The Instigator
CosmoJarvis
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
DNehlsen
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Homosexual Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
CosmoJarvis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2017 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 901 times Debate No: 99534
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

CosmoJarvis

Pro

This will be a short debate discussing whether Homosexual Marriage should or should not be accepted and legalized in the United States.

Pro must support the claim that homosexual marriage is positive for society, while Con must explain why it is detrimental to society.

I ask that my opponent does not use religion as their main Burden of Proof for their argument.

Rules:
1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.
2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.
3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.


Rounds:
R1: Acceptance

R2: Main Arguments
R3: Rebuttals (No new arguments)
DNehlsen

Con

As far as I understand the first round of this debate is dedicated to me accepting this challenge, and therefore I'll pass on the lead to you.
Debate Round No. 1
CosmoJarvis

Pro

Outline:
I. Introduction

II. Is Homosexuality Natural?
III. Are Homosexuals Immoral?
IV. Are Gay People Capable of Being Parents?
V. Sources

I. Introduction:

Homosexuality: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex (S1)

I, pro, will be arguing that homosexuality, and homosexual marriage, should be accepted in modern-day society. I will use evidence from various articles and websites, both quantitative and qualitative, to support my argument.


II. Is Homosexuality Natural?

A popular belief regarding homosexuality is that it is nothing but a "phase" or a rebellious act homosexuals purposefully act to spite God. Thus, there is conversion therapy; "Pray the gay away." However, recent studies have found that homosexuality is a genetic trait. A study, conducted by Dr. Tuck C Ngun and his team at the University of California, found that homosexuality was a genetic trait. They found this by getting 37 pairs of twins in which one was homosexual and the other was heterosexual. Then, blood was taken from each subject for DNA testing. As a result, the researchers were able to isolate a gene, classified as the "Xq28 marker," (S2).


Additionally, homosexuality is a common sight in nature. In fact, many, if not all (that are not asexual of course), species have had homosexuals. It is an inherent thing, hard-wired in the minds of these animals. These animals do not decide "I want to go against the wishes of God," because they do not understand the concept of God or sin. They simply do as their impulses drive them to (S3).

III. Are Homosexuals Immoral?

One of the greatest counterarguments against legalizing homosexual marriage and accepting homosexuality in society is that "homosexuals are inherently evil and perverted." This is partially derived from religious beliefs, such as Christianity. However, fairly recently, Pope Francis has spread a new ideology of acceptance of homosexuals, publicly apologizing to homosexuals that have been marginalized by the Church. He went as far as to say that homosexuals "must not be discriminated against but must be respected and accompanied pastorally," (S4). Critics believe that this is a new step for the Church as Pope Francis gradually shifts the Church to accept and embrace homosexuals, rather than oppress them.

One of the biggest falsehoods of homosexuals is the belief that homosexual men are more likely to molest children. However, unsurprisingly, as shown by research conducted by Dr. Gregory Herek, adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, are equally likely to commit molestation. However, people such as Paul Cameron have made public statements and have faked data to "prove" that homosexuals were child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. However, his assertions were based off of fallacious assumptions, such as the belief that one-third of all homosexual men sexually abuse young children. To support his biased claims, he cited studies and experiments such as the Groth and Birnbaum study, claiming that this study showed that "54% of all molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners." However, as Dr. Herek states that the "Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The '54%' statistic reported by Cameron doesn't appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation," (S5).

IV. Are Gay People Capable of Being Parents?

Are homosexuals capable of being good parents? According to recent studies, yes, homosexuals are capable of being good parents. Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University who researches gay and lesbian parenting, says that gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on
average, because they chose to be parents." Research also suggests that gay and lesbian parents are a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption. According to a 2007 report by the Williams Institute and the Urban Institute, 65,000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with another 14,000 children living in foster homes of gays and lesbians. Research has also shown that the kids of same-sex couples were raised no worse than kids of straight couples in terms of mental health, social functioning and school performance. In a 2010 study conducted by sociologist Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz, there were no differences found between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents (S6). Other research that suggest that homosexuals are compatible parents was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The association holds that "the research has been remarkably consisten in showing that [homosexual] parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as pyschologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents," (S7).

Statistics have also shown that states that have legalized homosexual marriage how lower divorce rates than those that don't. The divorce rate in the states that allow gay marriage is approximately 20% lower than states that prohibit it (S8).

V. Sources:
S1) http://www.dictionary.com...
S2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
S3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
S4) https://cruxnow.com...
S5) http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...
S6) http://www.livescience.com...
S7) http://www.latimes.com...
S8) http://www.nbcchicago.com...
DNehlsen

Con

An Outline

1) Introduction

2) Whose Business is Marriage?

3) An Attack on the Church?

4) Can Homosexuals be Proficient Parents?

5) In Conclusion

6) Works Cited


Introduction

I would like to start off right away by saying I’m thrilled to be having this discussion with you, and look forward to reaching a conclusion, and growing in understanding of each others opinions and thought process – no matter what the outcome may be.

Before I start, there are a couple of terms I would like to define.

a) Marriage: The state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

b) Homosexual: Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.

By looking at these two terms, we can describe this debate as a discussion on if two individuals, of the same sex, should be able to become unified spouses in view of the law.


Whose Business is Marriage?

Let us begin right away by asking the most important question of the entire debate. Whose business is it? Is it the churches business what happens with marriage? Is it the governments business what happens with marriage? Is it the individuals business? Well if you think about it’s everybody’s business, just for different reasons.

The church is guaranteed the pursuit of their religious freedom by the First Amendment of the Unites States. Considering this, we must consider all the rights of the church regarding the question of homosexual marriage.

The government relies of marriage for reproduction. It is observable that having two parents, no matter their gender, is always better than having one or none. Therefore, for the sake of our future generations, marriage is also the business of the government.

But what about everybody else? Well we live with our peers, and our children are going to live with the children of our peers. It’s important to keep everybody else, the common civilian, in mind when we consider homosexual marriage.

So after looking at it, marriage is actually more or less everybody’s business isn’t it? Let’s look at this in more detail.



An Attack on the Church?

Under the veil of Religious Freedom one would expect people and organizations to do whatever they like. In the land of the free one would expect to be able to serve whoever you would like for whatever your reasons are. However, we have seen repeatedly that religious individuals and organizations alike are not free to practice their religion. An Oregon bakery recently went out of business after losing a lawsuit by a lesbian couple who were told the bakery would not bake a cake for their wedding. A Pastor from Georgia was fired for labelling homosexuality as a sin during a sermon. These responses do not portray the freedom of religion in America, rather a silencing of views some find offensive, or ‘intolerant.’

Forcing a church to perform a gay marriage, something directly contrary to its doctrine, is discriminating against the religious freedoms and pursuits of the church. Churches have been threatened with fines and/or prison time for refusing the marry same sex couples, which is a direct assault on religious freedom.


Can Homosexuals be Proficient Parents?

As mentioned before, marriage is also the business of the state. For the purpose of reproduction and growth marriage is essential to a country. But if a marriage is to exist without children what business is it of the state? Do you see a major problem here? Homosexual couples are simply incapable of having their own children. For men adoption is always a possibility, but with this you lose the hormonal changes both a mother and a father gain from having a biological child which better equip them to be loving parents. While this holds true against gay male couples, lesbians can receive sperm donations and therefore this argument holds no weight against them.

The Family Research Council has found that children raised by non-biological homosexual couples have a lot of issues. Homosexual couples are 400% more likely to receive welfare, and their children are less likely receive higher education, or in some cases even a high school diploma. Depression and Drug Abuse have strong correlation to children with homosexual parents as well. Research shows that children in homosexual families are less likely to get jobs in their teenage years, and are more prone to a stagnant lifestyle characterized by addiction, bullying, and eventually suicide.

Children raised in homosexual families often have emotional issues. In an ordinary family you have a male and a female with two different roles and two different personalities. Good Cop and Bad Cop if you will. Individuals with gay parents are unlikely to receive the feminine qualities they need, but too much of the masculine qualities to function normally. Individuals with lesbian parents are unlikely to receive the masculine qualities they need, but too much of the feminine qualities to function normally as well.

Looking at all of this, we can see that either homosexual couples won’t have kids, in which case it’s no business of the state, or these couples will have kids, which is setting them up for a statistical failure in life. This is immoral at best. Either way, homosexual marriage clearly is nothing the state, or homosexual individuals should want anything to do with.


In Conclusion

So in closing, the point I want to get across is that we need to be aware of everybody’s best interest. We need to respect the church and their freedoms to act independently of the LGBTQ+ movement, and the movements freedom to act independently of the church. Neither should have to bend their will to one another. However, at the same time we also need to keep in mind the health of our nation and our peers. We see people hurting, and we see lives of children being set up for failure under the reign of homosexual couples. This is not a decree of hate, or a decree of bigotry. This is the voice of someone who has a heart for everybody’s pursuit of happiness in life. I'm talking about a happiness in life which is including to the church, the outcasts, the homosexuals, but most importantly the children who can so easily be set up for failure in life. As a gay man I could never bring myself to put a child through that, even at the cost of having a family of my own.


Works Cited

(Introduction)

"Marriage Definition." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.

"Homosexual Definition." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.


(Whose Business is Marriage)

"First Amendment - U.S. Constitution." Findlaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.

Mclanahan, Sara. "The Consequences of Single Motherhood." The American Prospect. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.

"Why Children Need Married Parents." Why Children Need Married Parents. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.


(An Attack on the Church?)

Starnes, Todd. "Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple." Fox News. FOX News Network, 21 Jan. 2014. Web.03 Feb. 2017.

Whaley, Kacie. "Christian pastor fired for anti-gay sermon." Rolling Out. N.p., 24 Apr. 2016. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.

Hallowell, Billy. "Christian Chapel Owners Were Reportedly Threatened With Jail Time and Fines For Refusing to Marry Gays - and Now They’re Fighting Back." TheBlaze. TheBlaze, 20 Oct. 2014. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.

Metaxas, Eric. "How Does Gay 'Marriage' Hurt Us? Here's How." CNS News. N.p., 17 June 2014. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.


(Can Homosexuals be Proficient Parents?)

Krucik, George. "What Bodily Changes Can You Expect During Pregnancy?" Healthline. N.p., 4 June 2012. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.

Sprigg, Peter. "Family Research Council." Family Research Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.

"Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage." Family Research Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.

Schaerr, Gene. "How Children Raised By Same-Sex Married Couples Fare." The Daily Signal. N.p., 21 Apr. 2015. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.

Bauman, Michael. "A Non-Religious Case Against Same Sex Marriage." The Imaginative Conservative. N.p., 22 Jan. 2014. Web. 03Feb. 2017.

Debate Round No. 2
CosmoJarvis

Pro

Rebuttals:

Point One:
"
The church is guaranteed the pursuit of their religious freedom by the First Amendment of the Unites States. Considering this, we must consider all the rights of the church regarding the question of homosexual marriage... However, we have seen repeatedly that religious individuals and organizations alike are not free to practice their religion... Forcing a church to perform a gay marriage, something directly contrary to its doctrine, is discriminating against the religious freedoms and pursuits of the church."
Con is asserting that, because the church does not accept homosexual marriage, all Americans must recognize homosexual marriage as being "immoral," and therefore prohibit homosexual marriage, claiming that homosexuality conflicts with religion. However, according to the American Constutition, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," (S1). This puts a check on how extensive religion is as a poltiical influence, so the argument of how the Constitution guarantees religious freedom is countered by the separation of church and State.

Point Two:
"But if a marriage is to exist without children what business is it of the state? Do you see a major problem here? Homosexual couples are simply incapable of having their own children. For men adoption is always a possibility, but with this you lose the hormonal changes both a mother and a father gain from having a biological child which better equip them to be loving parents. While this holds true against gay male couples, lesbians can receive sperm donations and therefore this argument holds no weight against them."

I find this argument fairly odd. My opponent discusses that homosexual marriage is ridiculous because homosexuals cannot conceive children. A fair amount of married couples don't have children, either because the partners decide not to, or because the woman cannot physically conceive one. To suggest that homosexual couples cannot be married because they cannot conceive babies is as rational as stating that women with infertility cannot marry either. However, my opponent seems to counter his own argument (at least to lesbian marriage) by discussing sperm donations. This suggestion makes the entire claim bogus.



Point Three:
"The Family Research Council has found that children raised by non-biological homosexual couples have a lot of issues. Homosexual couples are 400% more likely to receive welfare, and their children are less likely receive higher education, or in some cases even a high school diploma. Depression and Drug Abuse have strong correlation to children with homosexual parents as well. Research shows that children in homosexual families are less likely to get jobs in their teenage years, and are more prone to a stagnant lifestyle characterized by addiction, bullying, and eventually suicide. Children raised in homosexual families often have emotional issues."
My opponent uses "research" by the Family Research Council, or the FRC, to support his arguments. I would like to raise a concern regarding the validity of his source: The FRC.
The Family Research Council is an organization that "researches" and publishes compositions of certain issues regarding life, marriage and family, and religious liberties. However, the FRC is biased. Each article, including its short page on abortion, gives readers the FRC's personal opinion. They fail to provide both sides of an issue, secluding their readers to a rightist perspective.
Specifically, on the topic of homosexuality, the first thing the FRC says is "Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed (S2). It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects." From this statement alone, we can determine that the FRC is biased, taking the side against homosexuality. They criticize it for being "unnatural," and calls it "destructive behavior," (S3).
Furthermore, I can come to the conclusion that the FRC provides unreasonable, and untrue data because the FRC fails to provide any details on its "research" regarding homosexuality, only giving vague statements such as "Pro-family organizations (like Family Research Council) assert, 'Social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a life-long marriage.' This statement is true, and rests on a large and robust collection of studies," (S4). Yet, they failed even one example to support this claim.
"Evidence" based on bogus statistics is not evidence.

Unless my opponent can provide information from a reliable source, or an article discussing a specific study on this topic, I daresay that this "evidence" which my opponent has presented is null and void on the grounds that no studies have supported these claims, and the data comes from a biased source.

Sources:
S1) https://www.constituteproject.org...

S2) http://www.frc.org...
S3) http://www.frc.org...
S4) http://www.frc.org...
DNehlsen

Con


An Outline


1) Comments on my Opponents Opening Statements


2) Response to my Opponents Rebuttal


3) Conclusion



Comments on my Opponents Opening Statements


In my opponents original presentation, he argued three different points. The first is that homosexuality is indeed natural. The second point made is that homosexuality is not immoral. The third and final point is that homosexuals are capable parents. I think we both agree on his first point, and find no need to make any further comments on the matter. The second point, on my opponents own admission, is based primarily on religion and morality. Because of this I find the argument completely irrelevant to this discussion and therefore find no need to refute or support it. The third point presented is where issue is drawn. A good portion of my initial argument was centered around the fact that homosexual couples have more difficult times raising and caring for children efficiently.


One point presented to me by my opponent is that idea that homosexual marriage is good for adoption numbers, and I would not argue this point. Allowing more people to marry, especially those incapable of reproduction, would very logically result in an increased rate adoption from couples. The part of this point that I take issue with is when it was suggested that children of homosexual parents end up comparably the same, or debatably superior to children of heterosexual parents. As evidence of this claim, a single source was cited by my opponent. In this citation an article written based upon the evidences of a single phycologist was to be found. In light of this, my opponent felt it appropriate to disavow a single source presented by myself out of four in total on the subject. Not only did he disavow just a single source, but his objection was only on the premise that the source cited had a motive or agenda behind what they taught. The validity of this claim is obviously true, however this can be said of any source, including the ones presented by my opponent, as every source has an agenda, motive, or bias of some sort.



Response to my Opponents Rebuttal


In the first point of my opponents rebuttal, he made the following statement: “Con is asserting that, because the church does not accept homosexual marriage, all Americans must recognize homosexual marriage as being "immoral," and therefore prohibit homosexual marriage, claiming that homosexuality conflicts with religion.” Right away we can see my opponent shaping the words I said into his own creation, to which he proceeds to point to his new creation and say “How could you believe this?” Nowhere in my argument had I made the aforementioned assertion. Instead, I decided to draw attention to the point that homosexual marriage, regardless of its morality, has begun to push and step on the rights of the church.


My opponent, in his rebuttals second point, made the following statement: “To suggest that homosexual couples cannot be married because they cannot conceive babies is as rational as stating that women with infertility cannot marry either.” Again, we see my opponent twisting my words into his own creation, pointing at his new creation, and saying “How could you believe this?” Never had I made the statement that this was grounds to deny marriage to homosexuals altogether. On the contrary I simply asked if the state had any business in the subject. Later in the same point, I make the observation that homosexual males could not give birth to their own children and therefore would not receive the emotional and hormonal attachments biological parents receive. I proceeded to surrender the fact that lesbians could find ways around this problem. In response to this, my opponent made that claim that my entire argument was ‘bogus’ as a result. Think about that – he just labeled my entire argument bogus because it only applies to half of the population we’re discussing. I admitted that this was not a problem for lesbians, but that does not change the fact that it is indeed something that must be considered in regard to male gays. Therefore he has done nothing but repeat what I’ve already stated, making no real refutation.



Conclusion


In conclusion, I have found the rebuttal of my opponent to be lacking. In response to my defense of the church he can be found blatantly twisting my words, and as a result never actually challenging any of the points I had presented. In response to the question I had proposed: “What business is it of the government?” I again found my opponent twisting my words, and as a result he never actually challenged and of the points that I had made. Finally, my opponent addressed my statements on the matter of Homosexual Parents. To do this, my opponent chose to single out a source presented by myself, out of many, and deem it invalid. Even if his claims are correct, which is a debatable matter in and of itself, that does not change the fact that I had presented three other coherent and agreeing sources, which remained completely unmentioned in his rebuttal. As a result of this, my opponent never actually challenged any of the points that I had presented. In light of everything just said, I find myself utterly unimpressed by the rebuttal of my opponent. He has yet to challenge any point I made, in partial or in whole, honestly.


Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: AmericanDeist// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 point to Pro (Arguments)). Reasons for voting decision: Both had good conduct and used good grammar. Both had sources that were cited. Pro made the better argument. I am an ordained minister, a Dr. of Theology, and I support the right of gay couples to be legally married, as all US citizens should have the same rights. The Church can't dictate the law to the government.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This debate is over 7 months past the end of the voting period. As such, it is well past the statute of limitations for vote moderation.
************************************************************************
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean then. You were talking about "THE government," which I supposed was the central government, not state governments.
Also, you ask repeatedly "what business is the government with marriage," as though you were criticizing the central government.
Posted by DNehlsen 1 year ago
DNehlsen
Would not both the President and the State be considered part of the government of sorts? I fail to see the dilemma here.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Common misconception about marriage: it is actually not up to the central government to determine whether to universally legalize homosexual marriage, but as a result of both the support from Obama, and the many states that have already legalised homosexual marriage, other states have decided to follow this trend of permitting it. So it isn't up the central government to determine the legality of homosexual marriage, but much rather the state. I am unsure if my opponent was trying to make a point about how the central government has no right to dictate marriage laws, when in fact, they never the ones who did dicate them.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I asked you specifically where your evidence and data came from regarding points such as "homosexual couples are 400% more likely to receive welfare." You said that this data came from the FRC. I proceeded to argue that your data on the FRC is biased and unreliable.
If you can prove that the FRC's data and assertions on homosexual couples and their children then, by all means, do it.
Posted by DNehlsen 1 year ago
DNehlsen
I provided 5 difference sources under my Works Cited Page. All of them have similar numbers and ideas. All information and all sources are in some way biased. The important thing to is sort of the truth within all of it.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
The FRC is very biased. Unless you can provide another source (that is unbiased) that supports these claims that the FRC makes, then I do not believe that you have the right to use the FRC's "statistics" as evidence for your argument, DNehlsen.
Posted by DNehlsen 1 year ago
DNehlsen
http://www.frc.org...

I made an error in citation. My apologies.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
What statistics claim that homosexuals are 400% more likely to get welfare, and children of homosexual parents are more likely to use drugs and are more likely to commit suicide?
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
tHE EASTER BUNNY IS REAL!!!!!!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AmericanDeist 1 year ago
AmericanDeist
CosmoJarvisDNehlsenTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had good conduct and used good grammar. Both had sources that were cited. Pro made the better argument. I am an ordained minister, a Dr. of Theology, and I support the right of gay couples to be legally married, as all US citizens should have the same rights. The Church can't dictate the law to the government.