The Instigator
kenballer
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

Gay marriage

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 7 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,414 times Debate No: 21194
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

kenballer

Con

In this debate, you must have this in your argument:

1. Explain how the state , in redefining marriage to just two people, would still be able to promote the well being of children as the primary of focus of the state.
2. Show how there is a right same sex marriage and how traditional marriage laws violate the equal protection clause.
3. Show gay marriage is more beneficial then banning it.
4. Show that the gay marriage would benefit state interests.

Also, you can cut and paste information from other debates you have been in to save your time.

What is CIVIL marriage and the purpose of it:

"Sexual unions of male and female are unique: they alone can make new life, and when they do so will either connect (or disconnect) children from mothers and fathers [ to form a family unit]. It is this biological reality that has given rise to the marriage relationship, not just in America, but across all cultural, ethnic, religious and tribal lines throughout recorded history.

This global consensus on marriage formed the foundation of our common law, animating the laws governing marriage not only in California, but throughout the United States. The vast majority of children are conceived through acts of sexual passion; marriage provides a means to help society regulate this [biologically driven sexual act] so that children do not get hurt."

Our marriage laws regulate opposite-sex relationships by establishing a baseline definition of who is married (man and woman) and the purpose of marriage (responsible procreation and rearing of children). As a by-product, it provides a shared framework from which concepts such as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, adultery, remarriage, step parenting, divorce, etc. can be understood. Moreover, We come to know how these choices and situations can be detrimental for kids or families as a result. Lastly, the law steps in to reinforce that meaning of marriage to simulate a part of reality for people.

Although, as a secondary effect, marriage does provide incentives and disincentives;
the idea of marriage and the other social institutions that are associated with it do not require people to use them. Primarily, it is the very existence and understanding of these social institutions, the social exchange, and the government's reinforcement of these social rituals that combine to make it seem reasonable and even natural for people to apply these concepts.

"Apart from marriage, there is also a body of law that assists in the determination of parental status, then provides for legal actions to establish support obligations and then government agencies stringently enforce those obligations.
With marriage, the narrative is different, but the aims clear. The husband of the child's mother is considered the father of the child and is presumed to adequately support the child. With only rare exceptions, his paternity cannot be challenged and not by any third party. With the automatic parental status come enforceable responsibilities and the spouses cannot abandon one another or their children without some formal decree and even then, the support obligations that began with marriage continue, between the spouses for a time and for the child until adulthood. "

References: Page 3,4,5,6,7
http://nomblog.com......

In conclusion, Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven or self-evident act and people will do it either by choice or on accident. What happens after procreation and during the child development process is where the state steps in to establish family stability (Although, as a secondary effect, family structure does still play a role as well).

The state uses the institution of marriage, primarily, as an insurance policy, just in case; a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice without legal and social support.
The name and meaning of Marriage is there to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children simply by obtaining a marriage license.

In addition, there is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. This means its warranted for the state to continue using the traditional notion of marriage to achieve that purpose.

Just go to this website http://www.smartmarriages.com......

Or google "Hewitt trial marriage": www.melbourneinstitute.com/.../cp/Hewitt_Trial_Marriage.pdf

Also, you can cut and paste information from other debates you have been in to save your time, if you want.
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for challenging me specifically to this debate Ken.

Ken places some burdens on me. I don't see why I need to meet these burdens to uphold gay marriage, but I'll discuss them briefly.

1. Well-being of children: ken, in his opening, wants to discuss marriage internationally and across cultures. I'll show that marriage fails to protect children. However, social services departments in each state are responsible for preventing child abuse and neglect, even among co-habiting or single parents. The state takes zero additional measures to ensure that children in marriages are protected, above and beyond what it already does for all children.

2. The right to marry/equal protection.

Homosexuality is not a choice. As I've shown in previous debates, researchers at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland have spliced a homosexuality gene into the DNA of fruit flies, which makes the fruit flies shun females and mate with males instead. Time Magazine describes the experiment as follows: "the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party -- no, an orgy -- among themselves." [1] According to New Scientist, a similar gene has been discovered in female mice. [1] Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., documents 1500 species that exhibit homosexuality, at rates ranging from 5% to 25%. [1]

If attraction to a particular gender is not a choice, then gay people are being denied a right that straight people have, namely the right to marry. Telling gays that they can marry someone of the opposite gender is a false choice. The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law" and being denied marriage rights is not equal protection.

The Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board that separate is inherently unequal. Even domestic partnership states have failed to provide all the same rights to domestic partnerships as to full marriages. This is because people who dislike homosexuality will always intervene to prevent full rights being conferred to domestic partners, much in the same way that Southern states intervened to provide inferior schools to African Americans under segregation.

Lastly, telling someone that he or she can't use the "real word" for what they are doing is insulting. It implies that gays are just playing house, not actually married. This would be tantamount to saying that interracial marriage was allowed but they would have to call their marriage an "interracial union" not a marriage.

3 and 4. Gay marriage is beneficial to states

The gay marriage ban costs California $1 billion every 6 years. [2] Marriage is a big industry that stimulates businesses (bakeries, photographers, DJ's, etc) in the state and generates tax revenue. $1 billion is a lot in California. Cutting $1 billion from the University of California's budget is ultimately what forced them to triple student fees over the last 10 years.

== Broader discussion of the issues ==

My opponent makes marriage seem like it is the best institution ever invented throughout the world. However, marriage makes women much more likely to be abused and makes it harder for them to leave an abusive spouse. Because the abuser becomes more attached to the victim if they were married, divorced/separated women were nearly twice as likely to suffer physical attacks from their abusers as were never married women. [3] Children in abusive households are more likely to become abusers and suffer abuse themselves.

Internationally, marriage is often used as a means of control, not as an institution designed to protect children. According to UNICEF, 80% of marriages in Afghanistan are forced and 57% of all marriages involve girls between the ages of 8 and 16. [4] These young girls are routinely raped by their much older husbands. This institution hardly seems like it was designed to protect children.

The point is: marriage, by itself, does not automatically make children better off. The only reason that marriage is often good for children is because the TYPES OF PEOPLE who get married tend to be much more stable people and thus much more stable parents. But the institution of marriage doesn't automatically transform abusive drug addicts into model fathers.

My opponent's first blog source claims that in fact, marriage does force father's to be there and provide financial support. This blog obviously doesn't understand that child support depends merely on a proof of parentage, not on marriage. And wives cannot exactly take their husbands to court for not spending enough time with their kids.

My opponent keeps claiming that through marriage, the *state* helps establish stability. I would like him to name ONE THING the state does to help the children of married couples that it DOES NOT do to help the children of single or co-habiting parents.

All the studies of co-habiting partners are flawed because it's correlation, not causation. The people who tend to cohabit are more unstable people than the people who choose to marry. Multiple studies show that cohabiting partners are more likely than married people to abuse alcohol and drugs. It's not like if you force drug addicts to marry that they will suddenly become perfect parents.

Lastly, the reason my opponent CLEARLY loses this debate is because gay couples adopt kids. According to the US Census Bureau, 65000 children are living in the households of gay parents. [5] If my opponent is right that marriage confers stability, then married gay parents are better than unmarried gay parents.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://online.wsj.com...
[3] http://www.measuredhs.com...
[4] http://www.rferl.org...
[5] http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
kenballer

Con

1."Homosexuality is not a choice. As I've shown in previous debates, researchers at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland have spliced a homosexuality gene into the DNA of fruit flies, which makes the fruit flies shun females and mate with males instead."

The problem with this argument is that ,According to evolution,homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce. Natural selection postulates that those genetic mutations that favor survival and reproduction will be selected, whereas those that compromise survival and reproduction will be eliminated. Obviously, a gene or series of genes that produce non-reproducing individuals (i.e., those who express pure homosexual behavior) will be rapidly eliminated from any population. So, it would be expected that any "gay gene" would be efficiently removed from a gene pool over a process of a thousand years. Thus, it does not logically flow that there would be a gay gene. This has not been proven to exist anyways so the discussion is moot.

2."If attraction to a particular gender is not a choice, then gay people are being denied a right that straight people have, namely the right to marry. Telling gays that they can marry someone of the opposite gender is a false choice. The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law" and being denied marriage rights is not equal protection."

Being gay may not be a choice ( for the sake of argument) but marriage is ALWAYS a choice and that's why we are here discussing this issue. The government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue or at least shouldn't. PRO can't compare an immutable characteristic (race, gender, etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with.

The point is that homosexuality being a choice or not is irrelevant. Even if gay individuals were literally like animals or robots that don't have free will, it would still be irrelevant. This is because even though we agree that there is a fundamental right to marry, PRO did not explain how there is a fundamental right to same sex marriage. I asked him to provide evidence of this in the form of court cases and he has yet to do so.

3. "The Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board that separate is inherently unequal. "

PRO is wrongly applying the Brown decision. In the Brown or even the Loving case, they not only segregated INDIVIDUALS (not behaviors) based on RACIAL characteristics but they did not have a substantiated reason to do so. In this case, We have separate but equal situations for men and women that permeate our country ranging from restrooms, the military, prisons, sport teams, and even separate but equal public schools.

For example, in a case called Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia school District, the Supreme Court ruled, that "Separate" is essentially "Equal". As long as each gender equally has a choice in going to both schools for both genders and that, interests in creating separateness based on the biological differences grounded in sex and GENDER are a legitimate state interests. Just like with marriage in this situation.

In United States v. Virginia , the court agreed with this rationale as well:

"Had Virginia made a genuine effort to devote comparable public resources to a facility for women, and followed through on such a plan, it might well have avoided an equal protection violation."[2]"it is not the 'exclusion of women' that violates the Equal Protection Clause, but the maintenance of an all-men school without providing any -- much less a comparable -- institution for women... It would be a sufficient remedy, I think, if the two institutions offered the same quality of education and were of the same overall caliber."

Obviously, this is all because there is a fundamental difference between race and sex. This is why we no longer have bans on interracial marriage or have Jim Crow laws but still have and always accepted separate facilities for the sexes and define marriage between one man and one woman. Everyone accepts the reality that men and woman are equal but different just like civil unions and marriage would be.

4. "Even domestic partnership states have failed to provide all the same rights to domestic partnerships as to full marriages."

I beg to differ. This is the California on DP and there have been no reports of them failing to enforce this law:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, .......... imposed upon spouses.

(In fact, I have yet to hear of a state that has failed to enforce a law that allows DP or civil unions to afford the same STATE rights in a marriage.)

5."The gay marriage ban costs California $1 billion every 6 years. [2] Marriage is a big industry that stimulates businesses (bakeries, photographers, DJ's, etc) in the state and generates tax revenue. $1 billion is a lot in California. Cutting $1 billion from the University of California's budget is ultimately what forced them to triple student fees over the last 10 years."

Yeah but.... Including same sex couples into the legal definition of marriage would increase the tax burden. Granting new social security survivor benefits to gay partners and others would cost the federal government billions of dollars. Less money will be available to support other important government programs as well.

Even if experts could show that the economy boost would ultimately overcome this and help the country in the end, the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and predictions. However, the specific governmental budgetary impact is almost guaranteed. At best, it is a zero-sum argument that cancels itself out making it a non-argument.

6. "The point is: marriage, by itself, does not automatically make children better off. The only reason that marriage is often good for children is because the TYPES OF PEOPLE who get married tend to be much more stable people and thus much more stable parents. But the institution of marriage doesn't automatically transform abusive drug addicts into model fathers."

I am afraid PRO's argument does not succeed in refuting the state's justification in having traditional marriage or marriage at all. This is because in terms of the selection process, the very people who are most likely than any to have a successful marriage are people who hold and believe in the traditional view of marriage.

Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. http://www.smartmarriages.com...

Thus, whether the cause of the good or bad child outcomes from couples is based on the idea of traditional marriage/cohabitation that people believe in or the physical experience of cohabitaiton/marriage, it does not matter. It would still be warranted for the state to use and promote a traditonal notion of marriage.

Furthermore, same sex couples do not have to deal with unintended pregnancies. Society need not worry about the effects of their sexual activity in the same way. Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own.

Therefore, since same sex couples are not similarly situated, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be required and warranted. A different name would be reasonable in order to continue advancing the state's interest of publicly encouraging responsible procreation and rearing of children to each generation of heterosexuals while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions.

Which means: JUSTICE is applied EQUALLY in each case.
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the quick response ken.

Let's look at the main issues in this debate.

1. Homosexuality is not a choice.

My opponent claims that homosexuality cannot be genetic because it is a recessive trait and thus cannot be passed on to offspring. This is not true and is based on a misunderstanding of genetics.

Let's say a genetic disease is recessive and always kills the person who inherits it before reproductive age. The dominant gene (for not having the disease) is expressed as "D" and the recessive gene (for having the disease) is expressed as "d."

Now let's say a male is Dd and a female is Dd (remember, we each have two sets of genes, one from mommy and one from daddy). Because both the male and female have the dominant gene (D), they will NOT have the disease and will thus survive to reproductive age. However, there is a 25% chance that any given child they have will have the genes dd and thus will die before reproductive age. Yet 50% of their offspring will be Dd and survive, meaning the recessive gene *is* passed on.

The same would be true for a recessive homosexuality gene, let's say we call it "H" for heterosexual and "h" for homosexual. Two parents, each with the genes Hh, would both be straight, but 25% of their kids would be gay (hh). So even if homosexuals (hh) have zero kids, the gene would still be passed on.

There are real genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis, which are recessive, kill before adulthood, and yet are not weeded out of the population. A *dominant* gene that kills before reproductive age is far more likely to die out.

My opponent claims a gay gene has not been proven to exist, yet the previously cited studies on mice and fruit flies disprove this. In addition, twin studies in humans have found that 60% of variability in sexual orientation is genetic and have helped identify 3 chromosomal regions that predict homosexuality. [1]

2. 14th Amendment

My opponent's only argument here is that marriage *is* a choice. But offering heterosexual marriage to a gay person is a false choice. I can't tell whether my opponent advocates that gay people should just pretend they are straight, but he seems to make this argument. My opponent says I cannot compare homosexuality to immutable traits (he lists gender, race, etc). I don't think he knows what immutable means – it means incapable of changing. If homosexuality is genetic, it is an immutable trait.

My opponent keeps saying that homosexuality is a behavior or lifestyle choice. Just because it is on the inside, instead of the outside, doesn't mean that it's a behavior and thus not a trait protected by the Equal Protection Clause.

Homosexuals have a physical layout of their brain that makes them attracted to the same gender. You may as well say that autism is a behavior or lifestyle choice.

My opponent demands court cases. In Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in the state by ruling that there was no rational basis for denying gay people equal rights to marry. [2] Kerrigan v. the State Commissioner of Public Health in Connecticut and other state court cases have followed the reasoning in Goodridge. [3]

3. Brown v. Board

My opponent says that there is a rational basis to have a men's restroom and a women's restroom. This I agree with. However, there is no rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry. The ability to have children fails the rational basis test because we allow infertile couples to marry.

My opponent cites a Virginia case where the Supreme Court apparently pointed out that the State of Virginia had devoted far more resources to men's educational and sports facilities than to women's facilities. This proves that when you divide institutions into two separate parts, the group that is historically discriminated against is *never* awarded the same rights and resources. Brown v. Board overturned a previous ruling that had said *in theory* that separate but equal facilities would be okay; the reasoning in Brown was that *in practice* separate meant unequal.

Even if you buy my opponent's arguments about schools, the denial of the proper nomenclature is insulting, tantamount to granting interracial marriage, but forcing interracial couples to call their marriages a "bi-racial union" instead of a "marriage" in order to emphasize that the state does not view these types of marriages as legitimate. [My opponent drops this argument]

4. Domestic partnerships are not equal

My opponent claims they are in California. However, many state and federal laws still specify "marriage" and thus don't apply to domestic partnerships, such as the requirement for employers to cover spouses under their health insurance policies. That's why a study found that gay men in domestic partnerships in California were *half* as likely as men in marriages to qualify for their partner's employer provided health insurance, and lesbians in domestic partnerships were *four times* less likely to qualify than women in heterosexual marriages. [4]

5. State tax revenue

First, my opponent says that it would cost money to allow homosexuals to qualify for their spouse/partner's Social Security benefits. My opponent LOSES the equal protection argument *right here.* Denying SS benefits to domestic partners is unequal.

Second, tax revenue from marriages goes mostly to states, which need the money more than the federal government does. $1 billion over 6 years would do *wonders* for California's state budget, but the federal government would hardly care about that sum of money.

6. My opponent argues that states need to promote the traditional view of marriage ("between a man and a woman")

Firstly, a study of countries where gay marriage is legal, including Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands, found that the legalization of gay marriage has *not* caused heterosexual marriage rates to decline; in fact, they are increasing in many of these countries. [5] So there is no harm to heterosexual marriage rates if gay marriage is legalized.

Second, my opponent fails to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Of course a group of people who hold "non-traditional" views on marriage and commitment (i.e. hippies) are going to separate from their partners at higher rates. If we could somehow force them to get married, this wouldn't improve the situation.

7. Unintended pregnancies

I don't really get my opponent's point here. 5% of women experience unintended pregnancies in the US. [6] This obviously includes women in marriages. 80% of the 800,000 teen pregnancies were unintended and 5% of rapes result in unintended pregnancies. [6] Marriage is not always the answer to these problems.

8. What does the State do?????

My opponent keeps saying that the state encourages people to have children responsibly by using marriage. How?? What specifically does the state do? They teach contraceptive use in some schools (which works). They teach children to abstain from sex until marriage (which empirically fails – see multiple studies and Bristol Palin).

In spite of all the state's supposed teachings, half of all marriages will end in divorce.

9. Double bind

In my opponent's last paragraph, he says that gays can have civil unions to help benefit their adoptive children. However, either a) calling something a "marriage" automatically makes it last longer or b) the term marriage has no actual benefit. If "a)" is true, then gays should get marriage in order to increase the longevity and stability of their relationships. If "b)" is true, then there is "no rational basis" to deny marriage to homosexuals, meaning the Goodridge court case would apply (in proving that denial of marriage rights violates the Equal Protection Clause).

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
kenballer

Con

1. Homosexuality is not a choice

See item 2.

2. "My opponent's only argument here is that marriage *is* a choice. But offering heterosexual marriage to a gay person is a false choice. I can't tell whether my opponent advocates that gay people should just pretend they are straight, but he seems to make this argument."

Again, homosexuality being a choice or not is irrelevant because the state is not there to issue love licenses nor has it ever. The main purpose of civil marriage is to promote responsible procreation and rearing of children. We don't allow same sex marriage is the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamy. It's a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships for legitimate state interests and not against interracial marriage because it affirms marriage.

From Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning case:

"Our rational-basis review begins with an historical fact -- the institution of
marriage has always been, in our federal system, the predominant concern of state government. The Supreme Court long ago declared, and recently reaffirmed, that a State "has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved." Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 734-35 (1878), quoted in Sosna v. Iowa 419 U.S. 393, 404 (1975).

3."My opponent demands court cases. In Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in the state by ruling that there was no rational basis for denying gay people equal rights to marry"

NOOOO. PRO misunderstood me. I was asking for PRO to provide evidence in the form of a court case from the U.S. supreme court ( the supreme law of the land) that the fundamental right to marry established by the supreme court includes same sex marriage under the DUE PROCESS clause NOT the equal protection clause

4A. "My opponent says that there is a rational basis to have a men's restroom and a women's restroom. This I agree with. However, there is no rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry. The ability to have children fails the rational basis test because we allow infertile couples to marry."

Well first off, rational basis test does not require over and under inclusive arguments. Only strict scrutiny requires this.

Second, Again, If we define the purpose of marriage as purely a matter of choice between adults regulated by the state, then everything else that follows from that premise could possibly be true. It probably would be discriminating against gays and lesbians from marriage based mainly on the Romer v. Evans case; just like with interracial marriage according to the Brown v. Board decision. However, this is a false premise. What marriage is really about , according to the state, involves a child-centered view of it: see item 2

4B. "This proves that when you divide institutions into two separate parts, the group that is historically discriminated against is *never* awarded the same rights and resources. "

NO. This proves the exact opposite because we have always had many separate institutions for men and women even when women are themselves a minority and have been historically discriminated against and yet society still been able to provide separate but equal institutions for men and women.

5. " the denial of the proper nomenclature is insulting, tantamount to granting interracial marriage, but forcing interracial couples to call their marriages a "bi-racial union" instead of a "marriage" in order to emphasize that the state does not view these types of marriages as legitimate."

see Item 2

6."However, many state and federal laws still specify "marriage" and thus don't apply to domestic partnerships, such as the requirement for employers to cover spouses under their health insurance policies. ..."

The benefits that PRO is referring to are based on mainly federal law or not state agencies but by separate ones. Even with gay marriage, they would not get those benefits because of DOMA. So it's a redherring and continues to be so every time they bring up the issue. Otherwise, gay activists would not be fighting to get those same federal benefits in their federal case called Gill v. OPM in Massachusetts.

7."tax revenue from marriages goes mostly to states, which need the money more than the federal government does. $1 billion over 6 years would do *wonders* for California's state budget, but the federal government would hardly care about that sum of money."

Again,Even if experts could show that the economy boost would ultimately overcome this and help the country in the end, the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and predictions. Also, its a zero sum game. Less money will be available to support important government programs.

8."Firstly, a study of countries where gay marriage is legal, including Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands, found that the legalization of gay marriage has *not* caused heterosexual marriage rates to decline."

This is actually false. There are studies from the Netherlands that does show that heterosexual and homosexual marriage has declined. Here is the study from the Netherlands that reflects this:

http://www.nomblog.com...

9."My opponent keeps saying that the state encourages people to have children responsibly by using marriage. How?? What specifically does the state do?"

Well this is how

Schools:

In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children.

California law's Education code:

51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that:

(D) Family health and child development, including the LEGAL and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

Media:

"The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it."

Businesses:

The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals? preferences when it comes to dating services in California.

In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception.

10.""If "a)" is true, then gays should get marriage in order to increase the longevity and stability of their relationships."

Majority of gay families do not have the status of marriage or the benefits for that matter and are doing just fine. The gay parent studies show gay families who are mostly without the protection of marriage are just as healthy as heterosexual married parents:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...

11."b) the term marriage has no actual benefit"

I have explained this already. The state infusing the traditional notion of marriage through schools, media, business, etc within the minds of each incoming generation of heterosexuals is warranted because ,according to the selection process, people who hold the traditional view of marriage are most likely than anyone to have a successful marriage.
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks again ken.

Extend across my #1 – my opponent concedes that homosexuality not a choice and is thus an immutable trait, like race and gender.

2) Equal Protection

The law protects married couples in various ways: the law requires employers to cover dependent spouses; the law provides Social Security benefits to spouses; the law provides quicker access to naturalization for non-citizen spouses, etc. The 14th Amendment says that if we give rights to one group of people, we have to give those same rights to *all* groups of people, unless there is a rational basis for denying those rights. It is unfair that gay couples do not receive *equal protection under the law* in regards to the many legal benefits and protections provided to married couples.

My opponent already lost this point in the previous round by arguing that gay couples should not receive Social Security benefits because it would cost money.

Lastly, my opponent's argument about child rearing *fails* the rational basis test because we allow barren couples to marry. Most women older than 55 cannot have children (because of menopause), yet they are still allowed to marry. And furthermore, my opponent puts the emphasis on child *rearing*, not on having children; the reason I obviously win this point is because gay couples can and *do* raise children. Thus there is no rational basis for excluding gays from marriage rights.

Marriage is not a privilege – it confers a special legal status. Regardless, the state cannot deny equal access to privileges without a rational basis. After all, driving is a privilege, but denying driver's licenses to gay people would violate the 14th Amendment.

My opponent cites a Nebraska court case – obviously the 1878 US Supreme Court case cited by Bruning case is not precedent setting because it's so outdated.

== Goodridge ==

Remember, I showed that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that denying gay marriage rights violates the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to take this case to resolve the contradiction between the Goodridge decision and the Nebraska case my opponent cites.

Yet, my opponent demands something that doesn't yet exist – a Supreme Court ruling on the issue of gay marriage. Yet just because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue does not mean that equal protection violations are legitimate. In addition, the Supreme Court reverses itself all the time. My opponent fails to disprove my arguments so he merely appeals to authority (citing a Nebraska court case) and demands negative proof (asks me to cite a Supreme Court case that doesn't exist). He must show why it does NOT violate equal protection to say – group A can have marriage rights, group B cannot.

The same argument my opponent advances could be used to deny marriage rights to African Americans: "African Americans are more likely to raise children out of wedlock. Raising children out of wedlock devalues the traditional view of marriage. Thus, to preserve this definition of marriage, we should deny marriage rights to African Americans." Obviously this is a 14th Amendment violation.

== Brown v. Board ==

Remember, the case my opponent himself cited here was about how the State had failed to provide equal educational and sports facilities for men and women. My opponent doesn't refute this point.

I have proven that in California, domestic partnerships are not equal (gay men are half as likely and lesbians one fourth as likely to qualify to their partner's employer-provided health insurance). Separate is inherently unequal.

== Denial of proper nomenclature violates equal protection ==

It's insulting to say that you can't call your marriage by the real name. "See item 2" is not an adequate response to this. The very denial of proper nomenclature is in-and-of-itself dehumanizing and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause.

== Federal benefits ==

I win – the federal government refuses to change federal law to say "marriage and civil unions," so the only way to ensure equal protection is to allow gay marriage. Easy win right here.

== State tax revenue ==

My opponent wants to take issue with the very idea of economic forecasting and predictions. I urge him to ignore the weather reports from now on, since he believes all predictions are automatically false.

The $1 billion over 6 years in California is based on an estimate of how many gay couples would marry (based on the number of civil unions and marriages in other states). This number could obviously be wrong (the real number could be higher or lower), but it's indisputable that gay marriage would generate significant revenue for states.

== Study of countries with gay marriage ==

The study actually concluded that straight marriage rates in countries that legalized gay marriage EITHER a) increased, b) stayed the same, or c) declined *consistent with other countries in the region where gay marriage was still illegal.* My opponent merely cherry picks the Netherlands out of the many countries in the study, but marriage rates in the Netherlands had been on the decline before gay marriage was legalized. It has to do with factors in the country other than gay marriage. The fact that my opponent himself states that *gay marriage rates* are on the decline as well proves to you that marriage rate declines have to do with economic conditions and tax incentives.

This is a clear win for me too – the experience of other countries proves that we won't destroy the institution of marriage by giving it to gay people too.

== How does the state encourage people to have children responsibly using marriage? ==

My opponent doesn't bother answering my statistics about unintended pregnancies. I'm still curious if he believes that marriage is the answer to the 5% of cases where a rape results in pregnancy. Should the state encourage/force the victim to marry the rapist? Would this be better for the child? What about teenagers? 80% of pregnancies are unintended/out of wedlock. Should we force underage minors to drop out of school and get married?

My opponent talks about a lawsuit against a school, where a teacher read a pro-gay story to her young class called "King and King," which teaches children not to hate gay people. My opponent is essentially arguing for parents' rights to teach their children to hate gay people without state intervention. He objects to a teacher reading them a story that "being gay is okay." This is obviously bigoted and violates the equal protection clause.

I don't really get what my opponent is arguing. He is being paranoid if he thinks that the State will try to teach children that they *have* to be gay. There's a difference between teaching a child that gay marriage exists and forcing a child to be gay.

Media/Business – apparently my opponent just hates gay people. Again, I don't see what's wrong with the Boston Globe trying to promote more accepting attitudes towards gay couples.

**And none of these things actually answered my question - how does the state promote child rearing?**

== Does marriage confer benefits as far as child rearing ==

If yes, vote Aff because gay couples can have adopted children. If no, vote Aff because there is no rational basis to deny gay marriage to homosexuals.

My opponent *again* claims that "people who hold the traditional view of marriage are most likely than anyone to have a successful marriage." He is using two *different* senses of the word traditional. In his co-habitation studies, *traditional* meant things like "having only one sexual partner" [as opposed to non-traditional "open marriages"]. However, he uses traditional *here* in a different sense, to mean a marriage between a man and a woman.

Anyways, if people who hold traditional monogamous views about marriage and commitment have *better relationships,* then gay people who hold these same traditional views should have the right to marry and have access to these *better relationships.*
Debate Round No. 3
kenballer

Con

1. "my opponent's argument about child rearing *fails* the rational basis test because we allow barren couples to marry. Most women older than 55 cannot have children (because of menopause), yet they are still allowed to marry. And furthermore, my opponent puts the emphasis on child *rearing*, not on having children; the reason I obviously win this point is because gay couples can and *do* raise children. Thus there is no rational basis for excluding gays from marriage rights."

You know what, not only will I pass the rational basis test but strict scrutiny as well.

To pass strict scrutiny and constitutional muster, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First,"The [s]tate must show at least that the [challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. (United States v. Virginia)"

From Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942)."

SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

As you can see, Marriage wouldn't be "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity if it was completely delinked from procreation or had nothing to do with reproductive potential. Marriage is the regulation of procreation and rearing of children. This has been deemed the most compelling of ALL compelling state interests by the U.S. supreme court several more times.

Second, "the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest."

The overinclusive and underinclusive arguments:

Procreation:

There has been state efforts in the past to prohibit relationships like infertile couples. However, a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples is constitutionally unenforceable because marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right making there attempts unsuccessful.

In addition, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then, therapy and long term fertility may reverse the prognosis. Not to mention, we would have to check almost every single couple that wants a marriage license. This clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish. Thus, it's costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples.

By contrast, with same sex couples, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default. Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other nor are there as many situations like it. Most importantly, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage (or plural marriage for that matter) so the state has a 10th amendment right, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court, to deny those relationships.

Marriage:

Since the name and meaning of it is the institution, a further explanation as to why the state allows the infertile to get a marriage license more directly involves the institution of marriage itself.

Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it?s the only union that can procreate and fulfill this particular state?s objective; unlike same sex couples who cannot by definition procreate.

Thus, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage (man and woman) and the purpose of it (responsible procreation and rearing of children) are synonymous.

If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers.

Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated.

This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. As a result, heterosexuals, from future generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general.

Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process. ]

Finally, " the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest."

Since same sex couples are not similarly situated, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be warranted in order to continue the promoting natural marriage to each generation of heterosexuals while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions. The state only uses the term to achieve this purpose.

2."my opponent demands something that doesn't yet exist – a Supreme Court ruling on the issue of gay marriage. Yet just because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue does not mean that equal protection violations are legitimate. In addition, the Supreme Court reverses itself all the time."

On the contrary, if you Google Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other same arguments gay activists make today.

In fact, the U.S. supreme court has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage (Reynolds v. U.S.), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman for responsible procreation and rearing of children.

so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy

3."The study actually concluded that straight marriage rates in countries that legalized gay marriage EITHER a) increased, b) stayed the same, or c) declined *consistent with other countries in the region where gay marriage was still illegal.* My opponent merely cherry picks the Netherlands out of the many countries in the study, but marriage rates in the Netherlands had been on the decline before gay marriage was legalized."

If this was any other country or the increase was minimal or happened before its inception, then maybe it would not be as significant. However, Netherlands was not only the first country that legalized gay marriage and had a good head start, but it was legalized in 2001. Moreover, the number of couples choosing cohabitation (or register partnerships) increased almost five times more after the legalization of gay marriage. This is clear indication that gay marriage had something to do with it
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks ken.

My opponent cites the Loving case, which legalized interracial marriage. Lisa Trei of Stanford believes that Loving will ultimately be used to legalize gay marriage because it calls marriage a fundamental human right. http://news.stanford.edu...

My opponent cites the Skinner case, but a 1942 case banning the sterilization of criminals hardly invalidates gay marriage.

== Procreation ==

60 year old women cannot have children. Period. The State would not need to do fertility tests to determine this. And yet 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds, 90 year olds, etc can all marry, even though they cannot procreate. In addition, people are allowed to get married multiple times - this doesn't uphold the sanctity of marriage. 75% of third marriages end in divorce - this can't be good for any children that result from this marriage. These are *really* bad odds.

And "[c]hildren of divorce are more than twice as likely to have serious social, emotional, or psychological problems." http://www.clasp.org...

In addition, gay couples can procreate, just not with each other. I don't understand why the state would be concerned whether both parents are a DNA match with the child. Supposedly, the state only cares that we are propagating the species.

I don't really understand how the traditional definition of marriage promotes responsible procreation. Do youngsters have less premarital sex because of the traditional view of marriage? Answer: NO - 80% of teen pregnancies are unintended. Do people abstain from sex until marriage? Answer: NO - 90% of people engage in premarital sex. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Lastly, remember studies of countries with gay marriage find that the legalization of gay marriage has not decreased the straight marriage rate or fertility rates. My opponent's arguments are all disproven by the experience of other countries.

== Supreme Court ==

The Supreme Court have never ruled directly on gay marriage, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court *has* and concluded the 14th Amendment *does* guarantee equal marriage rights. In fact, I've proven that homosexual couples cannot receive the same rights under federal law and thus the 14th Amendment applies.

== The Netherlands marriage rate declined ==

According to Slate, "Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples . . . In Denmark, for example, . . . [a]fter the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed."

Slate then specifically refutes my opponents point, "The main evidence Kurtz points to [in order to argue against gay marriage] is the increase in cohabitation rates among unmarried heterosexual couples and the increase in births to unmarried mothers. Roughly half of all children in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are now born to unmarried parents. In Denmark, the number of cohabiting couples with children rose by 25 percent in the 1990s. . . . But Kurtz's interpretation of the statistics is incorrect. Parenthood within marriage is still the norm—*most cohabitating couples marry after they start having children.* In Sweden, for instance, 70 percent of cohabiters wed after their first child is born. Indeed, in Scandinavia the majority of families with children are headed by married parents. In Denmark and Norway, roughly four out of five couples with children were married in 2003. In the Netherlands, a bit south of Scandinavia, 90 percent of heterosexual couples with kids are married." http://www.slate.com...

So yes, cohabitation has increased meaning more couples are living together before marriage. But they still get married in the end.

And again, in the Netherlands, which my opponent cites, 90 percent of heterosexual couples with kids are married. In contrast, out of wedlock marriage rates in the US, which has "traditional" marriage, are soaring among 20-30 year olds. http://www.nytimes.com... 4 out of 10 babies in the US are born to an unmarried mother. "As rates of out of wedlock births in the US have increased over the past three decades, rates of cohabitation among unwed parents also have risen." http://www.columbia.edu... So the traditional view of marriage isn't doing anything here.

Extend across all my other arguments too - my opponent hasn't responded to any of them. I'll restate them in the last round.
Debate Round No. 4
kenballer

Con

1. "My opponent cites the Loving case, which legalized interracial marriage. Lisa Trei of Stanford believes that Loving will ultimately be used to legalize gay marriage because it calls marriage a fundamental human right."

I think PRO and his reference have to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy here. YES, it has been determined that you have a fundamental right to marry by supreme court that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister or marry polygamously. This is because marriage has a legal conventional definition to it. The right to marry someone of the same sex would have to be established by the Supreme Court first. For example, a bisexual who has this simultaneous feeling for both genders may argue that he has a fundamental right to marry. The answer would be YES, however , at this point in time, he does not have a right to marry two people in a threesome.

The point I am trying to make is that the U.S. Supreme Court has always defined marriage to be between a man and a woman for the continuation of society and never did they say that the fundamental right to marry included same sex marriage or even plural marriage. In fact, in both cases, the Supreme Court rejected the existence of such definitions or rights in the past. Since marriage is a fundamental right, would I have the right to marry 80 people ,according to his argument, ........YES and that's why his claim is fallacious.

In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

"[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to rank as one of
the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):

Mr. Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute "operates directly on an intimate relation of HUSBAND and WIFE," 381 U.S. 482, 85 S.Ct. 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 513, In a separate opinion for three justices, Mr. Justice Goldberg similarly abhorred this state disruption of "the traditional relation of the family--a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization." 381 U.S. 496, 85 S.Ct. 1688

This quote is from Bertrand Russell :

"But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.....

...it is of children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

5 years after the Loving decision, The U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson regarding the issue of Same sex marriage reiterates this point in 1972:

"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."

2."60 year old women cannot have children. Period. The State would not need to do fertility tests to determine this. And yet 60 year olds, 70 year olds, 80 year olds, 90 year olds, etc can all marry, even though they cannot procreate."

The availability of long-term fertility treatments, even in post-menopausal pregnancies, establishing infertility is all but medically impossible. There are reports of women at the age of 70 or 79 giving birth, so what PRO is saying is FALSE. Even if we accept his claim as true and we would not need an invasive test for post menopausal women, It would still require additional resources to verify whether they are in fact truly infertile unlike with same sex couples: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com...

3."gay couples can procreate, just not with each other. I don't understand why the state would be concerned whether both parents are a DNA match with the child. "

PRO is WRONG again. Procreation by definition is "Sexual reproduction typically requires the involvement of TWO individuals or gametes, one each from opposite type of sex". Therefore, any third party help would not be considered procreation: http://en.wikipedia.org...

4."Do youngsters have less premarital sex because of the traditional view of marriage? Answer: NO - 80% of teen pregnancies are unintended. Do people abstain from sex until marriage? Answer: NO - 90% of people engage in premarital sex"

Well this is just more of a reason why we need to promote traditional marriage at an early age rather than redefine marriage. Remember, two wrongs don't make a right.

5."The Supreme Court have never ruled directly on gay marriage"

FALSE

Since Baker was on MANDATORY appellate review, this was not just any dismissal. A "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is a decision on the merits that is binding in cases like Hicks v. Miranda. They clearly outline that summary decisions are in fact decisions on the merits that are binding on all lower FEDERAL courts.

Thus, the same-sex union as a constitutional right argument was so frivolous them the U.S supreme court rejected it without any further review. Not to mention, this ruling was UNANIMOUSLY decided by essentially the same court in Loving. If they don't think your arguments that are exactly the same verbatim from the past warrant any merit, then why should anybody take your side serious. I urge VOTERS to not listen to PRO when he says Baker is not a U.S. supreme court decision and research it yourself. There are plenty of state and federal courts that acknowledge Baker's precedent. Here is one of those federal courts:

Wilson v. Ake in 2005:

"The Supreme Court has not explicitly or implicitly overturned its holding in Baker or provided the lower courts, including this Court, with any reason to believe that the holding is invalid today."

6."In Denmark, for example, . . . [a]fter the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's."

Civil unions does not constitute as a social experiment which is what Denmark and Danish along with many other countries he mentioned actually legalized not same sex marriage, so this argument does not count. As far as those other countries that legalize gay marriage, their marriage rates are probably higher now, but what we've seen with the Netherlands ,which is the first country to legalize it much sooner, that those marriage high rates will not last for long.

7."cohabitation has increased meaning more couples are living together before marriage. But they still get married in the end."

Yeah but they don't stay married and thats the problem with living in a state of cohabitation according to studies.

8. "Separate but equal for the sexes"

We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights (including federal) down the future just like we did and still do with most separate institutions for the Sexes.

In Conclusion, Its pretty clear who won this debate. All PRO has been trying to do throughout this debate is misrepresent, twist, and strawman my arguments in order to salvage what's left of his position.

VOTE CON
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the debate Ken.

== Loving Supreme Court case ==

Loving found that the right to marriage is a fundamental human right. When you couple this with my opponent's concession that homosexuality is not a choice and homosexuality is an immutable trait, gay people are being denied a fundamental human right: the right to marry someone they love. Gay people cannot fall in love with someone of the opposite gender; therefore, they are not currently granted the fundamental human right to marry; they are only granted a false choice.

My opponent says a bisexual should not have a right to marry two people. I agree. Bisexuals generally are just as monogamous as straight or gay people; they merely can choose a monogamous mate from either gender. Bisexuals should have the right to marry someone of the same or opposite gender, but not to marry two people.

The other infinite regress – that people can't marry animals – is just silly since animals don't need legal protection. Animals are not denied Social Security benefits and citizenship status because they are not allowed equal access to marriage. Gay people are. I clearly have won the 14th Amendment argument in this regard.

== Appeals to authority ==

My opponent doesn't really bother answering my 14th Amendment argument that legalizing gay marriage is the only way to ensure gay people receive equal protection under the law (such as receiving employer insurance, Social Security, citizenship status, etc); instead of refuting this, my opponent just cites a bunch of random quotes about how marriage is between a man and a woman. A case about forced sterilization is not relevant. A 1885 case is not relevant. Griswold v. Connecticut, which ruled that what happens in the privacy of the marital bed should not be the business of the State, was ultimately applied to gay people as well, to overturn a Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas. This proves that definitions and court cases are not static – case law is ever changing. This is proven in Brown v. Board, which ruled the *exact opposite* way as a previous Supreme Court case, namely Plessy v. Ferguson. Because the Supreme Court can overrule even itself, past case law will never be relevant.

Lastly, it doesn't matter if there are court cases that say gays cannot marry. There are also cases like Goodridge (in Massachusetts) and Kerrigan (in Connecticut) that have ruled that the 14th Amendment mandates gay marriage. The Supreme Court will ultimately need to rule on the conflicting case law, and I, unlike my opponent, have provided actual analysis as to why the Supreme Court needs to rule in favor of gay marriage.

== Definition of Procreate ==

My opponent claims third party involvement is not procreation. His *own* definition just says that it requires the involvement of two gametes, which would include one gay man and a donated ovum or one gay woman and donated sperm. Procreation just means "to beget offspring." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Gay people can beget offspring. My opponent never answers why the state would care that the offspring is related to both partners. In his previous rounds, he seemed to only care that we propagated the species and raised children in stable homes. If marriage makes homes more stable, then gay couples with children need marriage.

Since gay couples can procreate, there is no rational basis to deny marriage to them.

Lastly, my opponent's arguments contradict. Women who are 79 cannot procreate, according to his own definition, because they need 3rd party help; they need eggs they froze 20 years ago and hormone injections. No 79 year old has conceived naturally. If procreation is the standard, elderly women should not be allowed to marry.

== Teen pregnancy ==

Ken says, "Well this is just more of a reason why we need to promote traditional marriage." Apparently my opponent is in favor of shotgun marriages for 15 year olds. If a 15 year old girl gets pregnant, rather than encouraging abortion or adoption, we should force her to marry the 15 year old father, force them to marry, drop out of school, move in together, and raise the child. And this somehow does not degrade the definition of marriage? And this somehow leads to good and stable childrearing?

== Baker ==

The Supreme Court has many reasons for refusing to hear a case. Refusal to hear a case does not necessarily mean the Court agrees with the decision.

Regardless, the whole Supreme Court argument is the is-ought fallacy: we should not recognize gay marriage because the Supreme Court currently does not recognize gay marriage. That is what *is* happening now, not what *ought* to be the case.

== The Netherlands ==

My opponent claims that marriage rates went down after gay marriage was legalized. However, his evidence only said cohabitation rates went up. I provided evidence that people were cohabiting (living together) more often *before* marriage, and 90% of people with kids in the Netherlands are married, which is a number that is MUCH HIGHER than in the US. Clearly, case studies show that gay marriage does not decrease straight marriage rates. This takes out my opponent's ENTIRE case, since it was all predicated on devaluing the institution of marriage.

Personally, I never understood why my marriage would feel any less valid because gay people could marry. If anything, it's sweet that they want to commit to each other too.

== Divorce Rates ==

My opponent says, "Yeah but they don't stay married." He never cited divorce rate data for the Netherlands. However, I *did* cite divorce data. I argued that if we are so concerned for children, we should ban people from getting married more than twice, since third marriages have a divorce rate of 75%, and the statistics get even worse for additional marriage. How is it good for children who are products of third marriages to have a *three in four* chance that their parents split up? Either we abandon this whole "stable environment for children" argument, or ban marriage entirely for everyone.

== Separate but unequal ==

This is just the is-ought fallacy again – we *could* give 100% equal rights to civil unions, but we don't. Political ennui, status quo bias, and homophobic Congressmen will ensure that gays do not receive 100% equal rights, just like the same factors prevented blacks from receiving 100% equal schools. Separate is inherently unequal. This is merely a case of "those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it." Homophobia is not any different from racism in its tendency to deny equal rights.

Thus, I win because:

1. I prove that the government does not grant equal rights to civil unions. Gay couples do not get equal access to health care, Social Security, or citizenship benefits. Only legalizing gay marriage upholds the 14th Amendments' requirement of equal protection by extending all the legal protections afforded to straight life-partners to gay life-partners as well. All my opponent's arguments in this regard are just the is-ought fallacy and appeals to authority.

2. My opponent concedes throughout the debate that gay marriage provides significant revenue for states. In 6 years alone, California would have enough money to shore up UC's budget to the point where they could undo the massive University of California fee hikes. On a utilitarian level, I clearly win.

3. Childrearing is not a compelling reason to deny gay marriage. Gay couples have kids – they would benefit from more stable relationships. Countries that legalized gay marriage did not see declines in marriage rates, increases in divorce rates, or decreases in fertility rates. Logically, such predictions of doom are flawed. No divorce filing would ever say: "reason for seeking a divorce: ‘gay marriage was legalized.'"

For all these reasons, Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by saraandersson123 4 years ago
saraandersson123
http://homosexualbisexualtransgender.blogspot.com...

The [American Psychiatric Association] has chosen to ignore the significant medical research which has documented serious psychiatric and medical illnesses associated with those same-sex attractions and behaviors. This research and that on the needs of children for a father and a mother have been reviewed in several important recent papers from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine and the University of Utah School of Medicine...Well-designed research studies have shown that many psychiatric disorders are far more prevalent, three to five times, in teenagers and adults with same-sex attraction [SSA]. These include major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships. It is important to note that 'homophobia' is not the cause of these disorders, as many of these studies were done in cultures in which homosexuality is widely accepted. Another recent study has shown that a high percentage, 32%, of males with SSA have been abused by other males with SSA.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
This looks like it's going to be a long one. I guess I should start reading now.
Posted by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
Thanks con! that cleared that up
Posted by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
I don't understand your states argument con, if you could elaborate that would be great, pro pinned you down on that. Other than that i'm really liking this debate, it's much more detailed than many other Same-Sex marriage debates.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
kenballerbluesteelTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed that homosexuality is an immutable trait, gays can be involved in procreating and rearing kids, and gay marriage is unlikely to negatively impact straight marriage. Con, however, ignored the majority of these points in favor of quoting court rulings. However, he never explained why such rulings were constitutional or appropriate given Pro's counterarguments. Pro wielded his sources well while dismantling those of Con. Arguments and sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
kenballerbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's opening argument was remarkably strong, but Con's response in Round 2 was surprisingly convincing. In Round 3, however, Pro quickly locates the incoherence of Con's position in the double bind between either accepting that the benefits of marriage should be extended to gay families, or that traditional marriage has no benefits and therefore not extending it also violates Equal Protection. The double bind was implicit in all of Con's arguments, so Con's case collapsed on itself.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
kenballerbluesteelTied
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: I'm a non bigot gotta stand up for Pro here
Vote Placed by LlamaMan 4 years ago
LlamaMan
kenballerbluesteelTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm Catholic I gotta stand up for con here
Vote Placed by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
kenballerbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: While I disagree with Pro on the stance of Gay marriage, I found Con's arguments misleading. The fruit fly gene research targeted a gene for gender blindness, not homosexuality. The flies where confused and mated with both sexes. Based on misrepresented evidence, sources go to Pro. Since Con based a majority argument on misrepresented data, arguments go to Pro also. Con failed his burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
kenballerbluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a pro decision for six reasons. 1) It is NOT in the best interests of the states to have male-female partnerships as proven by Pro (Argument made by Con) 2) Homosexuality is not a choice 3) Separate but equal, 4) Countries that have legalized gay marriage have no negatives, only positives, 5) Significance of Gay Marriage on revenue of a state (increase), and 6) 2 of cons arguments were faulty, the states endorse procreation and childrearing, disproven by pro. Was a great debate though!
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
kenballerbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Bluesteel simply had better arguments, and refuted ken many times.