The Instigator
Angelo
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Angelo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,431 times Debate No: 20344
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

Angelo

Pro

First round = acceptance
THEBOMB

Con

Alrighty. I accept your challenge and hope to have an informative debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Angelo

Pro

C1: Gay marriage improves health

The number of visits by gay men to health clinics dropped significantly after same-sex unions were allowed in the state Massachusetts. [1]

This basically says that this may be a correlation between marriage (makes happiness) and health.

Researchers from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health surveyed the demand for medical and mental health care from 1,211 gay men registered with a particular health clinic in the 12 months prior to the change, and the 12 months afterwards.

They found a 13% drop in healthcare visits after the law was enacted. [1]

So when the SSM law was passed medical visits went down, therefore they got healthier.

The study backs up earlier research that showed that banning gay marriage had a negative effect the health of homosexuals. [2]

banning it has bed effects.

C2: Marriage is a right

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, on November 19, 2003, ruled that the state "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny gay persons the right to marry [3]

That right there says the RIGHT to marry.

That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state's ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment's rights to equal protection and due process of law. [4]

Saying that SSM bans are unconstitutional.

It is a human right, and should be treated as one [5]

C3: Children benefit from gay marriage.

Children of married gay parents benefit directly from knowing that their future holds the prospect of marriage [7]
Allowing same-sex couples to marry legally would offer significant benefits to children in both gay and straight households [7]

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000 there were at least 160,000 same-sex couple households with children. The figure is likely an undercount, Rauch said, but those children would benefit directly from same-sex marriage. [7]

C4: Allowing SSM would lower discrimination

As i have said marriage is a right, not allowing them to marry is discrimination.

The decision by the California State Supreme Court to uphold Proposition 8 and reinstate discrimination against same-sex couples was a devastating setback on the march to equality. [8]

banning gay marriage = discrimination therefore allowing it is less discrimination.

Gay couples are asking for a chance to play by the rules. We can give them that chance. For those of us who are proud of our party's and our state's reputation for fairness and against discrimination, our choice is very clear: No on Proposition 8. [9]

once again SSM = discrimination, so allowing i would lower the amount.

C5: gay marriage is good for the economy

Let's look at Iowa

The legalization of same-sex marriage in Iowa has provided an ecnomic boost to the state, according to a new study by UCLA.

The study was released by the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law which focuses on sexual orientation and public policy. It found that since Iowa extended marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2009, the resulting spending on wedding arrangements and tourism provided an additional $12 to $13 million to the state and local economy. [10]

c/p from source.

During the three-year period, the researchers project that about half of the state's more than 100,000 same-sex couples will get married and another 68,000 out-of-state couples will travel to California to exchange vows. The nuptial rush is expected to create some 2,200 jobs. [11]

c/p from source.

conclusion:

It helps the economy, ends discrimination, gives rights, is good for health, benefits children, and in my opinion there is no real reason to keep it banned, please vote pro.

sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk... [1]
http://www.newser.com... [2]
http://law2.umkc.edu... [3]
http://www.nytimes.com... [4]
http://heinonline.org...= [6]
http://www.ur.umich.edu... [7]
http://www.now.org... [8]
http://reason.com... [9]
http://abcnews.go.com... [10]
http://www.cbsnews.com... [11]
THEBOMB

Con

Contention 1. Homosexuality is a sin in virtually every religion.
It is common knowledge that most religions in the world do not support a homosexual marriage. In fact, 53% of people do not support homosexual marriage (1). Legally allowing homosexual marriage is offensive to religious organizations and anyone who does not support homosexual marriage which is a larger part of the population.

Contention 2. Legalizing homosexual marriage weakens the definition and respect for marriage.
Currently, within the United States, there is a 50% divorce rate (2) this already weakens the definition and respect for marriage. A law allowing gay marriage would speed this deterioration by increasing the number of "non-serious" marriages, friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution within the United States and is deteriorating. A law allowing homosexual marriage would only speed this deterioration.

Contention 3. This will further weaken traditional family values essential to society.
Society is strong if there is a strong core family unit. In the United States this core family unit of a man, women, and children has sustained the United States through two world wars, the Great Depression, and terrorist attacks. Society begins to break down when this family unit breaks down, such as in the United States. Introducing a new "form" of family would would only complicate and deteriorate society.

Contention 4. This provides a slippery slope in the legality of marriage.
The question asked here is what comes next? Tradition dictates that a marriage is between a man and a women, biologically this makes perfect sense as only a man and women can procreate. Gay rights activists claim that gay marriage should be legalized because it hurts nobody but, this can start a chain reaction which destroys the institution of marriage. You see their logic can be applied anywhere. Why can't someone marry their dog? It doesn't hurt anyone. Or why not their parents or brother/sister? It doesn't hurt anyone. This may seem absurd and obviously a significant portion of the United States would not support it but, that does not matter. All that is needed is a single judge to rule it correct and then apply the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Just look at the ruling California judges made about the Pledge of Allegiance (3). It does not matter what the public believes in this case.

Contention 5. The gay lifestyle should not be encouraged because studies show it leads to lower life expectancy.
Studies show that homosexuals have, on average, life expectancies 20 years lower then the rest of the population. In 1997 and 2005, two separate studies confirmed this hypothesis. Respectively the groups conducting the studies were published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and Psychological Reports respectively (4).
Debate Round No. 2
Angelo

Pro

I will change this format to see what happens. Also you plagerized many of your arguments (or part of them) from here: http://www.balancedpolitics.org...

R1: Religion

Is htat a reason to ban gay marriage? NO! Also why? Because america is not a theocracy:

Theocracy is derived from the two Greek words Qeo/j(Theos) meaning "God" and kra/tein (cratein) meaning "to rule." The Reverend Rod Parsley, a champion of theocracy, or what he calls a "christocracy," told his congregation at the World Harvest Church, located just outside Columbus, Ohio, "Theocracy means God is in control, and you are not." [1]


"True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals ... it's the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy" [1]

the most prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued." [2]


So relegion can't technically be a reason to ban marriage. The church has no say in marriage:

Obviously, in the same-sex marriage debate, the church feels a strong need to have the civil law reflect the church’s teachings. [3]

Implies they have no say now, but wan't some.

R2: legalizing marriage would weaken the insitution

“As conservatives tirelessly and rightly point out, marriage is society’s most fundamental institution. To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation. When not so long ago it was illegal in parts of America for blacks to marry whites, no one could claim that this was a trivial disenfranchisement… To outweigh such a serious claim it is not enough to say that gay marriage might lead to bad things. Bad things happened as a result of legalizing contraception, but that did not make it the wrong thing to do. Besides, it seems doubtful that extending marriage to say, another 3 or 5 percent of the population would have anything like the effects that no-fault divorce has had, to say nothing of contraception. By now, the “traditional” understanding of marriage has been sullied in all kinds of ways. It is hard to think of a bigger affront to tradition for instance, than allowing married women to own property independently of their husbands or allowing them to charge their husbands with rape. Surely it is unfair to say that marriage may be reformed for the sake of anyone and everyone except homosexuals, who must respect the dictates of tradition.” [3]

No. Allowing committed gay and lesbian couples to get married does not change the meaning of marriage. It simply allows same-sex couples to marry the person they love, to establish and protect a family, and to make a lifetime commitment in the same way other couples are able to. [4]

Allowing it would do NOTHING

R3: family values

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage harms children by denying them and their parents the support that would come to their families through the freedom to marry. Studies have proven that children of lesbian or gay parents are as well-adjusted as those of non-gay parents. [4]

Also you say "traditional" marriage. The definiton changes over time. Polygamy used to be normal and 100 kids was ok, not it not. So technically your argument is fear of new things. Marriag estrengthens family:

"Gay and lesbian couples want to get married to make a lifetime commitment to the person they love and to protect their families. Marriage says "we are family" in a way that no other word does. Marriage is one of the few times where people make a public promise of love and responsibility for each other and ask our friends and family to hold us accountable.

Gay and lesbian couples have hopes and dreams like finding that special someone to grow old with and standing in front of friends and family to make a lifetime commitment." [5]

SO it helps the family.


R4: slippery slope

The slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone claims that an apparently harmless action is likely to result in a chain reaction of events (the "slippery slope") leading up to a harmful consequence, when, in fact, the chain reaction of events is very unlikely to occur. [6]


So:

1. as stated slippery slope fallacies rarely occur
2. places with gay marriage have NOT legslized what you have said. This argument works in theory, but in practice doesn't work.

R5: Gay health

Those studies on the live longer/shorter and The other deiseses are possibly false [7]

Also a reason for their lower life expectancy is because their bullied. Lets look at suicide:

Gay, lesbian and bisexual teens are five times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts, but a supportive environment in their schools and communities can make a difference, new research suggests. [8]

SO their enviroment, if you live in conservative areas you are more deppressed. So it is not their fault they die young. Suicide and deppression = enviroemntal problems.

Also the study you site is flawed in ways.

Obituaries in gay community newspapers do not provide a representative sampling of the community. This is evident in the fact that only only 2% of the Cameron group's obituaries were for lesbians. [9]

There are just not enough gays to have an accurite study. Also since gay marriage (as proved above) helps gay health it woudl help let them live longer. A reason they die young is because they h no marriage, allowing them to marry = they are healthier and the live longer, so allowing it would make this argument irrelant. Now marriage makes them more healthy just more proof):

Columbia University researchers surveyed the demand for medical and mental health care from 1,211 gay men registered with a particular health clinic in the 12 months prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage and the 12 months afterward. There was a 13% drop in clinic visits after Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage. [10]

That means it makes them more healthy.

out of room.



http://www.theocracywatch.org... [1]
http://www.theocracywatch.org... [2]
Jonathan Rauch, author of Demosclerosis : The Silent Killer of American Government May 1996. [“For Better or For Worse?” in Same-Sex Marriage: A Reader, Pro and Con ed. by Andrew Sullivan, Vintage Books, New York, 1997] [3]
http://www.freedomtomarry.org... [4]
http://articles.mcall.com... [5]
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu... [6]
http://wthrockmorton.com... [7]
http://www.livescience.com... [8]
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu... [9]
http://www.advocate.com... [10]
THEBOMB

Con

R1. Religion.

Yes it is.

S1. Religion is part of society.
S2. People are part of society
S3. People are part of religions
S4. Religions do not approve of gay marriage.
C. A majority of people would not agree to Gay marriage because it violates their religious beliefs.

Theocracy or not has nothing to do with it.

If the Catholic Church has no say in marriage then how can they marry people?

R2. Legalizing gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage.

I never talk about tradition. I talk about how the institution itself is weakened due to divorce and that changing what marriage is further weakens the institution. I never stated that what marriage means would change just that the institution itself is deteriorating.

R3. Family values

Even if it is beneficial within society. It is ever refuted that it would complicate society. Complicated society leads to a deteriorating society. Polygamy and 100 kids are considered abnormal because society decided to change what the definition of a traditional marriage is. Traditional =/= the past. Maybe it helps the family but, it does not help society as a whole.

R4. slippery slope

No matter how unlikely it is still a possibility.

R5. Gay Health

Three separate studies confirmed the initial hypothesis. Here: http://www.freerepublic.com...

Gay's die younger. Not from bullying.

Even if only 2% are from lesbians that does not mean the findings are invalid. So gay's still die younger.
Debate Round No. 3
Angelo

Pro

R1: religion

Making a law r keeping a law due to religion is theocracy, america is not a christian nation. But really pushing a religion argument is not a viable one. You propose religion as a REASON, banning people from marriage b/c of a religion is theocracy. Also you say peoples will correct? Good then in that case I win:

53% pro gay marriage
45% no gay marriage
rest don't care [1]

R2: Institution

You never talk about tradition? whoops I made your 3 contention go in your 2.

1. allowing gays to marry would not raise divorce rates for a few reasons:

a. They are just as committed as you and me.
b. Their marriages would not affect heterosexual ones
c. Even if they where less committed their small segment of the population, so it wouldn't affect much.

But some advocates of the idea believe gay marriage would strengthen, rather than weaken, the institution. [2]

R3: family values

But the definition of marriage changes overtime. That used to be normal, so why can't gay marriage be normal? But really you use this argument yet marriage CAN change as it did in other European countries, it is normal there and they have no bad effects. So y can't it be done here? Also I showed allowing gay marriage helped the family.

R4: Slippery slope

So you rely on a very unlikely thing as an argument? That it like saying a hippopotamus wearing a thong will kill me if I am for gay marriage, then saying it is possible. Sure it is, but won't happen. You say something that MIGHT not will MIGHT hurt marriage, yet in practice it never happens. SO relying on an unlikely thing is foolish.

R5: gay health

Here are some facts:

58.6 percent of hate crimes were classified as anti-male homosexual bias. [3]

Hate crime directly indicate people are mean to them.

"Pierre Schommer, a member of Pink Cross and organiser of the sexual orientation issues in schools seminar, said that the fact that the suicide risk was higher among homosexual youths was worrying.

"It's because they are bullied, discriminated against, and because they are not accepted and don't find a way of life for their homosexuality in society," he said.

Often harassment and violence takes place at schools, which in Switzerland are often attended until the age of 20. Adolescents often react badly to someone they perceive as not behaving "normally" or like a "typical" man or woman, Schommer explained." [4]

Now they are suicidal because they are bullied, many suicidal are depressed and live shorter. So since they are depressed and do/attempt suicide that proves it is not them but an outside source. SO being gay =/= live shorter it is not gayness, it is abuse. Also I have proven allowing gay marriage is healthy so allowing gay marriage would increase their lifespan. So being gay would be ok IF they could marry. SO you say "don't let them marry b/c they die more" I have:

a. proven marriage would fix this
b. it is abuse not being gay
and c. I will now show that this argument is a bad one:

SO health is a bad reason to ban marriage. SO someone who is STRAIGHT but has cancer shouldn't be able to marry because of this. So if a reason to bar a WHOLE CLASS of people from marriage is health then straights with health problems should be barred too, well under that logic. So, health is not a reason to ban marriage to 2% of the population. If so then all unhealthy people should not marry, therefore your argument is anti all unhealthy people. It is false. Health is not a reason to ban marriage for people.

=conclusion=

I have refuted my opponents arguments, and have sources my rebuttals. Also his arguments are really just crazy, like C5 is kinda odd. My arguments are sourced as well as his, also my opponent plagiarized his first case from balanced politics as I have mentioned. I urge you to pro.

sources:

http://www.gallup.com... [1]
http://www.brookings.edu... [2]
http://gaylife.about.com... [3]
http://www.swissinfo.ch... [4]
THEBOMB

Con

R1. Religious beliefs

No, I state that a majority of Americans are part of a religion. That these religions do not support gay marriage. Therefore, it is offensive to those people to pass a law which violates these beliefs.

As for the poll, "majorities of Democrats and young people support the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage, fewer than 4 in 10 Republicans and older Americans agree. Republicans in particular seem fixed in their opinions; there was no change at all in their support level this year, while independents' and Democrats' support jumped by double-digit margins." (Your 1 source). Even so "Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 5-8, 2011, with a random sample of 1,018 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia." Only about 1,000 people are representing the views of 400 million? How does that work? In reality, this poll just tells us that 540 people support gay marriage and 458 people do not.

R2. Weakens the definition and respect for marriage
a. If they are just as committed wouldn't that mean 50% of gay marriages would end in divorce?
b. Legalizing gay marriage affects society, therefore, it affects heterosexual people.
c. So if they are less committed why should it be legalized?

strengthening the American family =/= strengthening the respect and definition of marriage.

R3. Family values

Fine, marriage can change. But, it still can "complicate and deteriorate society."

R4. Slippery Slope.

According to your own logic, it is someones right to be able to marry inter-specially. So something that MIGHT happen still CAN hurt marriage. In practice, it could happen.

R5. Gay health

This point is where most of the argumentation has been revolved around.

Once again, these reports I cited, were solely based upon natural causes (not suicide, not murder, nothing unnatural.) So yes, the gay lifestyle = less life expectancy.

I say the government should not sponsor something which causes more death.

a. Marriage may or may not have fixed it in one isolated area of Cambridge.
b. How would allowing people to get married stop hate-crimes? It would not. The abuse would continue.
c. your argument is irrelevant as it is a lifestyle which causes lower life expectancy.

You state that straight people who have cancer should not be able to marry. But, cancer is not caused by a single lifestyle, I mean everybody can get cancer. My argument is not saying that unhealthy people should not marry; my argument is the government should not sponsor a lifestyle which in 3 separate studies has been proven to have detrimental effects on people's life expectancy.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Angelo 2 years ago
Angelo
thank you I am a doctor by the way. I just copied 16k style. And vmpire helped me a little bit with format and sources
Posted by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
I have to say Mr. Angelo your really improving at debating. I've read some of your other debates and this is the best yet.
Posted by Angelo 2 years ago
Angelo
I have a wife, and have had one for many years, I am not homosexual.
Posted by BluePine 2 years ago
BluePine
you know ...puffs, fairies... queers if you like
Posted by Angelo 2 years ago
Angelo
what?
Posted by BluePine 2 years ago
BluePine
another fairy contest :-)
Posted by Angelo 2 years ago
Angelo
do you know if Fort worth Texas is on the city list i couldn't find it?
Posted by Angelo 2 years ago
Angelo
that's what he want's to be. I am radical left, he is radical right. I have kept this since bush, i used to be a moderate republican. Then discovered Keynesian economics. You and I disagree so you will probably be against keyes. I am also against the wars, the main reason I researched the liberal side.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
Like night and day. But I doubt anyone can keep up such an extreme ideology like he has right now. Unless he becomes a politician.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
AngeloTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: most of con's arguments were based on religious beliefs or morals, pro easily dismantled his arguments and showed how there isnt any definitive non religious, non-morality, or unopiniated reason why it should still be illegal. Pro also had far more superior sources
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
AngeloTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not fulfill BOP and didn't provide any of his own arguments, just refuted Pro's. However Pro response was weak = arguments tied. Pro had more sources to back up his position, on a topic like this you can find alot of sources but Con used none = sources to pro. EDIT: sorry I didn't see the comments section, but Pro still had more sources.