Gay marriage should remain illegal everywhere
We're not arguing about a relationship between two people of the same gender, we're talking about a legal contract that recognizes the two as together. Issues involving 'the right to raise children' are expected to be brought up despite not being necessarily involved in every marriage.
To avoid any confusion, please ask any questions in the comments section.
Please jump straight into argument once you accept (no acceptance round) as you're the one who has to start this debate.
I look forward to your acceptance.
I thank my opponent for presenting this argument. I look forward to debating. I would like to remind my opponent that under general debating guidelines, the person who presents the topic or assertion has the burden of proof, under most circumstances .
In response to, “Gay marriage should remain illegal everywhere.”
For the following refutation, I will define remain. Remain is a verb which, as defined by Dictionary.com, means “to continue in the same rate; continue to be as specified” and “to stay behind or in the same place,” or, as defined by Marriam-Webster, “to continue unchanged.”
I can assure the opposing side of this debate that gay marriage has already been legalized in areas of the world.
Canada passed an act (“Civil Marriage Act”) which allows same-sex marriage nation-wide.
Gay marriage was made legal in Mexico City, Mexico, on 4 March 2010. Even after being challenged, same-sex marriage was deemed legal throughout the whole country.
Gay marriage in the United States is not allowed nationally, yet it has been allowed in some states, such as Iowa. Iowa recognized same-sex marriage 3 April 2009.
As of 22 October 2009, Germany allowed same-sex partnerships to have the same rights as non-same-sex marriages. Germany is among countries like Finland who recognize same-sex partnerships, but actually made it legal for the unions to have the same rights as non-same-sex marriages, as stated before.
As collected from the evidence preceding this statement, the legalization of same-sex marriage has changed. Same-sex marriage is an issue discussed throughout the world, and as shown in the statements above, gay marriage cannot remain illegal everywhere because it is not illegal everywhere; same-sex marriage has already become legal in some areas.
Parenting Effectiveness is Not Related to Parental Sexual Orientation
The American Psychological Association made a clear stance after extensive research regarding same-sex couples: “The APA [American Psychological Association] believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges” . The stance of the APA certainly does not establish a level of morality or a level of belief that everyone has, and it is certainly not the focus of this debate. However, the APA has done research regarding the effects of same-sex couples among society and with parental relations.
In Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children, the APA stated, “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children” .
Marriage Offers Social, Psychological, and Health Benefits That Are Denied to Same-Sex Couples
According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Self-Actualization is the top tier which is usually hardly reached by individuals. Even if the preceding statement is overstated to any degree, it must be noted that Self-Actualization is a level of Maslow’s needs that is difficult to achieve. According to the American Psychological Association, “in our society the role that most frequently provides a strong positive sense of identity, self-worth, and mastery is marriage” . The APA further explains how same-sex couples are denied important benefits as a married couple: “Both tangible and intangible elements of the marital relationship have important implications for the psychological and physical health of married individuals and for the relationship itself. Because they are denied the opportunity to marry, partners in same-sex couples are denied these benefits” .
Through multiple sources and studies, the APA asserted that, “People who are unhappy with their marriage often manifest lower levels of well-being than their unmarried counterparts, and experiencing marital discord and dissatisfaction is often associated with negative health affects” .
With the general assumption that a government is generally in favor of the health of its peoples, a government not allowing gay marriage causes unnecessary negative health effects (for those of the same-sex classification of course).
 Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370 - “usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.”
As for the burden of proof, gay marriage being illegal is the standard throughout most of the world. Citation  shows the countries which have allowed same-sex marriage, and through observation, we can assess that same-sex marriage is not the norm throughout the world. Hence, the burden of proof is dealt to the Con to demonstrate why the norm should be changed. However, I have structured the argument so that the burden may appear to be on me. I'm confident in my ability to argue, and because of this, I think that I can provide reasons for implementing laws against same-sex marriage, rather than merely refuting reasons to abolish laws illegalising same-sex marriage.
"Gay marriage should remain illegal everywhere" insinuates that gay marriage is becoming accepted in parts (as you have expressed) and that this should not be happening, hence "should remain illegal everywhere…" …but is not doing so. I apologise if this was not clear.
"Parenting Effectiveness is Not Related to Parental Sexual Orientation"
I agree with most of what was cited and am willing to concede that most areas required to raise a child could be met by the same-sex couple. However, how would two men be able to teach a girl how to become a woman? They do not resonate with the same general thoughts or emotions (especially is we consider the comparison between a woman to a girl, and a gay man to a girl). No amount of reading or listening could ever help a gay man feel like a girl, whereas a woman once a girl and knows what it is like to be one. Whilst it is possible that the gay man could provide a decent emotional understanding (among other things) of a girl, there is no substitute for the real thing (a woman). Furthermore, a gay woman does not act (or feel) like a traditional woman. So, even a gay woman would be inferior to a straight woman in this sense.
As an aside, not teaching a girl how to be a woman would undermine the traditional family (which I'll address later).
"Marriage Offers Social, Psychological, and Health Benefits That Are Denied to Same-Sex Couples"
Keep in mind that whilst a fraction of the population may suffer (homosexuality rates are about 15%, not sure of actual statistic, but it is certainly a minority), ALL children in a marriage will be affected (in a traditional upbringing sense). Relative to your self-actualisation argument, a girl raised both two gay men may not reach her potential due to the two being unable to understand and address her emotional needs. Will you then argue that 15% of the population is more than important than the other 85%? I argue that this is not "unnecessary".
Gay marriage will weaken the validity of marriage
Already marred by high divorce rates, marriage has become less meaningful over the years. Are people likely to see it as more meaningful if governments change laws to allow for gay marriage? It's basically saying that the old concept of marriage was wrong. What will likely be a result of allowing the constraints and ramifications of marriage to change is that joke-marriages (e.g. marriage of animals) and shorter marriages will result. This will be because marriage will not be taken seriously anymore; the modality of the term "marriage" will be severely lessened.
A further weakening of the traditional family would result
Allowing a new type of marriage would encourage people to turn from the traditional marriage. This is disastrous because it is this traditional marriage which has guided many countries through great hardship. For example, during the Great Depression, men would be trying to find a job whilst the woman stayed home to attend house-duties. Such a structured framework did not allow deviation or ‘grey areas' where uncertainty would surely result (which would be devastating). Hence, everyone knew what they should be doing and everyone could focus on the task instead of trying to work out what they should be doing. Having two men or two women in a relationship would not produce this same level of rigid framework and ineffectiveness in the form of idling would be more likely in comparison to the traditional marriage.
Basically, gender roles are based upon actualities (women are different to men both physically and psychologically, and therefore, have different needs). Allowing same gender marriage would upset this and cause much confusion and some ineffectiveness in and because of marriage.
 "Married adults now divorce two-and-a-half times as often as adults did 20 years ago and four times as often as they did 50 years ago" - Brian K. Williams, Stacy C. Sawyer, Carl M. Wahlstrom, Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, 2005
In Response to the Rebuttal of Sexual Orientation and Parenting Effects
Although both parties in this debate have discussed matters not specifically related to the “legal contract that recognizes the two as together,” I must remind my opponent that such arguments should at least be supported with evidence if they are to continue to be discussed.
My opponent gave no evidence to support the claim that a man, or two men, cannot adequately provide (in an emotional sense) support for the teenage girl. I will return to my previous statements based on research by the American Psychological Association regarding same-sex couple parenting: “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.”
In response to, “Even a gay woman would be inferior to a straight woman in this sense:” I must note that just because a gay woman may not be able to relate in a sexual oriented way to the child, this does not necessarily mean that the woman cannot relate to the child, even in an emotional sense.
In Response to the Rebuttal of “Denied Health Benefits of Same-Sex Couples”
“Relative to your self-actualisation argument, a girl raised both two gay men may not reach her potential due to the two being unable to understand and address her emotional needs.” I definitely refute the basis of the rebuttal presented.
Abraham Maslow mentioned the following regarding self-actualization: “intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately of what is the organism itself...self-actualization is growth-motivated rather than deficiency-motivated” . With this in mind, I must say that even if gay parents could not meet the “emotional needs” of the child, the child would most likely not be affected when it comes to self-actualization. My original argument regarding this actually did not contain any mention of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in relation to children. The argument was guided toward a person who is engaged in a marriage: They would feel more self-worth. Only my first argument was directed specifically toward children, not this one.
Legalizing Gay Marriage Would NOT Harm Traditional Family Values or Heterosexual Marriages
A question meant to imply a rhetorical response should not be the basis of such an argument. My opponent has given no evidence that new laws which make gay marriage legal would negatively affect the traditional view of marriage. It is not “basically saying that the old concept of marriage was wrong.” Governments legalizing gay marriage are not doing so to prove that an old model is flawed; they are doing it to provide more rights for a minority within the country.
I agree with my opponent that increasing divorce rates are alarming. However, the legalization of gay marriage does not necessarily add to the increasingly bad divorce rate. “Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage” . In fact, Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates. Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, divorce rates have decreased 21% between 2003 and 2008. In addition, Alaska, who altered their constitution to prohibit gay marriage, have seen an increase in divorce rates of 17.2% . “The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage” . These statistics do not directly correlate with the legalization or non-legalization of gay marriage, but the statistics strongly appear to resemble a correlation when it comes to the legalization of gay marriage, or the ban of it.
In Relation to the “Weakening of Traditional Family Values”
“Allowing a new type of marriage would encourage people to turn from the traditional marriage […] during the Great Depression, men would be trying to find a job whilst the woman stayed home to attend house-duties.”
I must remind my opponent that we currently reside in the 21st century where views of this system are not exactly intact anymore. Obvious trends show that people are already turning away from the traditional system of “Woman stays home to clean, man goes out to work.” Furthermore, current movements toward gay marriage are merely contributing the new way we even think about marriage. Keep in mind though, gay marriage is not the only contributor to “changing ways:” Take interracial marriage as one example.
 Maslow, 1987.
 http://gaymarriage.procon.org.... Point 11.
 Nate Silver, "Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans," www.fivethirtyeight.com, Jan. 12, 2010.
I recognise my lack of “evidence” in support of my arguments thus far has impeded upon my arguments. I assure my opponent that I have now thoroughly researched the topic and will be referencing all claims; therefore, ensuring the discussion of said claims will be continued.
“My opponent gave no evidence to support the claim that a man, or two men, cannot adequately provide (in an emotional sense) support for the teenage girl.”
While I did give evidence to support my claims (through the use of reasoning, not references to research, but let’s not get into semantics on this one), I understand that my point, although while expressed, was not supported with research. “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation”, is vague if analysed; “parenting effectiveness” could mean various things. Since the values between families and societies standards can often be large (e.g. An Islamic family living in a Christian community), “parenting effectiveness”, I conclude, is not an effective measurement due to its subjective nature. Therefore, because of its vagueness, what may be “parenting effectiveness” for the APA may be awfully ineffective for a community or family. I searched APA’s site, yet I could not find a definition. While this claim does not undermine the value of studies the APA has collected, a definition would bring much clarity and resolve the vagueness issue.
I would like to question the legitimacy of the APA as some other “studies” appear to have questionable results.
“For example, some observers have expressed concern that children living with lesbian mothers or gay fathers will be stigmatized, teased, or otherwise victimized by peers… Results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns ”
Children not bullying another child for have parents who are different (gay)? For children, a common insult is “gay” . Therefore, this could extend into children being bullied for having gay parents (AND HAS HAPPENED ). While this does not prove that the studies of the Homosexual parents raising children were inaccurate, it does the APA’s credibility no favour when I (and hopefully you) see this horribly flawed verdict.
“Even a gay woman would be inferior to a straight woman in this sense:” I must note that just because a gay woman may not be able to relate in a sexual oriented way to the child, this does not necessarily mean that the woman cannot relate to the child, even in an emotional sense.
Your argument reads as if sexual orientation is the only difference between a homosexual woman and a straight woman. “Research [by scientists at the Karolinska Institute] shows that gay men's brains resemble those of straight women” . This demonstrates that homosexuality does have an affect on not just sexual preference, but also thoughts, and consequently, actions. Furthermore, it is not a case of if “the woman [who is gay] can relate to the child [who is a straight girl]”, it is a case of a straight woman being better to raise a straight girl (a gay woman raising a straight girl is of detriment to the girl). Because homosexuality causes differences in the brain, gay woman will be less able to relate to a straight girl in terms of thought (if we make all things except their sexuality equal and constant). Therefore, a straight woman, *on average, will raise a straight girl better than a gay woman (* obviously, positive and negative influences that the care-giver offers, outside of sexuality, will affect the upbringing).
In response: In Response to the Rebuttal of “Denied Health Benefits of Same-Sex Couples”
I wish to retract my rebuttal to your original claim as my understanding of self-actualization has now been rectified. I concede all points in your response to my rebuttal.
Legalizing Gay Marriage Would NOT Harm Traditional Family Values or Heterosexual Marriages
Firstly, by definition, traditional marriage is “between a man and a woman”. The traditional marriage, is of Christian origin, hence why tradtionally performed in a church. Marriage, on the other hand, is an evolving concept and is the reason we are having this debate. Legalizing gay marriage would be an act against the Bible, and would there harm the traditional family value of a traditional marriage.
“My opponent has given no evidence that new laws which make gay marriage legal would negatively affect the traditional view of marriage.” The traditional marriage would still be legal, yes, but a non-traditional marriage would also be legal; the latter is what will impact the view of marriage. Marriage, in a traditional sense, is a sacred pact between a man and a woman under the eyes of God. This WILL change if gay marriage is allowed because the Bible does not condone homosexuality .
A 2004 study  of divorce rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 indicates that, compared to opposite-sex married couples, male homosexual couples were 1.5 times more likely to divorce and female homosexual couples 3 times more likely. As time passes and it becomes possible to inquire about same-sex registered partnerships of more than one-to-seven-years’ duration, we should see even larger differences between heterosexual and homosexual unions. So, not only will the “traditional view” be affected, but the current circumstance (in regards to marriage) has been shown to be affected too by the integration of homosexual marriage into a marriage constitution. While, as you have said, “legalization of gay marriage does not necessarily add to the increasingly bad divorce rate”, there are a large number of instances which have resulted in divorce rates increasing when homosexual marriage was legalized. Not compelling evidence, only worrying and certainly do not help the case for gay marriage.
Response to: In Relation to the “Weakening of Traditional Family Values”
“Obvious trends show that people are already turning away from the traditional system of “Woman stays home to clean, man goes out to work.”” Again, this does not undermine “the views of this system”; just because people do not like something does not mean that it is objectively bad.
“Furthermore, current movements toward gay marriage are merely contributing the new way we even think about marriage. Keep in mind though, gay marriage is not the only contributor to “changing ways:” Take interracial marriage as one example.” Interracial marriages do not affect the traditional family values, at least not in the Bible’s terms (which is the source for the traditional family values). The Bible does not condone racism.
 Paige, R. U. (2005). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 2004. Minutes of the meeting of the Council of Representatives July 28 & 30, 2004, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from the World Wide Web http://www.apa.org.... (To be published in Volume 60, Issue Number 5 of the American Psychologist.)
 Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
brandonharshe forfeited this round.
In Response to Two Men Not Being Able to Adequately Support a Teenage Girl
At this point, we are left with a simple problem in how someone interprets the results. The study found no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to the sexual orientation of a parent. However I do understand your point regarding “effectiveness.” I will leave this specific argument here and end by saying it comes down to the interpretation of “effectiveness.” I agree your claim does not undermine the study, but you bring up a plausible point of interest.
In Response to Children Being Bullied
Although I agree that children are bullied because their parents are gay, this point strays from our basis of argument. We are arguing “about a legal contract that recognizes the two [parents or people] as together.” From my belief, it would be absurd for the government to limit the right to marry due to children being bullied in school even though they would be bullied if the parents were not married. In addition, children are bullied for many other reasons.
In Response to a Gay Parent Not Being Able to Relate to a Child
For the sake of defending this point(and since we have both slightly strayed from the original point), I will continue with a rebuttal. However, I must note again that regardless of who is more correct or convincing here, it shouldn’t have anything to do with a government limiting a marriage. Gay people will form a relationship and possibly have a child under their supervision whether or not they are legally allowed to be noticed via a contract of marriage. In other words, when it all comes down to it, a government ban on gay marriage should not really affect this issue because gay people will still be in a relationship (they just won’t be legally noticed).
Even if researched demonstrated that “gay men’s brains resemble those of straight women” and that homosexuality does have an effect on sexual preference, thoughts, and actions, it shouldn’t mean that a man is incapable of successfully raising a child. From my understanding, if it is true that a gay man’s brain resembles that of a straight woman (and according to your argument of course) it would be beneficial to a female child of the gay parents. As for a straight girl being raised by a gay woman, I return to my previous argument. Just because the woman might think differently doesn’t mean they can’t successfully raise the child. I would reconsider my stance on this matter if evidence successfully showed that the different thinking styles of gay parents actually had negative outcomes on how a child was raised.
In Response to the Rebuttal of Legalizing Gay Marriage Not Harming Traditional Family Values
I was simply attempting to make the point that gay marriage wouldn’t harm traditional family values. You stated that traditional marriage is of Christian origin. Now let’s turn to the United States where gay marriage is extremely controversial. The United States has no specific religion; everyone is free to practice their own religion. From a more rational standpoint, the government shouldn’t impose restrictions just because it is against the Christian religion when there is clearly no specific religion the country has chosen anyways.
Proposition 8: California, United States
I must direct our attention Proposition 8. In 2008, California voters voted to ban gay marriage with Proposition 8. This ban has lasted until very recently. I also use this as additional material for my previous point.
“Same-sex marriage moved one step closer to the Supreme Court on Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled California's ban unconstitutional, saying it serves no purpose other than to "lessen the status and human dignity" of gays” . The Huffington Post wrote, “The court said it was unconstitutional because it singled out a minority group for disparate treatment for no compelling reason.
I ask the voters of this debate to consider only the factual information presented in this debate when forming an opinion. If you are biased toward one side completely (before the argument), please carefully review the argument and consider the points from both parties.
|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:||3||0|