The Instigator
Maciebaker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Gay marrige

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 634 times Debate No: 77130
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Maciebaker

Pro

Hello, to whoever may read this. I do not mean to offend you but these are my beliefs and I do feel strongly about them. So, be prepared lol. I have always felt gay marrige should be legalized. Quite frankly until this week when it finally was, I never thought it would happen. I'm not a member of the LGBT community, but I'm 100% for it. Don't get me wrong, it's not a total shock to me when people want to use bible verses and Jesus Christ as reasons gays shouldn't marry. I understand completely. It's their religion and it's what they believe just like this is what I believe. Doesn't God see all sins equal to one another? In the way that all of them separate you from the bible? Yes! I don't believe in God but he does. At least that's what the bible says, "For the wages of sin is death..."-Romans 6:23. People act like the only sin in the bible is homosexuality. But it's not, to us the sin of homosexuality is the worse sin, because there was a law on it for the longest time. To us, over half the population has already abused all other sins in everyday living expectations. Heres a small list of things the bible prohibits- Homosexuality, eating bacon and hamburgers, wearing jeans with holes in them, premarital sex, tattoos, pigging out everyone once in a while, women wearing "sexy" clothes such as bikinis, watching porn, masturbation, playing football, trimming your hair and beard, having a bowl hair-cut, gossiping, working on Sundays, women speaking at churches, pulling out, obesity, marriage after a divorce, eating assorted sea food, wearing mixed fabric brands, mixing breeds or dogs or any other animal, and wearing "bling". This is just a small list there's plenty more sins. But even though the bible talks about these things being sins, they are legal to do. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE LEGAL TO DO, ALL OF THEM, LITERALLY. But people still say that gays shouldn't marry, because it's a sin to the bible. Well, all the things I said were sins to the bible why don't we put a law on them? Because, to us as americans, putting a law on them isn't a good way to live. Those are things I feel most of us do in everyday living situations I don't know how many Christians I know that eat hamburgers but don't think twice about it I honestly don't. Let me ask you a question. Its a fact there are gays and lesbians in this world. But it's not a fact God was really ever here. A lot of us believe in God, because, well I don't know why maybe because people won't settle for things happening because they do we all want a reason for something. But anyways, there's no physical evidence of God ever really being here. So why do we not want gays to get married in the chance that it might piss God off? Because you were pissing God off when you were eating your burger or bacon or assorted sea food or watching porn or swimming in a bathing suite. I challenge you to give me a reasonable answer as to why gays and lesbians shouldn't be given the right to marry. I really don't want to take "It's a sin to the bible" as a answer because, like I said, there are a lot of other things we do every day that's considered a "sin" but they're legal..
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, Maciebaker, for instigating this debate.


I will negate based on arguments outside of the Bible, of which side-steps Pro's rant against homosexuality being a sin.

Premise 1: Complete heterosexual union and complete homosexual union are different

It should be readily apparent that there are differences between these two kinds of unions. These differences are:

1) Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate

2) Superior/inferior child-rearing capabilities

From these differences, I will show that their impacts are sufficient to warrant non-permission of gay marriage.


Premise 2: Heterosexual marriage is the bed-rock of society

Let us start with a very important question: why would a state need to regulate and recognise a relationship (i.e. marriage) if it was purely about love? Do you need a state contract in order to love someone? Of course not!!

Now, if not purely for love, why does marriage exist? Marriage exists as an institution for fostering procreation and family. Furthermore, complete unity, manifesting in procreation between a man and a woman, is what allows a society to exist. To realise the gravity of this point, consider a society wherein only homosexual unities exist. In other words, there would be a zero birth-rate, and the society would quickly die-out. As you can see, it is not that homosexual relationships are worthless/filthy/inferior, it is that they are not suitable for marriage.

Heterosexual marriage, if it is superior to homosexual marriage in regards to construction of a family, should be denoted with a different term to recognise its importance, and should be treated differently, should it not? Hence, would not distinct terms, such as marriage and civil unions, be appropriate to infer a difference between the two entities?

In order to justify the comment of homosexual unity, in regards to child-rearing, being inferior to heterosexual unity, allow me to offer you some arguments to consider.


A1: Capacity to procreate/inability to procreate

The inability for homosexuals to procreate together results in a lacking in genetic interest in any children they decide to raise. According to Evolutionary Psychologist David M. Buss, “Genes producing effects that increase their replicative success will replace other genes, producing evolution over time. Adaptations are selected and evolve because they promote inclusive fitness” [2]. This point extrapolates that genetic parents have a natural inclination to taking care of their children, even to the point of having genetic adaptions to accommodate child-rearing (i.e. genetic interest). Therefore, it will be expected that heterosexual parents, all other facets being equal, will be superior parents for their biological children, when compared to homosexual parents of a non-genetic child.

To give weight to this impact, I will now cite statistics relating to the Cinderella Effect, which is an infamous phenomenon relating to non-genetic parental abuse of children which occurs due to lack of genetic interest. To express the gravity of this problem, a report by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson studied many different researches. Among them, it was found (Daly and Wilson, 2001) in several different countries, that stepparents, “beat very young children to death… more than 100 times higher than the corresponding rates for genetic parents” [1]. Another analysis completed in Canada found the rate to be 120 times greater [1]. Another study (Daly & Wilson 1994) found that in England & Wales in 1977-1990, 117 of the children under five beaten to death were done so by 103 stepfathers [1]. In Australia, the estimate by the Australian Family Characteristics Survey data “exceeds 300-fold” [1].

On a separate but relevant point, a study in Tanzania (Marlowe, 1999) found that stepfathers almost never played with their stepchildren, there were elevated rates in accidental (i.e. neglect) injury and that overall, there was less investment in stepchildren’s education [1].

A study in Trinidad (Flinn, 1998) found that stepfathers, on average compared to biological fathers, spent significantly less time with their stepchildren (especially in the sense of play-time and anything but the minimum required time).

Finally, because there are two homosexual, non-genetic parents in a relationship, all Cinderalla Effect rates of abuse, neglect and murder can be doubled.

So:

1) Homosexuals cannot reproduce together

2) Lack of genetic interest makes for an inferior parent (impact: much more likely to abuse, neglect and kill children at staggeringly highly rates)

C) Homosexuals are inferior parents, in this regard


A2: Superior/inferior chid-rearing capabilities

  1. I. Emotional instability

The biological differences in the neurology between homosexuals and heterosexuals is another reason gay marriage should be disallowed. In the Netherlands, the first country to legalise gay marriage, a large study found that homosexuals, on average, have higher levels of psychiatric disorders. Controlling for demographics, homosexual men suffered from higher rates of substance-abuse disorders, mood-disorders, and both homosexual men and women were far more likely to have psychological disorders [3]. Despite the legalisation of gay marriage, homosexuals still suffer from higher rates of all kinds of negative affect. From this, we can conclude that, on average, homosexuals are far more mentally unstable.

According to Dr Ross, his research into homosexual mental illness found that across all the cultures study, of which included the very tolerant Netherlands (where gay marriage is legal) and the much more hostile United States (in regards to treatment of homosexuals), there was virtually no variance in the rate of homosexual mental disorders [9].

Due to a higher incidence of mental instability, heterosexual union should be held in higher regard, in terms of raising children.


  1. II. Marriage instability

The unions themselves are also unstable. Research into Scandinavian homosexual marriages (which includes Sweden, another country which has legalised gay marriage [4]) found that divorce risks are higher in same sex partnerships than in opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men” [5]. This gives proof that compared to heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriages are far less stable.


  1. III. Homosexual relationship infidelity

As it stands, homosexual men have a well-documented sexual promiscuity, when it comes to relationships outside of marriage, too. A study by Bell and Weinberg found rampant, unbridelled infidelity in homosexual relationships. 83% of homosexual men estimated they had sex, in their lifetime, with more than 50 partners. 43% estimated more than 500 partners. Incredibly, 28% said to have had sex with a whopping 1000 partners or more [6]. Another study performed by Paul Van de Ven found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [for homosexuals] was 101-500” [6]. Furthermore, an appallingly low 4.5% of homosexuals remain monogamous in their relationships [6]. To corroborate credence, a famous Canadian study discovered that of those homosexual relationships that lasted longer than one year, only 25% had remained monogamous [10]. How on Earth could the majority of these people be fit for the monogamy of marriage?!


II and III impact amplifier

Promiscuity is a clear indication of low vasopressin and oxytocin molecules, of which are vitally important in pair-bonding (i.e. a monogamous, married relationship) [8]. So important is fidelity to relationships that behavioural indicators of promiscuity show those who are promiscuous make for a poor parents, and are just as likely to show less concern for the partner [7]. Furthermore, sexual promiscuity actually lowers ability to pair-bond (by lowering oxytocin). Clearly, the ultimate impact here is that those people who are involved in promiscuous behaviour are (1) less fit for caring about children and (2) less caring about the other partner, hence more likely to be abusive or absent in the relationship, both of which are not suitable for marriage.


Syllogistic Summary

1) Homosexual and heterosexual unity is different

2) Heterosexual marriage exists as a bedrock of society

3) Homosexual inability to procreate leads to lack of genetic interest in children

4) Homosexuals are far more mentally unstable, and are also unstable with their relationships

C1) In regards to child-rearing, heterosexual marriage is superior to homosexual ‘marriage’

5) Due to the difference in effectiveness of the relationships, they should not be classed as the same

C2) Therefore, heterosexual union with the intention of child-rearing should be considered marriage whilst homosexual union should not be given the same label, due to the relevant differences which carry sufficient impact


References

[1] http://www.cep.ucsb.edu...

[2] http://emilkirkegaard.dk...

[3] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://www.businessinsider.com.au...

[6] http://exodusglobalalliance.org...

[7] http://tinyurl.com...

[8] http://www.youramazingbrain.org...

[9] http://www.tandfonline.com...

[10] Ryan Lee, "Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows," Washington Blade (August 22, 2003): 18.

Debate Round No. 1
Maciebaker

Pro

Maciebaker forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

My opponent's argument is a rant against the Biblical rejection gay marriage, of which my arguments are clearly not. Thus, please extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Maciebaker

Pro

Maciebaker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
I was going to challenge the propervert person, not anymore as it would be beating a dead horse, a overlooked horse, you dropped a nuke on an ant hill. Homosexuals have no debate now.
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
I would like to see the study results for straight couples, as well as compare adopting parents to the stepfathers in the study. However, as someone with a very pro-gay marriage viewpoint, this was interesting. I would also like to see another debate based less on child rearing.
Posted by Scratch 1 year ago
Scratch
An excellent answer in Round 1.
Posted by TruthWillOut 1 year ago
TruthWillOut
This will be interesting...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
MaciebakerZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Pro's case was based on rebutting religious arguments against gay marriage, and Pro failed to present any positive constructive arguments. Con refuted all of this by saying Pro lacked a link, and she (Con) merely dismisses religious arguments by presenting a strong, and un-refuted, sociological argument. Ergo, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
MaciebakerZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, and conceded arguments
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
MaciebakerZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 1 year ago
PatriotPerson
MaciebakerZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF