The Instigator
eganbrooks100
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Legalization of Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 900 times Debate No: 77325
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

eganbrooks100

Pro

Gay Marriage should definitely be legalized for many positive reasons.
Firstly, our era has evolved so much with accepting black people and removing the slavery laws. But how have so many places around the world not legalized gay marriage? All humans should be able to love and feel attached to people regardless of sex. Marriage is defined as a commitment between a man and a woman but should we really let these definitions take control over basic human rights? No! Why do people keep referring to the definition of the word marriage? People argue that there needs to be a new definition to gay marriage but why can't we change the definition of the word marriage? Maybe the gay community might have to accept that the government will be so inhumane and not change anything and allow them to define there love which is no different than ours and be called something different than marriage? Although that is inhumane to disregard and not include people just because their share a different kind of love? We accept people who have different skin, religion and beliefs but we can't even accept that people are attached to the same sex? Gay marriage should be legalized, not just because it is inhumane to disregard how people are attracted to others but because it would also help the dying economy. Love is not about money and neither is this topic and everyone should know that I believe gay marriage should just be legalized for fair human purposes but it would help the economy. Let's say there is around 2000 gay couples in Australia alone and the whole wedding process would cost around 20,000; that's 40,000,000 million dollars. That would stimulate the economy with more jobs and more money.

To sum up, love is defined as " a strong feeling of attraction", just because that love is shared between two people of the same sex doesn't mean they should not have the ability to get married or whatever the government thinks they want to call it and feel the attachment and commitment as a couple. It would also stimulate the economy and give jobs to many people.

Thankyou.
Zarroette

Con

I thank eganbrooks100 for instigating what I suspect will be a lively debate.

Due to character limits, I will be constructing my negative case this round, and offering rebuttals to my opponent's case in the next round, although you will find many rebuttals already within my negative case.

I presume that because that it is not specified, the burden of proof defaults to Pro as usual.


Negative Case


Premise 1: Heterosexual marriage is the bed-rock of society


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 [14].

To realise the truth in 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. Now to put reality into this theory, take the case of Japan. Thanks to an alarming amount of Japanese people opting out of marriage, with sixty-one percent of unmarried men aged 18 and 34 do not have a partner, nor do half of unmarried women the same age [12], Japan now has a negative birth-rate [13]. Furthermore, so desperate is the economic situation that the Prime Minister of Japan is attempting to bail the country out through “quantitative easing and cash injections” [13]. This gives real evidence to show that countries do not exist without heterosexual marriage.

Heterosexual marriage is the most important unit, in terms of societal existence.


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 is corroborated with Mark Rothstein’s work, in regards to child-rearing, wherein it is argued that, and I quote [16]:

1) The survival of genetic children is a good consequence [for the genetic parents]

2) Factors favouring survival should be given precedence

3) Genetic ties between rearing parents and children favour child notably more successfully than do ties between rearing through non-genetic parents [i.e. homosexuals] and their children

C) Therefore, genetic ties should be given precedence


To give weight to this link, I will now cite statistics relating to the ‘Cinderella Effect’, which is an infamous phenomenon relating to non-genetic parental abuse/murder of children due to lack of genetic interest.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].

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) [1].

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


A2: Superior/inferior chid-rearing capabilities

  1. 0. Heterosexual marriages are the best for children

According to a collaborative report that cites *over* 150 academic articles/researched papers, children reared in intact, married, heterosexual families are [11]: (1) more likely to participate in college, (2) are physically and emotionally healthier, (3) are less likely to be sexually or physically abused, (4) not as likely to use illicit drugs, (5) less likely to be incarcerated for delinquent behaviour and (6) less likely to become a parent before they are ready (i.e. in their teenage years). Heterosexual marriage is the safest, healthiest unit in which to raise children.

  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 studied, 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, unbridled 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 the 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.

Research into infidelity clearly shows that those who are promiscuous are up to four times more likely to cheat/divorce [15]:




A1+A2: Culmination Effect

The culmination effect builds a solid case for homosexual parenting to be unfit for marriage.

Multi-use culmination

Simplified Syllogism

To help you with the voting, I will make my argument as simple as possible:

1) Marriage is an institution about child-rearing

2) Marriage is the bedrock of society

C1) Therefore, the state has interest in keeping marriages as strong as possible

3) Via the culmination effect, [lack of genetic interest] + [inferior parenting ability] = homosexuals being significantly inferior child-rearers than heterosexuals

4) Since C1, the state has an interest in keeping the inferior homosexual unions out of marriage

C2) Therefore, gay marriage should not be permitted


References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate Round No. 1
eganbrooks100

Pro

eganbrooks100 forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

Extend my arguments.

I am going to add to my already overwhelming argument, so that if Pro decides to respond, he will have two rounds to address the content.


General problem with same-sex parenting [19]

In 2011, Sociologist Mark Regnerus was the lead investigator in a study by the National Family Structure Study (NFSS) which “surveyed 2988 young adults” to collect data about children “from various family origins” [17]. The young adults used were randomly sampled, which means that there was no control-bias in preselecting samples, which is commonly found in studies. So, from this study, it was found that children raised by lesbians were 3.5 more likely to be unemployed. Homosexual parents were more likely to raise criminals, and children raised by lesbian parents were the second highest involving risk of crime. As suggested by the “non-biological parents” arguments I made, homosexual parents were found to more likely abuse their children. Children raised by gay men were 3 times more likely to incur an STI in their lifetimes, twice as likely for children of lesbian’s. People raised by homosexual men had an increased likelihood of having suicidal thoughts.

For those of you who like visuals, here are the graph versions of some of the findings [18]:








On the contrary, ‘no difference’ theory has run into trouble on several occasions. Let me show you some trouble.

In a review of the APA statement on gay parenting, Sociologist Loren Marks found that 26 of the papers she looked at did not meet the scientific standards required to be research in which the APA could conclude upon: “[the] strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted” [20].

Another review by Pscyhologist Tray Hansen found that researched produced by Pro-gay authored, addressing ages 14 and above studies all had “methodological flaws… including small, non-representative samples, lack of control groups, and non-longitudinal designs” [21]. Hansen concluded her review by arguing that “the research studies we have to date suggest that non-heterosexuals are far more likely to raise non-heterosexual children than heterosexual children” [21].

The research into homosexual relationships clearly indicates that homosexuals do significantly poorer in raising children, and in some areas, disastrously poorer. Also, the ‘no difference’ theory has been shown to be wrong, on several different levels.


References

[17] http://www.markregnerus.com......

[18] http://www.familystructurestudies.com......

[19] http://www.debate.org......

[20] http://www.sciencedirect.com......

[21] http://www.drtraycehansen.com......

Debate Round No. 2
eganbrooks100

Pro

eganbrooks100 forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

I trust that my weighted links will be preferred over my opponent's unreferenced wall-of-text.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by NewLifeChristian 1 year ago
NewLifeChristian
Nice debate! Your arguments were great and well-written Zarroette; however, I would like to address your stance on civil unions. I have recently thought about this issue and have concluded that the rights and benefits granted through civil unions should only be given to those who truly deserve them. The heterosexual couple benefits society through procreation. The homosexual couple does NOT, in fact, in some cases we get a negative consequence. Studies show that men who have sex with men are at the highest risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
Zarro, I have a disagreement with your definition of marriage. You argue that marriage should only occur with the purpose of raising children in the most stable environment possible in mind. I disagree. If this is the only purpose of marriage, the why don't couples unable to produce offspring split up? If a couple is able to produce offspring, and does, why don't they split up after rearing the child and they are unable to have children? If it's so as the support the child emotionally, what if the child dies? Should people who choose not to reproduce not marry? Why do people marry after they are past childbearing age? I argue that marriage is not a method to nurture children, but an expression of love for another, a commitment. Humans mate for life, do you believe partners should be chosen only on their ability to nurture a child?
Please respond on this thread or through PM. I look forward to hearing from you.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Zarro: Is this to you like God debates are to me?
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
rekt
Posted by eganbrooks100 1 year ago
eganbrooks100
sure
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
I'm the cocky one around here, kiddo. But it looks like you'll have to learn that the hard way.
Posted by eganbrooks100 1 year ago
eganbrooks100
Mmm yeah
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Oh wow. You really think you can beat me now, Egan?
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Character limit and time to reply is too short. Otherwise, I'd be more than happy to debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
eganbrooks100ZarroetteTied
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
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
eganbrooks100ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, so conduct to Con. Arguments also go to Con. Pro's only case was that since gay couples love each other, they should be able to marry. However Con gave a much better, well constructed argument, which focused specifically on marriage. Including the importance of heterosexual marriage in society, child rearing capabilities, procreation etc. Due to Pro's forfeiting the rest of the debate, all these arguments can be considered dropped. Sources were only used by Con.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 1 year ago
Cooldudebro
eganbrooks100ZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: F/F equals seven point drop. Excellent job, Zarroette.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 1 year ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
eganbrooks100ZarroetteTied
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: Pro forfeited. Con triumphs. Vincit omnia veritas.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
eganbrooks100ZarroetteTied
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: Conduct. Pro forfeits multiple times, so conduct to Con. Arguments. Pro presents a case that details marriage as being of love, and that equality must be upheld. The argument is primarily based on bare assertions, and has no truly strong impacts. Con's A1-A2 impacts clearly outweigh Pro's, especially since Con sources her assertions, arguing that marriage is not for love as much as for procreation, thus refuting Pro's assertion that the primary purpose of marriage is love. Then Con argues that same-sex parents are unfit parents, and are unable to procreate biologically. As such, Con's impacts outweigh Pro's, and I vote Con on arguments.