The Instigator
CJ
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Gay marriage should be legalized (in all states)

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 2 votes the winner is...
CJ
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,901 times Debate No: 5760
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

CJ

Con

My opponent holds the burden of proof (he will be the one arguing for a change in something). Therefore, he may argue first.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

First, the niceties:
I thank my opponent for starting this debate, and I hope it will be challenging, exciting, and fun. Remember voters, vote for whoever did the best, not based off your beliefs.

Observation 1: The resolution does not imply a violation of states' rights. It says "should" which implies that all states have a moral obligation to legalize gay marriage, not that they are being forced to.

Definitions:
Gay marriage: Marriage between two people of the same sex
legalized: Marriage licenses for gay couples will be available that provide the same rights as those given to heterosexual marriages.

Contention 1: An action that causes no harm cannot be immoral.
Gay marriage hurts no one. Studies have shown that children do just as well raised by gay parents compared to heterosexual parents, and beyond that, the gay marriage affects no one. Gay marriage is harmless, ergo it is not immoral.

Contention 2: People have the right to marry the person they love (assuming the individual is a consenting adult).
As gay marriage harms no one, it must then, be a right of man. Man has the right to do anything that doesn't harm anyone, so not permitting gay marriage infringes on that right. That is unacceptable.

Contention 3: Gay marriage is better than the alternative. Homosexual people do not have a choice about the way they are. I can't make myself homosexual, they can't make themselves heterosexual. It is an uncontrollable condition (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The APA quote sums it up. That means if not gay marriage, then life as an unhappy single, or life in an unhappy heterosexual marriage. Do either of those sound nice? I think not, so gay marriage must be allowed.
Debate Round No. 1
CJ

Con

CJ forfeited this round.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Well then, you know what to do.
Debate Round No. 2
CJ

Con

I, too, thank my opponent for participating in this debate. I sincerely apologize for my absence the last round. If you care to know, it was due to schoolwork. Having said this, I will move on to the actual debate.

I would first like to make a comment on my opponent's observation of the resolution. He states that the "should" in the resolution "implies that all states have a moral obligation to legalize gay marriage." However, considering the context and topic of the debate, "should" ought to be considered in the legal or political sense. This is the context in which most other changes in laws are considered. Nevertheless, my opponent's arguments are can still be considered in this sense

I will first present my arguments for the negative position. Then I will show how my opponent's arguments are unsound.

Contention 1: The benefits of gay marriage do not outweigh its costs
Marriages cost the government money. This is because the spouses in a marriage are allowed multiple, costly benefits including, quoting doctoral student in financial economics Adam Kolasinsk, "collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy." (http://www.freerepublic.com...) Why? Because the state has a major interest in marriage: the procreation of the society. The state, in effect, gives spouses a "subsidy" because they are likely to continue the procreation of society. Under my opponent's logic, love seems to be the legal basis for marriage. While this may be necessary, to believe that this alone is sufficient is ridiculous. If my opponent's logic is true, the indebted, recession-stricken government of the United States of America would be spending money for the 4,698,000 people that get married every year simply because they love each other! Having established the fact that marriages are costly to the state because they help procreate society, the reason for rejecting gay marriage becomes obvious: it does not procreate society! (I am aware that one may present a counterexample of marriage that goes against my logic. However, I will respond to this objection only if it is presented.)

Criticism of Opponent's Arguments

Criticism of Contention 1
This contention rests on the truth of the claim that "gay marriage is harmless." I have already shown this to be false because it costs the state money unnecessarily.

Criticism of Contention 2
This contention rests on the truth of the claim that "people have the right to marry the person they love." This claim is also false. For example, I may be in love with my sister, but I cannot marry her. This is because the state does not have an interest in supporting incestuous relationships. In the same way, the state does not have an interest in supporting sterile relationships.

Criticism of Contention 3
This contention rests on the truth of the claim that, if gay marriage is not allowed, homosexuals must "life as an unhappy single, or life in an unhappy heterosexual marriage." This claim is obviously false. My opponent must know that there are gay people who, though not married, don't live life as an unhappy single or in an unhappy heterosexual marriage but live in relationships that they enjoy.

Having presented my own argument and showing that my opponents arguments are unsound the only rational vote now is CON.
Thank You
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate, and I am glad this debate can continue.

Contention 1: My opponent claims that the state has an interest in marriage because it leads to the procreation of society. He says that because gay couples are incapable of this, the state has no interest in their marriage. Well, I ask my opponent this question: Does that mean that a heterosexual couple in which one of the participants is infertile shouldn't be allowed to get married? And what about "mature" marriages in which neither participant is capable of procreation? Or even marriages in which neither spouse wants a child? (http://lesbianlife.about.com...) Many marriages lead to no procreation whatsoever, does that mean they should be anulled? No! The average household in America has 2.6 people (http://www.dataplace.org...). That means that a very large amount of your heterosexual couples aren't doing their job.

Furthermore, many couples incapable of procreation, gay and straight, adopt children or have surrogate births. This is still what we want. I mean, you and I are both against abortion, and the most common alternative to abortion for unwanted children is adoption. Having more couples that want to adopt helps get those children homes, and in fact saves the taxpayers money, as orphanages are almost always funded in part by us, the taxpayers.

Defense of my arguments:

Contention 1: The attack rests on the premise that it costs the state unnecessarily. I have shown that many heterosexual marriages do the same, and that adoption nullifies this attack.

Contention 2: Incestuous relationships cause actual harm. The children created from this type of relationship are often defective. This is impossible in a gay relationship.

Contention 3: You're right, I wasn't thinking when I wrote that. Oh well, I still have two valid contentions.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
CJ

Con

CJ forfeited this round.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

LR4N6FTW4EVA forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Screw gay marriage... let's abort moar!
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
"If you live in the midwest or the south or the north or well lets just say anywhere but San Francisco or maybe Massachusetts homosexuality is looked at as different. Now with this said, take a child and put him in a public school and see how much slack he is going to catch for having homosexual parents."

I live in West Virginia, a pretty conservative state. My town is accepting of homosexuality. Growing up my school had a small number of children with homosexual parents, and this was only a minor issue. Most kids didn't care, or even realize what having two mothers actually meant.
Posted by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
i fail to see how this debate can keep going since LR4N6FTW4EVA has closed hi account.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
MarineConservativeCorpse,

I fail to see how the idea that kids should not have gay parents, can logically come to the conclusion that Gay Marriage should be strictly forbidden. Now, not that I would agree with it, it could come to the conclusion to outlaw gay parents, but not the conclusion you made. That is completely illogical.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 8 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
1. Ok cmon. Lets get smart here. This is coming from BBC now. The same BBC that said on the radio back in 2003 while I was in Iraq that the Iraqi Army was destroying the allied forces. Great info though. Keep em coming.
2. Do you live in San Fran? Obviously no one would care. Where I am from (Missouri) it is a different story. People care.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Okay to address this...
1. BBC found Wikipedia to be better than the Encyclopedia Britannica.
2. I know quite a few children with homosexual parents. No one cares.
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 8 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
1.Wikipedia is a terrible source of information. Try better sources.
2. Where do you get these "studies"? The New York Times? If you live in the midwest or the south or the north or well lets just say anywhere but San Francisco or maybe Massachusetts homosexuality is looked at as different. Now with this said, take a child and put him in a public school and see how much slack he is going to catch for having homosexual parents. You don't think that this is going to affect the child? You are nuts! Like for instance, how many children get picked on for not wearing the "popular" clothes or get picked on for not hanging out with the "cool" crowd. Take that and amp it by a thousand. Yeah that means a jacked up childhood. So no gay marriage! The end.
Posted by johnnyrockit 8 years ago
johnnyrockit
"Studies have shown that children do just as well raised by gay parents compared to heterosexual parents,"

Can you cite any of these "studies?"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lipstick.trace 8 years ago
lipstick.trace
CJLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
CJLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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