Gay marriage should be legalized?
Debate Rounds (5)
4. Final Focuses/Conclusions
I wish my opponents the best of luck.
Patti Stanger once said "I"m an advocate for gay marriage, I have more gay friends than Carter has pills."
And it is because, I stand in affirm of the following resolution resolved "Should gay marriage be legalized?"
In support of my stance, I will provide the following contentions
Contention #1: The "traditional marriage" is completely inaccurate.
The concept of "traditional marriage" being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural" in evolutionary terms.
Contention #2: Gay Marriage is protected under the constitution
Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1974"s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses."
Contention #3: Gay marriages can actually boost economy
Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the city"s economy and $184 million to the state"s economy over three years.
In conclusion, the pro side of this debate has proved
1. The traditional marriage, be it by man & women in inaccurate
2. Gay marriage is protected under the constitution
3. Gay marriages can boost the economy
Thank you for your time & consideration.
Sources :: ProCon.Org
My own knowledge
As well as the Quran.
Next, there has been research suggesting that homosexuality is for the most part, psychological. If gay marriage was legalized, gayness would be regarded as normal. As a result, many more people would be prone to being a homosexual individual.
First and foremost, this would cause social upheaval. Also consider that there are radical individuals who harm, or even kill, people because of their sexual orientation. If there were to be more homosexuals, that may result in more people getting hurt.
Finally, the support and complete acceptance of homosexuality would damage to the population. If there are more couples who cannot produce offspring, then that would (obviously enough) be detrimental to the population growth. This may sound cruel, but biologically speaking, a homosexual individual is useless.
I am not for the abuse of people because of the sexual orientation, but do not believe that homosexuality should be regarded as a good thing.
It can also be noted that more often than not, marriage is conducted in a church (or other religious institution). The religion itself does not support homosexuality.
1. Many gays (According to the Huffington Post) do not believe in God/are in a different religion, so what's the point of the Bible in this debate if many do not believe in God/are in a different religion?
2. On your final contention, you claimed it would "damage the population" can you further elaborate?
3. Isn't it good that it damages the population? It is allowing us to lower population, which means less death and poverty in the US.
4. Why don't you think homosexuality is a good thing?
5. How would people get hurt if there were more homosexuals?
2. Why do you believe it should be supported?
I'm afraid those are all the questions I have. I have much more to say in the "refute/rebuttal" section.
chrissychaaos forfeited this round.
TheRussian forfeited this round.
chrissychaaos forfeited this round.
"1. Many gays (According to the Huffington Post) do not believe in God/are in a different religion, so what's the point of the Bible in this debate if many do not believe in God/are in a different religion?"
About 58% of gays are Christian.
"2. On your final contention, you claimed it would "damage the population" can you further elaborate?"
It is quite simple, the more gay couples, the less couples that can produce offspring, meaning the population goes down.
"Isn't it good that it damages the population? It is allowing us to lower population, which means less death and poverty in the US."
Population is directly related to everything. Industry, military, food supply etc. With the decline of population, a country's economy, defense and many social factors will be negatively affected.
"How would people get hurt if there were more homosexuals?"
If there are more homosexuals, then there would be more "targets" for radical anti-gay individuals.
Finally, the very definition of "marriage" goes against your argument.
the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
I see no reason that gay marriage should be legalized. For centuries homosexuals and heterosexuals lived alongside each other and there was no trouble. I don't see why there should be trouble now.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits, Points con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.