The Instigator
JaidaDebates167
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Legalizing Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
16kadams
Started: 1/30/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,860 times Debate No: 20765
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

JaidaDebates167

Pro

Gay marriage in the United States has been an issue for years. People who are against gay marriage believe marrying someone from the same sex is frown upon and is immediately dishonored. We spent years ridiculing others who love the same sex, and for what? Because they are supposed to love the opposite sex?Growing up, I had always been around others who hated the idea of gay couples, let alone them getting married. As for myself, however, I never had an issue with the idea. If a man and his male partner are in love, why not be married and live a happy life? Even for a woman and her female companion, both deserve to wear dresses on their wedding day. I believe everyone deserves a love that lasts a life time, whether its a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. This is a free country after all, we all deserve to marry the person of our choice.
16kadams

Con

Um your case lacks a coherent argument... But it's good. Well... I will just do my case.

C1: marriage is an institution that relates to marriage.

The reason the state still by and large rejects gay marriage for this reason. I am not saying that it is soely about procreation, but this is the reason the state is involved in the issue. (1)
" Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest" (1)
There is a definite link between marriage and procreation. (2)

So I am not saying that is the purpose, I am saying that's why the state holds straight marriages above gay ones.

C2: health problems with gay sexual activity

"At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU" (3)

Ok their 53% of the people that have aids, but are they at higher risk? Yes.

"In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." (3)

So a small segment of the population have more than half of this STD. 4 million gays, (4) have 53% of this STD. Odd huh.

C3: benifits of marriage hurt the economy

Tax benifits:

Allows you to divide tax by family members. (5)

Ex: 10k tax, 2 people in family=5k tax.

Now how is this bad? It would decrease revanue to the goverment raising the deficit. One dollar spent here = 1 not spent on healthcare.

Goverment benifits:

"Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses." (5)

More people on this leads to higher deficits.

The list goes on.

C4: the institution would be hurt.

Current meaning of martiage is it should be 2 people living together for a long time.

Gays have shorter relationship spans:

66% of heterosexual couples have relationships of over 10 years. (6)

15% of gay couples have relationships that last for over 10 years. (7)
It hurts the institution.

Open marriages:

Gays have 8 partners per year. (8)

Hurts institution here too.

Divorce rates:

This study says that gay divorce rates are higher than straight ones. (9)

It would hurt it there too.

Out of room

Vote con

sources:

http://tech.mit.edu... (1)
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... (2)
http://www.cdc.gov... (3)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (4)
http://www.nolo.com... (5)
Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States," Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001): (6)
"Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, www.glcensus.org.
Xiridou, 1031. (8)
https://same-sex.web.ined.fr... (9)
Debate Round No. 1
JaidaDebates167

Pro

Many people in heterosexual relationships have been getting divorced more than ever these days. Gay couples, like straight ones, have issues as well in relationships. A relationship consists on trust and honor (main points), goes for straight and gay couples too. At some point, a person you know or even, God forbid, you end up in one. That makes you another statistic in society. With gay couples, as you mentioned, have a much higher percentage of not staying together for a period of time. But if gay couples want to become married and risk the chance of getting a divorce, its their choice.

Many homosexuals have HIV/AIDS. Does getting married or even dating be the cause? I think not. It's their own responsibility to know to protect them selves and also protect others. They can get tested and not have to live life on this earth having a disease they don't even know about.

Yes gay couples cannot produce an offspring. But this gives a higher rate of adoption. Many gay couples adopt a child so they can be one happy family. Children would have opportunities to live in homes where they are wanted. Now I'm not saying only gay couples adopt, but a majority of them do. It hires standards of kids to have a home.

Though some gay couples have unhappy endings, some can have happy endings, and some do.
16kadams

Con

R1: divorce gay rebuttal

Well yes they all have divorce problems but I have proven gays have higher divorce rates. In fact their divorce rates where 1.5 times higher. (1)

So yes both have problems, but homosexual relationships have higher divorce rates.

Also the reason for the difference is loggical, gays have higher abuse rates. Violence in gay couples is 2-3 times more likely. (2) it is logical, homosexuals abuse eachother more which leads to higher divorce rates.

R2: Aids

You prove my point. But you also think that dating is the problem. Married couples have this problem too.
Aids infections among married couples are on the rise. (3) Legalizing SSM may lead to more aids cases. (4)

R3: Adoption

The thing is, is it good? No:

Child molestation is far more common from homosexual couples then from heterosexual ones. (5)
Gay men are more likely to be peoria who abuse. (6)

Also kids need a mother and father:

2 parents are not enough, a mother is needed asit is better for the child. (7) Men and women act differently, both are needed so the child can get a balance. (8)

Also I have seen no rebbutals. Extend arguments.

http://www.robgagnon.net... (1)
http://www.acpeds.org... (2)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... (3)
http://bigthink.com... (4)
http://www.wnd.com... (5)
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com... (6)
http://www.mercatornet.com... (7)
http://www.citizenlink.com... (8)
Debate Round No. 2
JaidaDebates167

Pro

Divorce rates are even higher than ever today, for both homosexual and heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages fall apart in some cases of domestic violence all the time. It doesn't make a difference that a gay couple will do the same. Homosexual couples married or not, do the things they do either way.
AIDS is a worldwide epidemic, especially within the gay community. Married or not, the virus will still spread if they are not protected. Being married won't spread the disease even further.
Yes, a child does need a father AND a mother in their lives. But not all gay couples will molest their adoptive child. I'm pretty sure there are many cases of child molesation in mother and father households.
Just to be clear, I am not only talking about male couples, but the marriage of female couples as well. They have the least chance of spreading AIDS, or molesting a child. My arument against gay marrige goes for both men and women, not just gay males in society.
16kadams

Con

Divorce rates

She offers no evidence. Therefore I have proven gays divorce more therefore raising divorce rates. I win he argument at this point. As she has no counter evidence I extend my case.

AIDS

No Counter evidence used I extend

Adoption

No Counter evidence extend arguments.

VOTE CON! She dropped most of my case too. So I think you should vote con :P No vote however you like. But still VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
JaidaDebates167

Pro

I actually know a lesbian couple, who are married and have had children from men before they even knew each other. As I see them everyday, I see how happy they are and how they make society different in a good way. They don't have AIDS, problems at home, or any sign that they are abusing their children. Like my opponent pointed out, studies show that homosexual couples are more likely to have abusive relationships and molest their adoptive children. So does that mean they would eventually get into a violent argument and/or molest their children? NO.

Gay & Lesbian couples with adoption:

In 1976, there were between 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents. In 1990, 6 to 14 million children had at least one gay or lesbian parent. Between 8 and 10 million children were being raised in gay and lesbian households.

In 1999, approximately 547,000 children in foster care in the US, 117,000 legally free for adoption. There were only qualified adoptive families available for only twenty percent of them. Ten percent of the US population is homosexual, meaning a lot of couples whose biological resources for children are reduced are currently prevented from filling in the adoption gap

Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:

-An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
-An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
-More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
-Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
-Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.

As I mentioned in the previous argument, gay and lesbian couples adopting is not horrific in some cases. Who says only a woman and a man can raise a child? Though it is the "right thing" for society, there are any kinds of family households, and that is one of the many reasons on what makes this country diverse.

Sources used..you wanted evidence ;)
http://www.loveandpride.com...
http://adoption.about.com...
16kadams

Con

Thanks for the response :)

Her first argument is a lesbian couple she knew. I never meant every homosexual had problems, not I said on average they had more. Ex: on average Americans are less intelligent then Europeans, yet this doesnt imply all are less intelligent. As this us one couple and a misinterpretation I ask this be cancelled.

Then her statistics on adoption. She forgets: this isnt procreation. Adoption is no substitute as they are not adding kids to the workforce, rather moving them. Also she says it may be horrific under heterosexual parents, yes correct, but realize homosexuals have higher abuse rates.

Abuse among gay couples:

A Canadian study said abuse between partners was 2 times More likely then in a heterosexual relationship. (1)

Ex; Steves hitting adams are more likely then Adam hitting eve.

An American study also says abuse among gay couples is 2-3 times more common then among heterosexual ones. (2)

This study cites male- male relationships are 16 times more likely to abuse eachother then heterosexual ones. (3)

Ok stats here done.

Abuse towards kids:

Gays on average are more attracted to younger people. (4) gays commit 1/3 of child abuse, their 3% of the population, so percentage wise gays are more likely to abuse. (4)

Why did this go to adoption? Please continue back to SSM. Also extend arguments as only 1 is being refuted right now.

Sources:
http://www.statcan.ca... (1)
http://www.acpeds.org... (2)
http://www.familyresearchinst.org... (3)
http://www.frc.org... (4)
Debate Round No. 4
JaidaDebates167

Pro

OK, there are many sick people in this world who abuse others and harass young children. But is most of them gay? we never know. Not every homosexual is capable of harming any human being on the planet. If a homosexual couple adopts a child, will the adoption agency stop them mainly because they are who they are? There are many types of families in this world and that's one of the many ways this country is diverse.

Now, back to Gay marriage:

Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them.

The last thing our country needs is discrimination. Denying gay marriage can show that his country only has one way of being happily married. Sure there are many victims of abuse, disease etc., but not all homosexual couples are like that. It very stereotypical that others are bashing homosexuals because they believe that all of them are capable of molesting a child or attempting to flirt with someone of the same sex.

Everyone this this country deserves to be happy, gay or not. What other evidence do I need to prove that.

Sources used
http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
16kadams

Con

I will refute my old way:

"OK, there are many sick people in this world who abuse others and harass young children. But is most of them gay? we never know. Not every homosexual is capable of harming any human being on the planet."

Yes sick straight people do it too, but I have proven my case that a homosexual is more likely to be odd. I wish this wasn't the case and that it was all lower levels of harassment. But I have proven that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, you have no cunter evidence, hence the point stands. But for fun one more osurce n the issue.

" the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals, she said." [1]

Also the source states just because your gay, =/= molester, but statistics show homosexuals molest a more often.

"Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them."

Being opponsed, and having SSM bans, are not discrimatory. [2] Here's the logic;

"The New York Times sermonizes that denying gays marriage deprives them of equal protection. That argument is erroneous, for when we allow people of differing religion, race, gender or sexual orientation to participate and share in categories defined equally for all, discrimination does not exist. " [2]

"Under the legal system prior to the legalization of such unions, anyone was free to marry someone of the opposite gender, no matter your gender, race, religion, economic status, or sexual orientation. You are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, and the law is applied equally to all people, so banning “gay marriage” is not discrimination. " [3]

Make sense?

"Everyone this this country deserves to be happy, gay or not. What other evidence do I need to prove that."

1. Marriage is about procreion, as I have proved and you dropped the argument.
2. They are such a small population it hardly matters.
3. There is no evidence proving marriage helps LGBT people. [4]


=conclusion=

I have refuted her arguments, whilst she has dopped much of my case, hence I have won the debate. I urge a pro vote.

-out of room-




sources:
http://sbcbaptistpress.org... [1]
http://catholiceducation.org... [2]
http://www.freerepublic.com... [3]
http://www.catholic.com... [4]
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
lol
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 2 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Why id this in the Economics category?
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Maybe
Posted by owen99999 2 years ago
owen99999
@16kadams

I completely disagree with you on the subject from all angles HOWEVER I would have voted for you as obviously hasn't got to grips with debating yet. Next week is my school half term so please if you want a more worthy opponent; challenge me to this debate next week.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Also I notice if your against gay marriage all of the pro people call you or your factual statistics bigoted.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Actually the statistics where good until the end.
Posted by RobertAnthonyLongo 2 years ago
RobertAnthonyLongo
Ok you won the debate, but don't say you use logic when you base your "reason" on completely biased statistics created by hateful bigots.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
lol vmpire the e comment = lols [1]

I source every word [1]
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Owen I do not oppose gay marriage due to religeon, I am pro Capital punishment yet my relugeon wants to ban it. My beliefs are based of of logic. Also calling religious people dumb insults me.
Posted by owen99999 2 years ago
owen99999
Come on Jaidadebates167! I completely agree with you gay marriage should certainly be legal the people who think it shouldn't be are just religious morons (redundant term- all religious people are morons) who follow their dumb little fictitious book.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 2 years ago
THEBOMB
JaidaDebates16716kadamsTied
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: Con had a much, much, much, much better case. Pro really did not refute Con's case giving Con the win.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
JaidaDebates16716kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: 16k did very good here and he really did great at the debate.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
JaidaDebates16716kadamsTied
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: Con's case was much stronger than Pro's . . . she barely attempted to refute her opponent's arguments properly.
Vote Placed by kyro90 2 years ago
kyro90
JaidaDebates16716kadamsTied
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: 16k had more and better arguments and putting into consideration that he had much more words, I gave him conduct.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
JaidaDebates16716kadamsTied
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: Hmm. PRO didn't do as well as con on rebuttals, and con had better overall arguments....and con uses a source for just about every word he says..