love you accept you the way you are. So if people don't like me, because I'm gay, then I feel sorry for them because they haven't walked a mile in my shoes. I am proud of who I am. I'm proud of who my parents are because they have faced less-than-perfect circumstances and were able to overcome them with dignity. I'm proud. That's what gets me through."

But I do see your point about the teasing and such. But I do not agree with your reasoning behind "every child deserves a mother and father." Every child deserves a loving home, where they feel wanted and loved everyday. Where there is never a doubt in their mind that their parents love them. Where that child knows that they are taken care of, and that their parents are always going to be their for them, no matter where they are. That's what every child deserves. And if a loving family for that child is a heterosexual couple, great! If a loving family means a homosexual couple, that's great too! The whole point of adoption is to make sure these kids go to loving homes. And I believe that homosexual couples are aware of the teasing their child will face, and will be able to prepare their child for that.

In conclusion:

I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to get married. Or at least civil unions, which we can both agree on.

I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. They are well aware of the circumstances and will be able to prepare their child for the problems they will face.

As far as "The father naturally teaches their sons about controlling anger." I learned how to control my anger from my mother, because my father had no concept of anger management. I learned honesty from my mother because my father couldn't be truthful if a gun was pointed to his head. I learned how to make an honest living from my mother because my father could only steal. What I learned from my father is that you can scream as loud as you want, and beat as hard as you want in order to get your point across. That you can steal, so long as you don't get careless and get caught. And that people never change. So you can't say that just because a child has a mother and father, they will be taught those morals.

No, a homosexual couple is not the "traditional nuclear family". But neither is a home of abuse or neglect, a home of divorce, a home of a single parent struggling to make ends meet, a home of parents getting arrested. Not every family is the "traditional nuclear family". That kind of family would be the hetersexual christian couple. And not every couple is like that.

I believe that homosexual couples are well-prepared, if not over-prepared, for the hardships in raising a child. Otherwise, they wouldn't be adopting in the first place. And in some cases, I believe a homosexual couple would be more fitting in raising a child than a heterosexual couple.

But we can agree that civil unions should be legal and the children of homosexual couples face hardships. So I think for the record, we can agree to disagree.
Advidoct

Con

You said:
"I simply can't get past the fact that they are being denied the pleasure of adopting a child based on one characteristic about them."

My Response:
--I understand that they are denied the pleasure. I even have quite a bit of sympathy, but there is another party we have to think about and thats the children. Personally, I am more interested in the children's well being that the gay couple, and thats why I feel the way i do about gay marriage.--

You said:
"Back when we had black/white segregation, many believed that putting the two together would result in chaos and would present a bad image."

My Response:
--Black/White segregation isnt exactly the same thing. It doesnt involve the raising of a child. There was no second party at risk. In gay marriage, we have to consider the second party which is the children. They ARE at risk. You can try and justify their situation by saying "Everyone gets made fun of" but there are two reasons that doesnt stand.

1. We both know that the ridicule would be worse. Itd be more personal, and would haunt them forever. Its actually enough to hurt them mentally. They also run risks of getting physically beaten by intolerant kids.
2. Do we want to intentionally place these children in a life that they will hate. A life that will be hard for them? It would be very wrong if we had better options. I cant stress enough how serious I am about thinking of the children first.--

You said:
"I myself was teased everyday from 2nd to 7th grade, and it was a living hell. I remember there were days where I cried myself to sleep or just wanted to go away. I had so many problems as a child, including an eating disorder and attempted suicide. If I could, I would protect every child from that kind of ridicule. So what I'm saying is that a child can be teased for anything, not just who their parents are. And the gay community in general faces ridicule. Avi, one of my best friends, is gay. When I asked him how he handled the ridicule people give him, he put it like this: "I am gay. I'm not an alien life-form or some other unidentifiable thing. I am gay. I'm still Avi, I'm still a person. Just because I was born into this lifestyle doesn't mean I'm anything less. When I was younger, it was hard but i learned that your true friends and those that love you accept you the way you are. So if people don't like me, because I'm gay, then I feel sorry for them because they haven't walked a mile in my shoes. I am proud of who I am. I'm proud of who my parents are because they have faced less-than-perfect circumstances and were able to overcome them with dignity. I'm proud. That's what gets me through."

My Response:
--We all wish that people were more tolerant. In fact, they should be. We cant, however, force them to be tolerant. Gay marriage wont force them to be more tolerant and the truth is, kids raised by gay parents will not be treated justly. Thats just how it is. Not everyone will be noble and stand up for what they believe in. Not everyone will be noble and stand up for what Others believe in. Its just a fact of life. We can dream all we want about peace and tolerance, but that not gunna make it happen right away. When it comes to gay marriage laws, we need to think about how thing ARE now, not how they SHOULD be.--

You said:
"Every child deserves a loving home, where they feel wanted and loved everyday. Where there is never a doubt in their mind that their parents love them. Where that child knows that they are taken care of, and that their parents are always going to be their for them, no matter where they are. That's what every child deserves. And if a loving family for that child is a heterosexual couple, great! If a loving family means a homosexual couple, that's great too!"

My Response:
-- Every child DOES deserve a loving family, but their are many many loving families that are out there that are stable and heterosexual families. We should place the children in these homes first because its whats best. The homosexual parents may be able to prepare their kid for the teasing, but they cant make the pain hurt less. Its not fair to place the kids between a rock and a hard place when there are other options.--
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by lazarus_long 8 years ago
lazarus_long
An awful lot of assumption and unsupported claims on the "con" side here; what evidence do you have that the children of a gay couple would turn out ANY worse than those of a heterosexual couple - esp. if the hetero couple in question were abusive, or hardcore bigots, or any of a practically uncountable number of other undesirable traits that today do NOT stand in the way of a couple getting married? I'd much rather see children raised by a loving, upstanding gay couple than a LOT of the straight couples I see out there.

This one's easy - I vote for the "pro" side here.
Posted by elphaba1389 8 years ago
elphaba1389
thank you arrivaltime. you just helped prove my point. :)
Posted by arrivaltime 8 years ago
arrivaltime
According to studies, being raised by homosexual parents has no bad effect on the kids except how people make fun of them.

And the values you're talking about are the same ones that kept interracial marriage from being legal. awesome.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by christiandebater 8 years ago
christiandebater
elphaba1389AdvidoctTied
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 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
elphaba1389AdvidoctTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by basketballbeast7 8 years ago
basketballbeast7
elphaba1389AdvidoctTied
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 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
elphaba1389AdvidoctTied
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 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
elphaba1389AdvidoctTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Hreha827 8 years ago
Hreha827
elphaba1389AdvidoctTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by vinavinx 8 years ago
vinavinx
elphaba1389AdvidoctTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
elphaba1389AdvidoctTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 8 years ago
griffinisright
elphaba1389AdvidoctTied
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 
Vote Placed by jamie_l_2oo6 8 years ago
jamie_l_2oo6
elphaba1389AdvidoctTied
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