The Instigator
DeadSpace
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Gay marriage should be legalized

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 3 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,179 times Debate No: 30592
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

DeadSpace

Pro

I am for the legalization of Gay marriage in our country (United States). I would like to debate with someone their reasoning on why Gay marriage should not be legalized. Please be thorough with your points and explanation.
The debate will go as follows:
Round 1 - Opening Point(s)
Round 2 - Rebuttal
Round 3 - Rebuttal
Round 4 - Conclusion
1Historygenius

Con


I Gracefully Accept Your Challenge

Debate Round No. 1
DeadSpace

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate! I will start by stating my argument:Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples. Who has the right to stop two people from devoting their complete love for each other? And why? Gay marriage should be protected by the Constitution's obligations to liberty and equality. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is to label them as inferior and unworthy of our basic rights. Why is it not acceptable to discriminate against a persons race, but it is against their sexual orientation? Homosexual marriage rights will have no impairing effects on that of heterosexual couples. To claim that this legalization will hinder the sanctity of marriage is a ludicrous claim seeing as the divorce rate is already between 40% and 50%. To claim that marriage is a religious institution is ridiculous. Marriage was originally a religious institution in which daughters were sold for calfs. Should we revert back to this? It is after all the original form of marriage! Imposing your beliefs on them is annoying and pointless. If you don't agree with homosexuality, then don't be a homosexual. There is no need to impose your beliefs upon others and deny them happiness. Refusing someone their rights based upon their sexual orientation is wrong and ignorant. They are just as much of people as the rest, and they deserve their very basic intrinsic likes as everyone else also does. (The pursuit of happiness is one of those rights, by the way.) Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to hearing your opening statement.
1Historygenius

Con

My Case

What is Marriage?

In this debate, we must understand what is the role of marriage society and how the government should act when involved in marriage. I am sure that first and foremost, me and my opponent both agree that marriage is a secular institution not a religious one. There is a separation of church and state in the United States, so we must understand that. There is a reason marriage must only be heterosexual and not homosexual. I will explain this reason.

Marriage in Society and Government

The purpose of marriage is to continue the survival of society. With marriage, people create children for society continue. If heterosexual marriage did not exist, then there would be no society as it is a bond that brings a male and female together to create children. Homosexuals cannot create childre. If an entire society was made up of homosexuals then that society would soon not exist. This is why heterosexual marriage is important to society.

The government's role is to keep society intact. Thus, homosexual marriage should not legalized because it does not benefit society. The government must create a procreative society in order to produce more children. Allowing heterosexuals to marry does just that. Because homosexuals do not create children, their marriage has no purpose and that is why it must remain illegal. [1,2,3,4,5]

Parenting

We must also see what is best for children, who will be brought up in a society. Homosexuals can obviously adopt children, but is that a good idea? A study in July 2012 took up that task. What he found is that children with homosexual parents do worse in all catergories compared to their heterosexual counterparts. In addition, my opponent has brought up the question of marriages and relationships into the debate. This is about divorce. Divorce has always been a negative influence on children. What we find is that homosexual relationships break up more than heterosexual relationships. This proves that homosexual marriage has a negative effect on society. [6,7]

Here are heterosexual marriages:

What this graph shows is the percentage of heterosexual marriages that have remained intact for many years. As we can see, typically heterosexual marriages do remain intact. This makes them generally good parents.

Homosexual marriages:

This graph shows the percentage of homosexual marriages that have remained intact over many years. As we can see, homosexual marriages typically do not remain intact. This makes them generally bad parents.

Conclusion

I have proven that gay marriage should not be legal because it does not benefit society. It should also not be legal because it hurts children.

Sources

1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
2. "PROTECTING AMERICA'S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
3. "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
4. "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
5. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)
6. Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)
7. http://www.frc.org...;



Debate Round No. 2
DeadSpace

Pro

Should heterosexual infertile people or those who do not desire to have children be banned from marriage as well? They too cannot or choose not to reproduce and "continue the survival of society" as my opponent says. Heterosexual marriage could remain important to society if homosexual marriage were to be legalized. Where in the legalization of homosexual marriage is the harming or hindering the marriage of heterosexuals? At one point in my opponents argument, they state "Because homosexuals do not create children, their marriage has no purpose and that is why it must remain illegal" Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage... why should it be now on the topic of Gay marriage? Gay marriages can also bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.[1] Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending.[2] The seventh source in which the images are provided seems to not work for me. In regards to those graphs, where was the data taken from and for how long were those statistics taken over? The graphs are comparing married heterosexual couples to homosexual relationships. That is not the same, at all. Also, the graphs state that divorced parents generally make bad parents.. I really don't agree with that terrible generalization. My parents are divorced and still love and care for me just as much, if not more. Actually, Massachusetts; which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.[3] The argument that divorce rates would be increased with the legalization of homosexual marriage is just untrue.

Conclusion
I have proven that Gay marriage would benefit society and it does not hinder children whatsoever. Also, the divorce rate may actually decline with the legalization of homosexual marriage.

[1]Kathryn Perry, "The Cost of Gay Marraige - In Dollars and Cents," Christian Science Monitor, May 27, 2009
[2]American Psychological Association, "American Psychological Association Reiterates Support for Same-sex Marriage," www.apa.org, Aug. 11, 2010
[3]Nate Silver, "Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans," www.fivethirtyeight.com, Jan. 12, 2010
1Historygenius

Con

Rebuttals

"Should heterosexual infertile people or those who do not desire to have children be banned from marriage as well? They too cannot or choose not to reproduce and "continue the survival of society" as my opponent says."

Heterosexual marriages in which no children are present still will likely practice safe sex measures. That would mean that are still forming procreative type unions and are benefitting state interests. What the government wants is a climate for procreation and procreative unions so not procreative effect. If gay marriage cannot fulfill procreative type unions then the government has not reason to legalize it. My opponent has not provided the government's look on marriage while I have. I have provided a source proving that it is the government's job is to make laws that benefit society and heterosexuality does. Homosexuality does not. [1]

"Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage... why should it be now on the topic of Gay marriage? "

Many people only have sex when they are married. Obviously it has an effect. This is common knowledge. My opponent must not know what common knowledge is.

"Gay marriages can also bring financial gain to state and local governments."

If the government felt the need to increase revenue, there are far better ways than to legalize marriage. It is much more simple to raise income taxes, corporate taxes, tariffs, etc. than to debate gay marriage, where other variables come in. Because marriage is not solely about government revenue, it would be unwise to legalize it solely for the purpose of raising revenue. That is why when Congress wants to raise taxes, it does not go into the gay marriage debate.

I am sorry to hear that he cannot get my seventh source, which is where the graphs come in. It was an editing mistake on the part of the organization when making the graphs. This were taken fairly recently, just two years ago. I am not arguing that divorce rates increase with gay marriage, but instead that divorce is a negative for children and yes, this is common knowledge. [2,3,4]

Conclusion

It have continued to prove that a procreative environment is what government wants. Its not looking for effect, but for an environment and gay marriage is alien to that environment. I have continued to prove that divorce has had a negative effect on children. Not just that, but my study that gay marriage has a had a completely negative effect on children has gone unchallenged. Obviously my opponent agrees with me on that subject and thus gay marriage should be illegal.

Sources

1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
2. http://www.divinecaroline.com...
3. http://www.public.iastate.edu...
4. http://abcnews.go.com...
Debate Round No. 3
DeadSpace

Pro

"the government's job is to make laws that benefit society and heterosexuality does. Homosexuality does not."
Would promoting equality be a form of benefitting society? Also, how is a heterosexual with no intention or capability to pro create "benefitting state interests" as my opponent says? An infertile heterosexual couple has the same "pro creating" abilities as a homosexual couple.

"Many people only have sex when they are married. Obviously it has an effect. This is common knowledge. My opponent must not know what common knowledge is."
My opponent starts by making a ludicrous claim that many people only have sex when they are married, and then my opponent goes on to attempt to insult me. In addressing my opponents claim that "many" people wait until marriage" I must ask does the word many only mean 5%? The Guttmacher Institute data (1953 to 2003) showed that 95% of Americans had sex before marriage. [1]

"I am not arguing that divorce rates increase with gay marriage, but instead that divorce is a negative for children and yes, this is common knowledge."
Actually, my opponent said in the Round 1 argument "Divorce has always been a negative influence on children. What we find is that homosexual relationships break up more than heterosexual relationships." Where is the relevance to this debate in my opponent"s argument that divorce is negative for children if it has nothing to do with gay marriage?

"my study that gay marriage has a had a completely negative effect on children has gone unchallenged. Obviously my opponent agrees with me on that subject and thus gay marriage should be illegal."
In regards to the study my opponent has provided, Gary Gates; who studies the LGBT population at UCLA's Williams Institute, said the study offers no clear conclusion about the relationship between parents' sexual orientation and a child's wellbeing. Instead, the results say more about the role of instability in childhood. "To determine whether a parental same-sex relationship affects a child's outcome, it is critical to know the length of these relationships, and whether the same-sex partners were actually living with, and parenting, the child for any length of time. The study does not assess this," [2] Other studies have found that children raised by same-sex parents are not different from children of heterosexual couples. The American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America and other organizations have issued public support for same-sex parenting. My opponent"s argument that gay marriage has a completely negative effect on children is not confirmed in any study. In fact, the director of the provided study; Mark Regnerus, said, "This study really can't answer any political questions" [2]

Thank you for debating, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Vote Equality!

[1] http://www.datehookup.com...
[2]http://abcnews.go.com...
1Historygenius

Con

"Would promoting equality be a form of benefitting society? Also, how is a heterosexual with no intention or capability to pro create "benefitting state interests" as my opponent says? An infertile heterosexual couple has the same "pro creating" abilities as a homosexual couple."

Again, the state is looking for a procreative environment. While infertile heterosexual couples have no children, they are still in that procreative environment. The state cannot predict every marriage, but can keep in procreative for the benefit of society.

Allowing homosexuals to marry does not create a society that promotes equality. Since the state's job is create a healthy environment to continue the survival of society, it has no reason to legalize homosexual marriages because they have no benefit. Homosexual marriages are different than heterosexual marriages because they cannot create children. That is why legalizing homosexual marriages is not create equality. No law says that heterosexuals are allowed or not allowed to marry, so making a law for homosexuals puts them in a special position. [1,2]

Now we must go to divorce. Divorce has a lot to do with gay marriage. Remember that the whole debate is about marriage. When there is a divorce, it has a negative effect on children. Since homosexuals often break-up more than heterosexuals do, that makes a negative effect on children. Again, the fact that divorce has a negative effect on children is common sense. However, my opponent did not attack that in his refutations, he just asked why divorce matters.

My opponent then attacks the study I used that shows homosexuals couples have a negative effect on children. However, that is only one of many studies. There are more. Most studies that claim that homosexual parents have no difference than heterosexual parents are flawed. [3,4,6]

One article also proves that children need mothers and fathers and that families with only just mothers or fathers (homosexual couples) have problems. [6] Another study proves this. In fact it has lead to an increase in violence:

"High rates of violence in lesbian and gay relationships finds significant support in the research. In a study Lockhart (1994) found that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their partners during the 12 months prior to the study. Thirty-one percent reported one or more incidents of physical abuse." [7]

Take Note

Pro dropped his argument on more gov. revenue with gay marriages.

Sources


1. http://tech.mit.edu...
2. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
3. http://www.sciencedirect.com...
4. http://faculty.law.miami.edu...
5. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...
6. http://catholiceducation.org...
7. http://narth.com...

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
indeed every thing against nature is destructive.
the new invention always cause trouble.
we must be on default setting.
no customization.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 3 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
DeadSpace1HistorygeniusTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a case against gay marriage through explaining the state's interest in marriage, procreation and child-rearing. Pro failed to rebut this adequately and thus did not fulfill his burden of proof.
Vote Placed by rogue 3 years ago
rogue
DeadSpace1HistorygeniusTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments about the state being for procreation were ludicrous and unsupported.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
DeadSpace1HistorygeniusTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO failed to adequately refute the procreation argument and the stability of homosexual couples. Con was able to indicate the problems with homosexual relationships, and allowing them into the institution would lead to a weakened institution less capable of promoting proper child rearing. Since PRO held the BOP, and failed to meet it, I will give my vote to con.