The Instigator
curious18
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Puppet911
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 18000
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

curious18

Pro

Gay marriage should have all the same rights as straight marriage.

Gay marriage: recognition by the government of two people of the same sex to be in a union with legal benefits.

Straight marriage: recognition by the government of two people of the opposite sex to be in a union with legal benefits.
Puppet911

Con

Hello, and thank you. I would like to wish a gracious good luck to my opponent, and myself, and hope that this debate will yield some good fruit.

I would like to begin by saying that my personal oppinion with the resolution put forth is in acceptance, so I personally agree with my assertion that GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL, but I will be arguing otherwise. I wish to offend no one, and hope for this too be a good debate.

I completely agree with my opponent's def. put forth, but don't necesarily understand what she is trying to propose. In saying that gay marriage couples should have the same rights as staright couples, you are argung that they already don't, which isn't necessarily true because gay marriage is not necessarily legal in all places, therfore, your resolution shouldgo as follows...'Resolved: Gay Marriage should be Legal In The United States.' That would be a more inflicting and tumultuous topic to debate opon, thereof its implications would follow, but in my understanding of your topic, I am obliged, as Con to simply argue that Gay Marriage couples should simply have the same rights as staright marriage couples, even though this proves to be false and comical. Anyhow.

Now onto my contentions as too why Gay Marriage couples SHOULD NOT have the same rights as straight couples. My arguments will extend through various reasons, bur primarily why giving them the same rights wouldn necessarily result in the best impacts (let alone, ultimately letting them marry---as your resolution poorly states).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Contention One: Not Economically Beneficial

Gay couples have complicated financial lives, and preparing tax returns is no exception.

Since the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, gay couples who are living in states that do recognize their various legal unions must still file separate federal returns. That requires more record-keeping and planning than their heterosexual counterparts — and oftentimes, gay couples will have to pay more to an accountant to prepare their returns.

But the consequences aren’t all negative. By remaining unmarried, some same-sex couples will avoid the so-called marriage penalty. This occurs when a couple’s combined income pushes them into a higher tax bracket than if they had remained single. Or, they may qualify for more tax deductions or credits that phase out as their income rises.

On the other hand, plenty of same-sex couples end up paying higher tax bills than their heterosexual married counterparts, including those with a stay-at-home parent. That’s because the tax code tends to favor married couples with disparate incomes or a nonworking spouse. [1]

All in all, SSM (Same Sex Marriage) is most definately not economically beneficial and a certain contributor to our byzantine tax structure where it creates bureaucratic regulations into the calculations made by people in their relationship decisions, and often discriminates against single people. [2]

Contention Two: Violence In Homosexual Lifestyles Is More Likely

Not to mention, another factor that is notable in regards to homosexuality and health is the significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual couples. In addition, according to experts homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal. Many inclduing Johnathan Goodwin and Marian Sury, notice these rates, and realize how they could substantially INCREASE if SSM was allowed or in this case...LEGALIZED! Authors and info. obtained by American Society of Clinical Pathologists, Chicago, IL, ETATS-UNIS [3]

A Branch of to this argument would be the unhealthy impacts of promoting a homosexual lifestyle.

The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy. Obtained by Division of Hematology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, ETATS-UNIS [4]

Contention Three: SSM is Sexist

Homosexuality is a genetic, preconceived preference for one's own gender above the other. Thus, same sex marriage is inherently sexist. Homosexuals always reject the opposite sex without regard to individual merit. To discriminate is to show preference on the basis of class -- sex, race, color, religion, degree of ability, etc. -- not by individual merit. Prejudice is a preconceived preference.
All in all, as stated, by allowing for this, you are allowing for a sense of sexism. By allowing for a sense of sexism, you are allowing for the wrong thing instead of right, which Pro is trying to dictate.
[5]

Contention Four: SSM Will Create A Slippery-Slope

If same-sex marriages are legalized, then decriminalization of prostitution, polygyny, polyandry, and incest will necessarily follow. Men will marry two or more women; women will marry multiple men; multiple women and multiple men will form group marriages; men will want to marry their dogs, whom they dearly love; etc. Once the floodgates are opened, there will be no stopping the changes.
This is not just an assumption, but fact. Many are supporters of this idea, even few gay marriage advocates realize the impacts that allowing SSM could have not only on people, but our society as whole if allowed. [6]
All in all, although this is not 100% certain, you are in a way ALLOWING for it too happen, and that is not good. Yes, you are allowing for people to have 'free rights' to marriage and so forth, but really what extent? And if you were to propose that SSM be legal and so forth, then what other alternative or route would you take to prevent this from happening?
Nothing, there is nothing to do, so you should do NOTHING about the situation.

.

Tom Wappell, a Canadian member of parliament for Scarborough Southwest, and a member of the Liberal party, is a well-known opponent of SSM. While debating SSM in parliament, he noted that marriage has always been a discriminatory institution. The government refuses marriage licenses to certain persons, discriminating on the basis of age, mental disability, consanguinity, religion and sex. He asked: "...why is it acceptable to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but continue to permit and perpetuate in legislation and common law other forms of discrimination? Either we eliminate all forms of discrimination or we leave the current definition alone." Eliminating discrimination would legalize child marriage, polygamy, marriage between brother and sister, etc. He continued: If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, then polygamy is inevitable. He said: "Some say that raising polygamy is a red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. That is utter legal nonsense." He referred to two instances where illegal sexual practices had become legal: court decisions have legalized SSM, and have declared laws against anal intercourse to be unconstitutional. His implication is that polygamy is next. [7]


Sources:

[1]-http://www.theatlantic.com...

[2]-http://drudgereport.com...

[3]- American Society of Clinical Pathologists, Chicago, IL, ETATS-UNIS

[4]- Division of Hematology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, ETATS-UNIS

[5]- http://www.mplsvpn.info...

[6]- Jennifer Roback explains in a speech at Wheaton College (obatined from National Organizaion of Marriage---http://www.nomblog.com......)

[7]- Tom Wappell, a Canadian member of parliament for Scarborough Southwest, and a member of the Liberal party



Debate Round No. 1
curious18

Pro

curious18 forfeited this round.
Puppet911

Con

Please extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
curious18

Pro

curious18 forfeited this round.
Puppet911

Con

Vote Con. Obvious.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Puppet911 3 years ago
Puppet911
@Kohai, please read the first few paragraphs of my opening statements and your answer will be prevailed in my answer that 'no,' i don't really think this. but please, read the first few paragraphs of my opening statement, you'll see what I mean.
Posted by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
CON, are your arguments serious?
Posted by obrya1jr 3 years ago
obrya1jr
Why would you possibly want to involve the government in a beautiful friendship? All the rights imposed are made up anyway. Just love the way you feel is right and forget what anyone has to say about it. It lacks in monetary kickback but it's at least the truest bond you can have; to know each others faithfulness is the only bond you need to be in love for life.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 months ago
Zarroette
curious18Puppet911Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
curious18Puppet911Tied
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: Sad forfeit.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
curious18Puppet911Tied
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: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 3 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
curious18Puppet911Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: There has been a forfeit by the part of the PRO, so there's really no way that PRO could've won. The debate goes to the CON.