The Instigator
Vera95
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 937 times Debate No: 33769
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Vera95

Con

1.The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson (186 KB) , the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." [49]

2.Marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) (851 KB) and with 40.6% of babies being born to unmarried mothers (312 KB) in 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution. [50] [51]

3.Gay marriage could potentially lead down a "slippery slope" ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. [10] Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." [11]

4.Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples may lead to churches being forced to marry couples and children being taught in school that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. [12]

5.People should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse"s health insurance policy. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending (28 KB) between 2010 and 2019. [37]

6.Gay marriage will lead to more children being raised in same-sex households which are not an optimum environment for raising children because children need both a mother and father. Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity (827 KB) and teenage pregnancy. Children without a mother are deprived of the emotional security and unique advice that mothers provide. An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggesed that children with lesbian or gay parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior (3.9 MB) . In the 1997 book Growing up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development, Fiona Tasker, PhD, and Susan Golombok, PhD, observed that 25% of sampled young adults raised by lesbian mothers had engaged in a homoerotic relationship, compared to 0% of sampled young adults raised by heterosexual mothers. [13] [52] [53]

7.Gay marriage will accelerate the "assimilation" of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture. The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. By reducing the gap of opportunities and experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this unique culture may cease to exist. As M.V. Lee Badgett summarizes, "marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture." [14]

8.The institution of marriage is sexist and oppressive; it should not be expanded but weakened. Paula Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women's Studies, wrote in 1989, "Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships." [15] The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression." [16]

9.Same-sex marriage has lead to increased acceptance of single parenthood and has undermined the institution of marriage in Scandinavia. Sweden began offering same-sex couples benefits in 1987, followed by Denmark in 1989 and Norway in 1993. According to a Feb. 29, 2004 report by Stanley Kurtz, PhD, 60% of firstborn children in Denmark and a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. [17]

10.Marriage is not a right. Society can choose to endorse certain types of sexual arrangements and give support in the form of benefits to these arrangements. Marriage was created to allow society to support heterosexual couples in procreation and society can choose not to give the same benefits to same-sex couples. [18]

11.Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. [19]

12.Marriage is a religious rite. According to a July 31, 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman (67 KB) "" [54]

13.Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and conflating the issue with interracial marriage is misleading. Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained: "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights categories." [62]
Magic8000

Pro

Thanks Con! It seems Con joined just to challenge me to debate. I feel very special!

One can't argue with Con's sources, because he didn't provide any. A wizard named google told me that Con copied and pasted his entire argument from gaymarriage.procon.org. Neat site, but you could've cited it.

My arguments

Love is love regardless of gender. The Supreme Court said in Loving v. Virginia said that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," [1]. Gay marriage should be legal for the same reasons as interracial marriage, equality. There's many rights one gets when their married [2], not allowing consenting couples to marry is to deny rights. This shouldn't just be about money, but allowing gay marriage actually boosts the economy [3].

Con's arguments.

1. This is what we're debating. The definition can change and arguments need to be given why it should stay or change.

2. How would it weaken? Marriage is a contract, not something that weakens overall with divorce. It's like saying we shouldn't sign contracts if more people are breaking the agreement, because the institution of contracts would weaken. This argument holds a hidden assumption. Why should we assume gays would make the institution weaker? Why wouldn't it strengthen it? Maybe have no effect at all. Why would it necessarily weaken it? This seems to be an argument against gays and not gay marriage. Someone could use this as an argument against marriage in general, marriage shouldn't be allowed, since divorce rates are already wreaking it.

3. This is a slippery slope fallacy [4]. Polygamist marriages if consensual, I see no problem with. However comparing it to incest and bestiality is false. Incest ruins genetics and an animal can't consent to marriage or sign a legal contract, so it's a blatant false analogy.

4. It's irrelevant if religion doesn't approve of gay marriage. It doesn't mean it should be illegal. Claiming churches will be forced to marry gays is a scare tactic. The first amendment protects religious practices. Many churches will not marry people who are divorced, or marry a couple whose denomination differs from the church's. Children being taught about gay marriage is not an argument against gay marriage, but again against gays. Something doesn't have to be permitted in order to be taught about. For example, something such as drugs is usually taught about, but not legal. Furthermore, would you be OK if heterosexual marriage was taught in schools? If you are, how isn't this just being bias against gays?

5. This is argument is basically “I don't like gays, so gays shouldn't be married”. Is not liking a group of people getting your tax dollars really a good reason for not letting them marry? Many didn't like blacks decades ago, should they have been allowed to marry? Should left wingers not be allowed to marry because right wingers don't approve of them? Since approval of gay marriage is above 50%[5] , should couples who are against gay marriage be allowed to marry?

6. This could also be an argument against singles adopting, being raised in an orphanage, or divorce.

Does a fatherless child necessarily mean a gay couple? Did the study examine gay couples or only divorced and singe parents? More information is needed in that one. The second argument is circular, it assumes the very position you have . Why would it be bad for kids to be more likely to engage in homosexual behavior when older? Only if it's first assumed to be bad. It could be that children raised in with homosexual parents are more open and honest with themselves. Finally, numerous studies have shown kids with gay parents turn out just as good as kids with straight parents, and sometimes better [6][7][8].

7. Why is this bad? Gay marriage doesn't even need to be legalized for this to happen.


8. Marriage is a contract between people. The want of gay identity is irrelevant to the want of marriage equality. No evidence is given for thinking these are the primary goals anyway. Also, something that the Gay Liberation Front says doesn't mean every gay believe it. In this argument you said (or copied)

The institution of marriage is sexist and oppressive; it should not be expanded but weakened

However, argument 2 was saying gay marriage should be illegal because it would weaken the institution. If Con thinks gay marriage will weaken the institution, and he thinks the institution should be weakened, then he supports gay marriage.

9, This commits the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:

  1. A occurs before B.

  2. Therefore A is the cause of B. [9]

The study says the children are born out of wedlock, however this doesn't mean single parenthood. A link between gay marriage and single parenthood makes no sense. Sex is a biological urge, single parenthoods are going to happen regardless of gay marriage law. Britain has the most single parents [10], however gay marriage has been illegal, only now are laws progressing to make it legal [11].

10. Marriage is a right. See my main argument

11. There's so much wrong with this argument. First, Con never justified this was the purpose of marriage. Procon.org's source was from the wall street journal with this one [12]. The WSJ doesn't determine what the purpose of marriage is. Ironically the article was criticizing this argument.

The once-critical relationship between sexuality and parenthood also is quickly becoming irrelevant. The explosion of reproductive technologies make it possible for men and women to reproduce regardless of sexual orientation. Finally, gender roles have become so fluid that they strain court decisions on family matters. The courts can no longer rely, as guidelines in family cases, on the once deterministic roles of "husband," "wife," "mother" and "father." [13].

When people get married, they don't swear an oath to reproduce. Infertile, old and non child wanting couples get married, even though they can't or don't want to reproduce.

12. This carries a religious assumption. The Pope can only regulate marriage among practicing Catholics. He can't dictate what Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims, or other Christians do. In order to get married, one doesn't need to goto a church. You just goto courthouse.

13. Gay marriage actually fits all three of those.

a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination

Ironically, Con's number 4 argument was

Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups.”

Gays have been discriminated against for so long. One only needs to look in the Bible for proof.

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”- Leviticus 20:13

When the Roman Empire was under Christian authority, homosexuality was shunned, often by the pain of death [14]. It's clear, gay marriage does have a longstanding history of discrimination.

Economic disadvantage

There's economic advantages for married couples [15].

Immutable Characteristics

There's many lines of evidence that show being gay isn't a choice [16][17].

Con's pasted arguments aren't very good and contradict each other.

Thanks, back to Con

Sources

___________________________________

http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Vera95

Con

Vera95 forfeited this round.
Magic8000

Pro

FF, vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
http://gaymarriage.procon.org...

Where Con plagiarized from.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
You all should know that Con completely plagiarized his arguments.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
Vera95Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and plagiarized. Because he copy-pasted the arguments, he loses the argument vote. He also loses the conduct vote for plagiarism.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Vera95Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized his arguments.
Vote Placed by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
Vera95Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Vera95Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Vera95Magic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the FF round, arguments because Magic responded to all of Con's points, and his arguments went unrebutted due to the FF. S&G and sources because plagiarism is bad; Magic wins sources for finding the source that Con didn't admit to, and S&G since apparently Con didn't use any S&G of their own. I would normally have given all 7 for the FF combined with the plagiarism anyway, but I did want to make clear that Magic's arguments were solid.