The Instigator
tejretics
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay marriage should be permitted

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/28/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 91985
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

tejretics

Pro

Full resolution: Just societies should permit same-sex marriage.

First round is acceptance.
Jerry947

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Pro

== My case ==

1) Equal protection before the law

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is found in nature. According to New Scientist, "A gene has been discovered that appears to dictate the sexual preferences of female mice. Delete the gene and the modified mice reject the advances of the males and attempt to mate with other females instead." [1] The majority of research suggests that homosexuality has a genetic component. [2] I'm sure my opponent agrees that marriage is -- in most cases -- predicated upon sexual/romantic attraction. According to Wikipedia, marriage "is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged." [3] Interpersonal relationships of a sexual or romantic nature rely on attraction. As such, if homosexuality is not a choice, then banning gay marriage is depriving homosexuals of the right to marry. Depriving a certain group of a right without reason is inherently unjust -- because justice, by definition, is fairness, or treating people without discrimination.

Not recognizing same-sex marriage is discriminating against a certain class of people based on an inherent characteristic. Homosexuality is as much of an inherent characteristic as, say, blue eyes. Saying "homosexuals can't marry" is the same as saying "anyone with blue eyes can't marry." Con might argue that homosexuals *can* marry people of the opposite sex, but, as mentioned, marriage is intrinsically tied to sexual/romantic interpersonal connections -- which homosexuals experience only with people of the same sex. A just society is a society where intrinsic characteristics do not form the basis of discrimination -- everyone is "given their due," i.e. equals are treated equally. [4] Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is done for no valid reason, and, therefore, is unjust. A just society won't discriminate on that basis.

I'll also add that not recognizing same-sex marriage is a symbolic act of discrimination, as if the state rejects the very orientation of same-sex attraction. This causes insecurity, stigmatization and psychological harms. A study by Wight, et al. found that "being in a legally recognized same sex relationship, marriage in particular, appears to diminish mental health differentials between . . . lesbian, gay and bisexual persons." [5] Restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is an expression of the same stigma by the state. According to the American Psychological Association, "Laws that exclude lesbian, gay and bisexual people from marriage cause stress, and that stress negatively impacts physical and mental health." [6] Banning same-sex marriage also stigmatizes the children of same-sex couples, causing bullying and harassment. [7] Since banning same-sex marriage is fundamentally unjust, vote Pro.

2) Economic benefits

A just government must also do what benefits its people, since that forms the fundamental role of the state. Recognizing same-sex marriage provides multiple economic benefits.

Adam Stevenson (2012) conducted a study that showed that gay marriage would bring in between $20 and $40 billion more in tax revenue. The marriage penalties brought in increase overall labor and this labor, according to the study, isn't cancelled out by the marriage bonus. So, even considering the marriage bonus effect, this much revenue would be gained by the government in income taxes. [8] Multiple state-level studies have shown that, because of gay marriage, the amount of money spent on wedding ceremonies, gifts, et cetera, would significantly boost the economy by (1) increasing consumption, (2) allowing greater sales tax revenue, and (3) creating jobs, allowing more income tax revenue and inherently boosting the economy. [9] Another major economic benefit is that since people become more financially secure due to marriages, they will no longer be eligible for government-provided welfare and safety nets. It would save the government hundreds of millions in welfare costs. [10]

I have proven that recognizing gay marriage is the only just thing to do, because (1) banning gay marriage denies equal protection before the law and causes stigmatization, and (2) legalizing gay marriage increases government revenue, consumption and employment. In Martin Luther King's words, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Therefore, vote Pro.

[1] http://www.newscientist.com...
[2] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://www.scu.edu...
[5] http://ajph.aphapublications.org...
[6] http://www.apa.org...
[7] http://edition.cnn.com...
[8] http://www-personal.umich.edu...
[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[10] http://tinyurl.com...
Jerry947

Con

Thanks Pro for that opening argument. I will first give an argument against Gay Marriage in Part One and then I will refute my opponent's arguments in Part Two of my post.

Part One:

a. Homosexuals are more affected by HIV than another other group of people in the United States.

In 2010, "young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men" (http://www.cdc.gov......). And statistics also show that by the end of "2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs" (http://www.cdc.gov......).

But things have only gotten worse. Statistics also show that "in 2013, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 81% (30,689) of the 37,887 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 65% of the 47,352 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year" (http://www.cdc.gov......).

The problem is that people are having way too many partners and are spreading disease to the population as a whole. They aren't just affecting other homosexuals. So what are people doing about these problems? Well, my source called CDC is spending around 55 million dollars to get people tested for HIV. So yes, homosexuals are costing us folks a lot of money. Aside from that, this organization seeks to help the homosexual community out, yet they aren't making any progress. The rates of HIV go up among them every year and nothing is helping. And again, these problems are affecting the society as a whole.

And the biggest problem is that for all the problems the homosexual community is causing, they only compose 3.5% of the United States population (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu......). So the minority of the population has changed the society drastically and has caused a massive increase in the spread of HIV. So I ask my opponent, why do the minority of the population get special privileges when they are causing so many problems?

b. Gay Marriage does not benefit society:

As shown above, the statistics show that the majority of homosexuals are spreading HIV and causing many problems. But things are even worse than they seem. So again, why does the minority get to redefine marriage when it does so much damage?

And it is not like they are producing any kids...

c. Homosexuals have more problems with their emotional heath:

73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others.

d. It goes against God's law:

According to statistics, around 75% of the people in the United States are Christian (https://www.cia.gov......). The source gives a number in the 75% range depending on whether you recognize Mormons as Christians or etc...but the number on average is in the range of 75%. The point is that most people are for upholding God's law. Why ignore the majority and side with the minorities view?

Besides that, from where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?

e. Homosexuals are more likely to have mental health issues. Source: exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php

Note: While this is a Christian website, the source cites several surveys and studies done so don't be so quick to toss it out.

The source shows that there are higher sexual molestation rates among homosexuals. Then there is the matter of Sexual promiscuity. This helps support the spread of disease and the homosexual community does not do well with this at all. Over 83% of homosexuals have over 50 partners in their lifetime.

Part Two:

a. My opponent asserts that homosexuality is not a choice. Yet there own source says that "While it is impossible to say whether the finding has any relevance for human sexuality, it provides a clue as to how sexuality develops in mammals" (https://www.newscientist.com...). So there claim about homosexuality not being a choice is not supported by their own article. Another source says that "the mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one"s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual" (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...). Again, the sources admit that the development of a particular sexual orientation is unclear.

Here are a few questions of mine...

If heterosexual behavior produces children and homosexual behavior does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through natural selection?

And if it is true that "they are born that way," shouldn't we also support "homophobia" since it could be argued that homophobes are born having a natural aversion to homosexuality?

Note: My opponent's number two source doesn't work.

b. My opponent argues that "as such, if homosexuality is not a choice, then banning gay marriage is depriving homosexuals of the right to marry. Depriving a certain group of a right without reason is inherently unjust -- because justice, by definition, is fairness, or treating people without discrimination."

That is a big if right there. And besides, that just isn't true. They would still have the right to marry. Just not people of their own sex. And the reason for banning homosexuality are the five reasons I gave in part one.

c. My opponent argues that "Saying 'homosexuals can't marry' is the same as saying 'anyone with blue eyes can't marry.'"

This is not even close to being true. You can't compare the issue of eye color to the issue of ones sexuality. Eye color is based off of genetics and homosexuality is a behavior that has affects on people. That is the difference.

d. Then my opponent argues that not allowing gay marriage causes "Laws that exclude lesbian, gay and bisexual people from marriage cause stress, and that stress negatively impacts physical and mental health. Banning same-sex marriage also stigmatizes the children of same-sex couples, causing bullying and harassment."

While homophobia might be an issue, the legalization of the marriage isn't going to end harassment. Yes, gay people are teased, but how would allowing them to marry end the harassment? I fail to see the logic in my opponent's plan.

Not only that, but their own source says that "Being in a legally recognized same-sex relationship, marriage in particular, appeared to diminish mental health differentials between heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. Researchers must continue to examine potential health benefits of same-sex marriage, which is at least in part a public health issue" (http://ajph.aphapublications.org......). In other words, the results were not conclusive and they admit that more research needs to be done. Though, not that it really matters. The happiness of a small group of people does not get to change the society as a whole.

e. The last argument my opponent gives does not need to be covered much. They argue that "legalizing gay marriage - by increasing the number of marriages - creates a boost to the economy, since it creates more jobs in the wedding industry." All I can say is that the flip side is spending lots of money helping homosexuals with diseases, emotional health problems and etc...nothing they have done has been good for the economy and the source my opponent gives only speculates.

Now here is the biggest flaw with my opponent's argument...

f. Their argument for permitting Gay Marriage could literally be used to support Pedophilia, Necrophilia, polygamy and etc...!

You could literally go through their argument and see that.

a. Marriage makes people happy...CHECK
b. Being a Pedophile is not a choice...CHECK
c. Being married diminishes health effects...CHECK
d. Not allowing pedophiles to marry causes them distress...CHECK
e. Allowing pedophiles to marry will theoretically boost the economy...CHECK

This rebuttal is not here to show that Gay Marriage is the same thing as pedophilia. It is only here to show that the same argument can be used to support both causes. My point is what reason does my opponent to reject oyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, and etc...when the same argument for Gay Marriage (he has given) can be used to support many of these things.

Note: Used Carm.org as a source as well.
Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Pro

1. Spread of diseases

Con first says homosexuals are more commonly affected by HIV, and that the spread of HIV is harmful to society as a whole, due to healthcare costs and HIV spreading to non-homosexuals as well. I have two responses. First, the fact that homosexuals spread HIV more has very little to do with them being homosexual -- so denying marriage on that ground makes no sense whatsoever. Con's logic isn't unique, because heterosexuals *also* get and spread HIV, even if it's less than the level at which homosexuals get HIV. This means, by Con's logic, all marriage should be banned. It isn't the fault of them being "homosexual" -- it's just a coincidence. So, even under retributive justice, the people who should be denied marriage are those that engage in irresponsible sexual acts, which is not *all* homosexuals, and it does have some heterosexuals too.

Second, the argument makes no sense because it presumes retributive justice, and there's no other means by which the argument negates. Banning gay marriage won't prevent any of this, because (1) the issue of homosexual sex is entirely different from the issue of marriage, and (2) banning gay marriage won't stop people from irresponsible actions that cause spread of diseases since marriage is a separate issue. But Con does nothing whatsoever to justify a framework of retributive justice. In fact, if justice is the grounds for debate, then *turn* this argument because banning gay marriage will also punish people who are *not* culpable for the spread of diseases (remembers: not all homosexuals spread diseases, since that's an absurd, nonsensical notion). Justice is giving each what they are due. Vote them down because of this link turn.

2. Emotional/mental health

First, Con does nothing to link emotional or mental health to the resolution.

Second, on emotional health, Con's source that suggests this is garbage, because it was a survey of people who were *not* homosexual who, in Con's words, *thought* that homosexuals were less happy than others.

Third, homosexuals are more prone than heterosexuals to have mental health issues because of discrimination, the same discrimination that Con is perpetuating. Apu Chakraborty, et al. explain, "Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation predicted certain neurotic disorder outcomes, even after adjustment for potentially confounding demographic variables." [1] These "confounding variables," in fact, were completely irrelevant to sexual orientation themselves. That offers a perfect explanation for mental health. Once more, this is completely irrelevant to the debate.

3. God's law

First, turn. Con's standard is by doing what the majority wants. The majority, despite being Christian in large numbers, *supports* same-sex marriage. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 53% of American voters support same-sex marriage. [2] In 2015, a Wall Street Journal poll found that 59% of Americans favor gay marriage. [3] A January-February 2015 Human Rights Campaign poll showed 60% of Americans supporting gay marriage. [4]

Second, Con doesn't actually warrant a standard of the "tyranny of the majority." It's usually seen as a bad thing, since the government doesn't just rule by whatever the people want. It rules by what *benefits* its people most, or reduces harm to its people most, while having certain limits in exercising control (e.g. harm principle).

Con then asks: "From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?" First, Con doesn't show that there are absolutes such as "right" and "wrong," at least with respect to sex. Second, the moral standard between homosexuals and other sexual orientations isn't necessarily different - that's just homophobic. The standard could be belief in God, or naturalism, or whatever they want. Third, this is completely irrelevant to the debate.

4. Justice

First, homosexuality isn't a choice. With regard to the first source, I concede that it isn't necessarily relevant to human sexuality. But Con's *own* source says: "[while] the mechanisms for development of sexual orientation are unclear, the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is *not a choice*; that is, individuals do not choose to be heterosexual or homosexual." [5] The majority of scholars in academia agree that homosexuality isn't a choice. [6-8] There are fundamental biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals that are sufficient to establish that it isn't a choice. The suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus of the brain is twice the size in homosexual brains as it is in heterosexual ones. [9] People can't choose the size of portions of their brain. Con talks about evolution, but there's no reason for evolution to exclude homosexuality -- the same way infertility isn't a choice, but infertile couples are allowed to marry. In fact, evolutionary explanations for homosexuality have been suggested. Michael Le Page of New Scientist explains, "[H]omosexuality boosts individuals" reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males " rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair." [10]

Second, apply this to justice. If homosexuality isn't a choice, then denying homosexuals marriage is discriminating against an innate characteristic. Con says homosexuals will still be allowed to marry with people of the opposite sex, but drops my argument that marriage is connected to sexual/romantic attraction, so homosexuals can only marry people to whom they're attracted. When that connection is considered, same-sex marriage ought to be legal in a just society. Con says "eye color is based off of genetics and homosexuality is a behavior that has affects [sic] on others." This is wrong -- homosexuality, similar to eye color, is an intrinsic characteristic that isn't a choice. Excluding people for *no reason* other than things they don't choose is unjust by definition, because justice is fairness, and "fairness" is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "treating people equally without favoritism or discrimination."

Third, banning gay marriage affects mental health. Con says he doesn't understand the link between marriage and mental health. The answer is simple: a government banning same-sex marriage while allowing opposite-sex marriage is discriminating against a certain class of people. Same-sex couples feel discriminated against, because they are. This causes psychological harms. Cross-apply the Chakraborty card from earlier in my argument.

5. Economic benefits

Even if gay marriage is banned, we're going to be spending money to cure mental and physical illnesses in homosexuals -- there's no question of that. So banning gay marriage isn't going to solve that issue. We might as well have gay marriage legal for the economic benefits that it brings.

6. Slippery slope

Con argues that gay marriage is a slippery slope to allowing child marriages, etc. because the *same* justifications can be used. Here's the fundamental difference between gay marriage and child marriage: children are considered below the "age of consent" for a reason -- they aren't psychologically mature enough to *consent* to such huge responsibilities. It's fundamentally the issue of *consent* here. With regard to same-sex marriage, the couple is benefited, while when it comes to child marriage, *only* the pedophile is benefited. Consent is the issue with voyeurism and bestiality as well -- animals don't consent, and people don't consent to others watching them during intimate actions (I don't have a problem with it when it's consensual). Necrophilia is legal because society, as a whole, feels revulsion at it, and the government wants to prevent severe outrage (though I don't see a problem with legalizing consensual necrophilia) -- not the same reasons for a ban on same-sex marriage (I've already established that there are no good reasons for doing so). So there's no *reason* to ban same-sex marriage that's good, while there are good reasons to ban all these things, which is why the slippery slope here fails.

For all the above reasons, Vote Pro.

1. http://goo.gl...
2. https://goo.gl...
3. http://goo.gl...
4. http://goo.gl...
5. http://goo.gl...
6. http://goo.gl...
7. https://goo.gl...
8. Gloria Kursey-Matusiak, "Delivering Culturally Competent Nursing Care," p. 169
9. http://goo.gl...
10. https://goo.gl...
Jerry947

Con

I will quote my opponent an then respond to what they say.

"First, the fact that homosexuals spread HIV more has very little to do with them being homosexual -- so denying marriage on that ground makes no sense whatsoever."

My opponent makes a bare assertion here. I proved in the last round that sexual promiscuity rates and the spread of disease were way higher for homosexuals than then were for heterosexuals. And by the way, that was my whole point. Homosexuality does cause these problems.

"Con's logic isn't unique, because heterosexuals *also* get and spread HIV, even if it's less than the level at which homosexuals get HIV. This means, by Con's logic, all marriage should be banned."

Notice how I never said that all marriage should be banned due to the fact that disease is spread. I merely pointed out that when it comes to disease, homosexuals are causing way more problems than heterosexuals are causing. Homosexuals literally account for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24. That is a huge problem.

"It isn't the fault of them being "homosexual" -- it's just a coincidence. So, even under retributive justice, the people who should be denied marriage are those that engage in irresponsible sexual acts, which is not *all* homosexuals, and it does have some heterosexuals too."

My opponent offers no support for their claim about it being a coincidence. However, I have showed that the reason for the spread of disease is due to the amount of partners they have. Doesn't sound like a coincidence to me. As for denying marriage due to irresponsible sexual acts, that isn't really my line of reasoning. What I was trying to show was that homosexuals cause damage to society (way more so than heterosexuals) and therefore we shouldn't legalize gay marriage.

"Banning gay marriage won't prevent any of this, because (1) the issue of homosexual sex is entirely different from the issue of marriage, and (2) banning gay marriage won't stop people from irresponsible actions that cause spread of diseases since marriage is a separate issue."

This line of reasoning is seriously flawed. Even though people will still commit crimes, we shouldn't legalize the crimes just because of that fact. Same thing with the spread of disease. Even if banning Gay Marriage doesn't end the problem completely, that doesn't mean we should forget about the problem and not do anything about it.

My opponent also brings up the fact that not all homosexuals spread disease and therefore it wouldn't be fair to ban Gay Marriage for their sake. That is a good point, but keep in mind that I gave several reasons for denying homosexual marriage that includes all of them.

"Second, on emotional health, Con's source that suggests this is garbage, because it was a survey of people who were *not* homosexual who, in Con's words, *thought* that homosexuals were less happy than others."

I believe this is what we call a double standard. My opponent can uses sources in which scientists think people are born gay but yet I can't use a source showing that homosexuals have more issues with their emotional health.

And besides, my source said that "A major study by Bell and Weinberg revealed that 78% of male homo- sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer. Certainly, this shows a pattern of broken relationships that must be painful for many."

It also said some other fascinating things but my opponent cherry picked what my source said and therefore didn't get the just of the research.

"Third, homosexuals are more prone than heterosexuals to have mental health issues because of discrimination, the same discrimination that Con is perpetuating."

Aside from that, their own source they cite to prove their point says in their conclusion that "this study corroborates international findings that people of non-heterosexual orientation report elevated levels of mental health problems and service usage, and it lends further support to the suggestion that perceived discrimination may act as a social stressor in the genesis of mental health problems in this population."

The source doesn't admit anything for certain like my opponent claims. They have merely stated something as a fact and yet their own source doesn't prove what they say. And the links I have posted show that mental health issues for homosexuals is worse.

"First, turn. Con's standard is by doing what the majority wants."

No, my standard is doing what the Bible says. But that is not the point. The majority are for Christian principles and therefore the minorities (who are causing serious problems) should not be given special rights. As for the polls, they weren't surveying Christians as far as I can tell. They were asking every day Americans those questions. So my opponent's claim about the majority of Christians supporting Gay Marriage is unsupported. Please note that this is the third time that have misused a source.

"It's usually seen as a bad thing, since the government doesn't just rule by whatever the people want. It rules by what *benefits* its people most, or reduces harm to its people most, while having certain limits in exercising control (e.g. harm principle)."

Yes and as I have shown, homosexuality causes harm to society in multiple aspects and therefore should not be allowed.

"First, Con doesn't show that there are absolutes such as "right" and "wrong," at least with respect to sex."

I didn't mention anything about absolutes in my original argument so I am not sure what my opponent is referring to. I asked how homosexuals decided what was right and wrong. I tend to think that actions that harm society are wrong. So again, I ask, from where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?

"Second, the moral standard between homosexuals and other sexual orientations isn't necessarily different - that's just homophobic."

Again, why does my opponent have a problem with homophobia? Can't homophobic people (I am not one of them) use the same "I'm born that way" argument homosexuals use? That said, I was only asking how they determined what was right and wrong.

"First, homosexuality isn't a choice. With regard to the first source, I concede that it isn't necessarily relevant to human sexuality. But Con's *own* source says: "[while] the mechanisms for development of sexual orientation are unclear, the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is *not a choice*; that is, individuals do not choose to be heterosexual or homosexual."

So my opponent makes the same bare assertion again that his own sources don't support. However, I must add that my source clearly says that it is unclear if homosexuality is a choice or not. Since I already explained that in the previous round, I will not go into it much further. Another thing that bothers me is that my opponent is now guilty of using another double standard. I can't use a source where scientists think that homosexuals are more emotionally unhealthy but he can "prove" that homosexuality is not a choice by giving a source (actually mine) that says that people think it is not a choice.

" The suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus of the brain is twice the size in homosexual brains as it is in heterosexual ones."

I don't know what to say to that. What is that supposed to prove?

"People can't choose the size of portions of their brain. Con talks about evolution, but there's no reason for evolution to exclude homosexuality -- the same way infertility isn't a choice, but infertile couples are allowed to marry."

Homosexuality is a behavior as already established. It isn't something that one has to take part in so my opponent's logic fails here. As for evolution, the source my opponent provides only speculates. But it honestly doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

"Con says homosexuals will still be allowed to marry with people of the opposite sex, but drops my argument that marriage is connected to sexual/romantic attraction, so homosexuals can only marry people to whom they're attracted."

Marriage is connected to sexual attraction, but that attraction always disappears as time goes on. A persons appearance is not what gets people married (at least the long lasting marriages). So this whole argument based on attraction is not impressive.

"This is wrong -- homosexuality, similar to eye color, is an intrinsic characteristic that isn't a choice."

There goes that bare assertion again. No source that has been provided in this debate supports what my opponent is saying. Aside from that, they didn't even respond to my argument. Eye color does not affect people but the behavior of homosexuals does. they have dropped the argument and I will await for them to address it.

"The answer is simple: a government banning same-sex marriage while allowing opposite-sex marriage is discriminating against a certain class of people. Same-sex couples feel discriminated against, because they are. This causes psychological harms."

The source my opponent provided in its conclusion said that it "may act as a social stressor in the genesis of mental health problems in this population." Nothing was proven...though I think its safe to say that it is really people that cause people self esteem issues. It isn't the laws.

"Even if gay marriage is banned, we're going to be spending money to cure mental and physical illnesses in homosexuals -- there's no question of that. So banning gay marriage isn't going to solve that issue."

Disease has gone up ever since homosexuality has been more accepted in the world. Not accepting it made this way less of an issue. So I disagree with what my opponent said.

Note: I will discuss the the slippery slope augment in the last round due to lack of characters.
Debate Round No. 3
tejretics

Pro

I'll start with a quote from the landmark Supreme Court case where same-sex marriage was legalized in the United States:

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were . . . [M]arriage embodies a love that may even endure past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. [We must] grant them that right." [1]

Voting Issues

I'll address all of Con's rebuttals and responses here, and simultaneously provide an overview of the debate. This debate has a few key issues (I'll address each in turn) :

- Spread of diseases
- Emotional/mental health
- Religious values
- Justice
- Economic benefits

1. Spread of Diseases

First, all Con proved was that the rate of disease spread was higher among homosexuals. This was a correlation. Con doesn't do anything to establish causation. Con concedes that the reason for this is the "amount of partners they have." The number of partners only *correlates* with homosexuality. Con doesn't establish causation, so this is a correlation/causation fallacy. [2] Con has the burden to show that this is sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage.

Second, Con says "even though people will still commit crimes, we shouldn't legalize the crimes just because of that fact." Con completely misses the point of the rebuttal - banning gay sex has nothing at all to do with banning gay marriage. Banning gay marriage won't stop gay sex, or won't even reduce it significantly. So this isn't relevant to the resolution at all. Also, none of the reasons for banning gay marriage includes restricting all homosexuals from marrying - all of them are unsound, for reasons I will soon explain.

2. Emotional/mental health. First, this argument is completely irrelevant to the resolution. A link between homosexuality and mental health doesn't mean same-sex marriage should be banned, because there's no link between mental/emotional health and marriage. Second, Con's source doesn't actually show that "homosexuals have more issues with their emotional health." My objection wasn't using a source - obviously people use sources. My objection was this: the source didn't actually show that homosexuals have more problems with mental health. It merely recorded public opinion on this, which isn't a reasonable indicator of truth. Third, the point about affairs, etc. is merely a correlation - it isn't indicative of causation at all. With regard to discrimination, Con quotes my source which just concedes my point, and then asserts that it says "nothing of the sort." The source clearly notes that discrimination is a major factor in emotional harms, and if you read Con's own quote, that'll be indicated.

3. Christianity. Con says "the majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity should be the standard." This makes no sense, because the same logic is more direct: the majority of Americans are for same-sex marriage (including Christians), so legalizing same-sex marriage should be the standard. There's no reason to support Christian values outside of the majority being Christian; so Con's standard is based on doing what the majority wants. And the majority supports same-sex marriage. So Con's own logic is turned. And I didn't say the majority of Christians supported same-sex marriage - I said since same-sex marriage is supported by the majority, a large number of Christians support same-sex marriage too (that's basic math). Also, Con offers no reason to do whatever the majority wants, or how that upholds "justice," because the resolution is about justice. Furthermore, the resolution isn't US-specific. It talks about a hypothetical "just society," and Con has to prove that such a society is a Christian one. In fact, a majority of Protestants and a majority of Catholics (these two sects make up 95.32% of American Christians) in the US support same-sex marriage. [3]

4. Justice. Con now agrees with me that attraction to people of the same sex isn't a choice. Con drops my arguments in favor of marriage being an attraction, merely saying that the attraction eventually fades away - that's irrelevant. Without sexual attraction, marriage wouldn't exist, and Con concedes that. Therefore, preventing same-sex marriage is preventing homosexuals from marrying people they are attracted to, and, thus, discriminates against them. Any biological characteristic that isn't a choice is an innate characteristic, like eye color, and I've thoroughly attacked and refuted all of Con's sources that supposedly show uncertainty in this, and demonstrably proven that homosexuality is an innate characteristic. Such discrimination, therefore, is arbitrary and unjust, so vote Pro. Con also doesn't sufficiently address my argument from psychological harms, merely saying that it's uncertain. Con only addresses my source #5 from R2, where there's no seeming uncertainty, like Con claims. And Con drops source #6 from R2, which says, "Laws that exclude lesbian, gay and bisexual people from marriage cause stress, and that stress negatively impacts physical and mental health."

5. Economic benefits. Con doesn't prove that "accepting homosexuality more" causes disease. Once more, it's just a correlation/causation fallacy. There's no evidence that suggests this. So this pales in comparison to my evidence from economic benefits, which Con drops.

Con says he'll address the slippery slope issue next round, but this is unfair, because I won't have a chance to respond. Indeed, debate convention dictates that new arguments/evidence ("arguments" includes "rebuttals") can't be presented in the final round - only extensions of previous arguments are allowed. So I urge judges to not consider the slippery slope issue at all.

Conclusion

I've proven, through this debate, that it is unjust to deny homosexuals rights that we give heterosexuals, since homosexuality is an innate characteristic and isn't a choice. The debate is about justice, so that's easily the strongest argument in the debate. I've also shown that social stigmatization that results from this injustice causes psychological harms. Finally, I've shown that legalizing same-sex marriage brings with it a plethora of economic benefits, boosting consumption and creating jobs.

Con's case, meanwhile, is primarily homophobic nonsense that extrapolates supposed causation from mere correlations and has no impact outside of retributive justice when there's no moral culpability involved. Con also doesn't prove that an ideal society is a Christian one or that the tyranny of the majority is desirable, and fails to realize that the majority actually supports same-sex marriage, turning that argument. Con doesn't have any offense left.

For all these reasons, vote Pro.

1. Obergefell v. Hodges, 567 U.S. ____ (2015)
2. https://web.cn.edu...
3. http://publicreligion.org...
Jerry947

Con

My opponent says that he will "start with a quote from the landmark Supreme Court case where same-sex marriage was legalized in the United States."

He provides the quote and then says nothing about it. I don't get why he included that at all.

Then they say that "First, all Con proved was that the rate of disease spread was higher among homosexuals. This was a correlation. Con doesn't do anything to establish causation."

Really? My opponent said it was a coincidence and didn't support that claim at all. I said that sexual promiscuity was the reason for this. So ironically, I supported my claim and my opponent failed to to the same with their own argument.

Then they say that "Con concedes that the reason for this is the 'amount of partners they have.' The number of partners only *correlates* with homosexuality. Con doesn't establish causation, so this is a correlation/causation fallacy. Con has the burden to show that this is sufficient reason to ban same-sex marriage."

No, I have to give reasons to show why Gay Marriage should not be permitted. The diseases that are spread due to homosexual relations causes damage to societies which is why I am against condoning the practice. Let me remind my opponent that they have to defend all of the assertions they make as well.

Then it is said that "Banning gay marriage won't stop gay sex, or won't even reduce it significantly." Again, we shouldn't legalize actions just because people will do the behavior anyway. My opponent drops my point.

My opponent then asserts that "A link between homosexuality and mental health doesn't mean same-sex marriage should be banned, because there's no link between mental/emotional health and marriage." The affects on emotional health do not disappear with marriage. So the problem still exists.

"The source clearly notes that discrimination is a major factor in emotional harms, and if you read Con's own quote, that'll be indicated."

I have already explained what the quote said. I feel like I've addressed it well.

"Con says 'the majority of Americans are Christians, so Christianity should be the standard.' This makes no sense, because the same logic is more direct: the majority of Americans are for same-sex marriage (including Christians), so legalizing same-sex marriage should be the standard."

Okay, well first of all, I never said that. I said that "The majority are for Christian principles and therefore the minorities (who are causing serious problems) should not be given special rights." So my opponent has misrepresented me. As for polls showing that the majority want same sex marriage, I could also show articles proving that most Americans don't want government to be involved with this decision (https://www.lifesitenews.com...). Article number three that my opponent provides is questionable. I would like to see a more reliable source before coming to any conclusions.

"I've proven, through this debate, that it is unjust to deny homosexuals rights that we give heterosexuals, since homosexuality is an innate characteristic and isn't a choice."

No, my opponent has merely misrepresented his own sources and then claims that homosexuality is not a choice.

"Finally, I've shown that legalizing same-sex marriage brings with it a plethora of economic benefits, boosting consumption and creating jobs."

Yes, and I have proven that lots of damage happens because of homosexuality and the diseases they spread costs lots of money and has a negative impact on our society.

"Con's case, meanwhile, is primarily homophobic nonsense that extrapolates supposed causation from mere correlations and has no impact outside of retributive justice when there's no moral culpability involved. Con also doesn't prove that an ideal society is a Christian one or that the tyranny of the majority is desirable, and fails to realize that the majority actually supports same-sex marriage, turning that argument. Con doesn't have any offense left."

No, none of this was homophobic. Pro failed to support any of their original claims such as homosexuality being a choice, economic benefits and etc...and I have not only refuted those claims but have also supported my arguments.

As for the slippery slope argument, I am not bringing up a new argument. It is one I used in the first round and I am just going to defend myself. i fail to see how this is unfair.

My opponent asserted that pedophilia is not okay due to consent reasons. My question is "If what is sexually permissible is what is based on consent, then what do you do with with younger-than-18 adolescents who consent to having sex with much older people? Is it okay?" (https://carm.org...).

My opponent pretty much admits that the other things should be allowed (Necrophilia...doesn't address a lot of the others things I mentioned.)

I rest my case and I again thank my opponent for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThinkBig 6 months ago
ThinkBig
I wish I could vote, but my ELO score is not yet high enough.
Posted by tejretics 6 months ago
tejretics
I'll post later today - I'm so lazy.
Posted by Jerry947 6 months ago
Jerry947
That is the same assertion you gave in the debate which your own sources didn't prove. Though if you look at my arguments, it wouldn't even matter if it were a choice. I technically didn't even have to go down that road since you can't prove (even a little) that being attracted to the same sex isn't a choice.

But to me, it seems obvious that normal people can control their sexual desires and being enthralled by someones physical beauty never lasts forever.
Posted by tejretics 6 months ago
tejretics
>Homosexual behavior is most definitely a choice.

So is heterosexual behavior.

Being attracted to the same sex, however, is definitely not.
Posted by Jerry947 6 months ago
Jerry947
In life, we have the ability to make all kinds of choices. I don't doubt that some people are attracted to their own sex for whatever reason (nothing has even come close to being proven genetically). But homosexual behavior is most definitely a choice.
Posted by tejretics 6 months ago
tejretics
I'm not going to add it in the debate - what I'll add in the debate is irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm curious that you think homosexuality is a choice. So -- and I'm serious, this isn't some vague debate-argument to be broken down by judges -- do this: "choose" to be whatever sexual orientation you aren't, and see how it goes.
Posted by Jerry947 6 months ago
Jerry947
Feel free to put that in your next post.

This might be interesting after all...
Posted by tejretics 6 months ago
tejretics
You actually believe that homosexuality is a choice?

Challenge: "choose" to change your sexual orientation for a week. See how it goes.
Posted by Jerry947 6 months ago
Jerry947
You used a different argument.
Posted by Jerry947 6 months ago
Jerry947
It certainly can be depending on who you are talking to.

Hopefully we can make this interesting. Are you going to post the same argument you had before? I still have my old response ready.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kasmic 5 months ago
kasmic
tejreticsJerry947
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Rfd http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/88706/