The Instigator
Finalfan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

New Gay Marriage Debate

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 4 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,647 times Debate No: 34559
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

Finalfan

Pro

The constraints of this debate structure hardly allowed for a proper back and forth! We argued about the semantics of your opening statement! Anyways Gay marriage is in no way problematic for our society! There is no proof of anything you have put forward, but you present it as if you have evidence! I went off on a tangent about population because that is your main argument! You stated that gays getting married somehow can have an adverse effect! I'm saying, that could not happen! Nature dictates our time here and our population! Our resolve and number of people procreating does not support your argument at all!

Over population is a plague on this planet and our species! From a biological perspective we are like a bacteria in large masses! From an archaeological perspective our mass has spread exponentially in a very short time consuming and secreting waste! From a sociological perspective Our limited resources is already in dire need for millions of people that exist today in poverty and desolation!

Basically you have nothing to worry about! Letting people get married is not a catalyst for the downfall of man! How would it change anything at all? People will still be gay and not procreate regardless of how fabulous their wedding is! I think you give to much power to marriage! It is a wonderful institution that should be shared by all!

This time debate don't just dance around my answer because I have you whipped.. BTW... My main argument still stands that you are in fact supporting a homophobic regime!
xXCryptoXx

Con


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.


He insisted I have a rematch with him after our last debate, so I will graciously accept.


Marriage and Procreation


What makes marriage what it is? What makes marriage special so that it should only be obtained by man and woman together? The answer is the relationship that only heterosexual couples can pursue. Normally the argument in support of gay marriage goes along the lines of, “Oh well they really love each other so they should get married!” If marriage was about the emotional connection then why wouldn’t the two people simply stay in a non-marital relationship? There is no point in recognizing a relationship that is only out of love. Obviously, only man and woman can procreate. Without procreation a society could not continue to live or thrive. The reason the man and woman get the marriage benefits is because they are doing society a “favor” per say by procreating and allowing the society to live. This is something homosexuals simply cannot do. Procreation and the proper raising of children are at the base of marriage; it is the main reason marriage exists. This fits the traditional view of marriage, which is between man and woman. Gay marriage gives absolutely no value to society at all as a whole. At the heart of marriage is also the proper raising of children, therefore infertile heterosexual couples can and should also be able to get married. Even though they cannot procreate, they can adopt and raise children for society; therefore they still provide society benefits. In addition, the state still takes an interest in infertile/childless marriages because it wants to promote a view of marriage as it really is, not just as a means to an end.



Marriage Between Man and Woman


Now from my last point, it may sound like my arguments go along the line of procreation and the proper raising of children being the only important thing in marriage. While procreation is what benefits society in essence, marriage is more than that.


Men and women are complimentary to each other in marriage, and through the loving (and natural) relationship they pursue. This loving relationship fulfilled at its best (much like a tree that bears fruit) produces children for society and raises them properly to continue societal growth. Marriage between man and woman connects sexual intercourse with love and not lust, sexual intercourse connects with children, and the children connect to being raised and loved by their mom and dad. This is all good for society and is a role in marriage that can only be fulfilled by a man and a woman. Marriage is about the relationship between man and woman, and when that relationship is fulfilled at its best, it commonly becomes a loving family that raises children properly for society. Not only does gay marriage not fulfill this role, but allowing gay marriage actually distorts this role, leading to marriage ultimately losing its meaning.



Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited


There is a limited role that the government should, and should not do with marriage. Hopefully the government would never go as far as to legalize marriages based around pedophilia, bestiality, having multiple spouses, ect. In order to preserve the sanctity and meaning of marriage, the government must draw the line somewhere on who gets married. It logical to see that this line should be drawn at marriage between a man and a woman. Reasoning behind this can be seen in my procreation argument and my argument over the relationships heterosexual couples pursue. Marriages between man and woman benefit society while not complicating society like having multiple spouses could do. Once marriage only becomes an emotional relationship between two people and nothing more, the meaning behind marriage is lost.


There is a reason that the government regulates marriage. This reason is that marriage between man and woman is inherently good in the sense that it has a special link to procreation and the proper raising of children for society. The government would be doing a poor job regulating marriage if they allowed anything that didn’t have the best societal structure interest in mind.



Parenting among homosexuals


Obviously one of the most important things in society is the children and how they are raised. Children need to be raised well in order to keep the society moving forward without problems. Homosexuals cannot achieve the expectations set in raising children well, or even better than heterosexual parents and I will now explain why.


A study taken in July of 2012 proved that homosexual parents fail in all categories in being better than their heterosexual counterparts at parenting.


"Homosexually-behaving adults inherently suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse; therefore, as a group, households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home environments needed by foster children."(1)(4)


A study taken from the Journal of Human Sexuality concludes the following:



  1. The presence of a father reduces the chances that the child will participate in criminal activities and reduces the chances the child will take drugs.

  2. Lesbian mothers make children more sexually active. Fathers help the child stay chaste.

  3. “Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex.” (3)

  4. People have the best sex lives when raised by heterosexual parents.

  5. Fathers help children with interaction among other people.

  6. When going through puberty, the father teaches the son “how to be assertive and how to be a “man”. (3)



violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples, and homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages”. (4)


I will concede to the point that there are homosexuals that can raise children better than some heterosexual couples. To clear up why it still isn’t appropriate to allow the exceptions, I will give this analogy:


“we should not stop warning people about the dangers of smoking just because some smokers outlive non-smokers. Nor should we stop warning people about the dangers of homosexual behavior or parenting just because some homosexuals outlive heterosexuals or parent better.


If laws were based on exceptions, we would have to do away with virtually every law we have. It would require that we do away with all laws against running red lights because sometimes running a red light will not hurt anyone. In fact, it would require that we do away with marriage itself because spouses in some marriages abuse one another and their children.”(4)


I will provide my rebuttals in the next round.


(1) http://catholiceducation.org...


(2) http://www.scribd.com...


(3) Quote from 16KAdams in his debate, “This House Believes That the No Difference Theory is correct”


(4) http://www.allaboutlove.org...


(5) http://www.lifesitenews.com...


Debate Round No. 1
Finalfan

Pro

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

That is the definition of marriage in the Merriam-Webster's dictionary! I see nothing about marriage being a tool to propagate our species! Many different cultures and societies have built constraints on marriage. Some had to amend these constraints due to the changing times: Like allowing interracial and interfaith marriages! I believe that Gay people are the new "Women's Rights", or "African American Rights"! They are next in line for receiving equality and letting them wed is our first step towards acknowledging they are equal!

Married people are given benefits because often they start their lives by buying houses and having children, they become profitable and help boost the economy! The only difference in the benefits from traditional marriage and same sex marriage is procreation, and I already gave my response to that theory! Gay people can and do adopt! Some make wonderful parents and raise wonderful children! It is a pretty bold statement saying that gay sex cannot be "making love" only lustful.. I firmly doubt you have any reason to actually believe that! I have proved that is not singled out for only a man and a woman! Your argument is pure speculation and has many holes in it!

"Not only does gay marriage not fulfill this role, but allowing gay marriage actually distorts this role, leading to marriage ultimately losing its meaning."
- We thought the same thing with letting African Americans and women have the same opportunities.. Look what happened, it strengthened us leading to a more peaceful and tolerant society!

Your "government section didn't have a whole lot to reflect on, just the same nonsense about same sex marriage being the only institution that benefits our society (again without proof)! The line can be drawn at consenting participants. That is why pedophilia, bestiality, and child marriages are a big no no! Gay marriage does not follow under those abominations because they are consenting adults and harm no one! Polygamy is another story altogether!
Again I proclaim that letting homosexual would have no affect on our population, the amount of heterosexual couples would not be affected by this so I do not understand your reasoning! Why would allowing same sex marriage affect our survival? You have given zero evidence for your assertion! So most of your argument is void of potency!
The only difference in the benefits from traditional marriage and same sex marriage is procreation, and I already gave my response to that theory!

There is alt of disagreement and conflicting evidence for same sex couples having children! Although there is evidence that gay people have a little extra baggage (thanks to dad) But in many cases gay couples were better than orthodox families! There is some serious stereotyping involved when you lump them all together! Some homosexuals would make terrible parents, but so do some heteros as well! Some of your examples are very arbitrary, like "When going through puberty the father..." Like gay people don't go through puberty! or "Fathers help children interact among other people" Huh? Do you think Gay dads will teach their sons to wear body glitter out in public? Or teach them that going drag is perfectly natural? I can go on and on about your "sources" but I doubt you would listen!

Here's a good one...

"violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples, and homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages".

Where are you getting this from? That sounds like anti gay propaganda to me!

"we should not stop warning people about the dangers of smoking just because some smokers outlive non-smokers. Nor should we stop warning people about the dangers of homosexual behavior or parenting just because some homosexuals outlive heterosexuals or parent better.

How is smoking and homosexuality the same? What dangers come from homosexuality? I see no logic in this analogy! Does anyone argue that gay people should have more rights than others? I don't get it! How does this prove why gay marriage doesn't stack up against hetero marriage?

"If laws were based on exceptions, we would have to do away with virtually every law we have. It would require that we do away with all laws against running red lights because sometimes running a red light will not hurt anyone. In fact, it would require that we do away with marriage itself because spouses in some marriages abuse one another and their children."

Again running a red light and being gay is not a good analogy! One kills people the other does not! I believe that if we can't get past our preconceived notions about gay marriage, we don't deserve to have marriage and it should be removed from society! The problem here isn't gay marriage it is holding onto a callous system that refuses to make way for change! (Stubborn) Homophobia is at the heart of it, so I hold firm with my main argument!

P.S. If you want to see it like "Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken" that's your business, but I think it is a waste of your time stopping them from doing it!
xXCryptoXx

Con


Thank you for your response.


My opponent attempts to refute my definition of marriage by literal giving me sever definitions of marriage. However, what my opponent doesn’t realize is that this debate is about how we should define marriage and is not about the literal definition of marriage itself. Although, none of those definitions are wrong, all of them give to general of a sense of marriage.


I agree with all those definitions, but I am simply taking the definition further by saying that marriage should only be between man and woman.


We are both of our arguments should go towards defining marriage in a way that best benefits society.


My opponent compares gay marriage to women’s rights and African American rights. The problem with my opponent’s assertion is that being against gay marriage does not have unjust discrimination unlike denying women and African Americans rights.


“The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X.”


“the state's granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination.”


My opponent goes on about how marriage benefits are granted to heterosexual couples because they often times buy houses and procreate and that the only difference between traditional and same-sex marriage is procreation. My opponent says in order to make of for the lack of reproduction homosexuals can adopt.


The buying of houses is extremely irrelevant to all of this seeing that it is not a necessity for marriage at all.


Actually, there are many differences between a homosexual and heterosexual relationship besides procreation. Let’s again look at the reasons why the state recognizes marriage in the first place. Marriage is a private relationship that can benefit society publicly. The state recognizes marriage because of these public means. Heterosexual relationships have an inherent link to procreation and the proper raising of children. Through their natural and loving relationship, when it is fulfilled at its best it will naturally produce children and those children will naturally have a father and mother. Homosexual relationships do not share this link to children and it would not be in the state’s best interest to support any kind of institution that distorts this image of marriage, because this definition of marriage best benefits society.


There are two reasons homosexual couples adopting is not enough to allow gay marriage:



  1. I have already shown that homosexuals naturally do not raise children properly for society.

  2. Homosexuals cannot pursue a relationship that naturally beings children into the world through a loving relationship.


I talk about how allowing anything but marriage between man and woman will distort and the meaning of marriage and my opponent responds with how we though the same with African Americans.




Discrimination against African Americans was solely based on skin color. In order for this to be an equivalent to gay marriage, people who want to defend marriage between man and woman would only be doing so because they do not like homosexuals for being homosexual. However, we could care less about whether a person is homosexual or not, we just care about getting marriage right so it may best benefit society.



My opponent asks for proof on how heterosexual marriage best benefits society.


It’s funny that he has to ask. Heterosexual marriage through its natural relationship heterosexuals pursue inherently has a special link to procreation and the proper raising of children. Only society’s that have young to replace the old and societies where the young are properly raised can truly thrive. No other type of marriage benefits society like this, or as well as this type of union.



My point in the government and marriage section is that the government must draw a line at marriage where it best benefits society or else the image of marriage that is good for society will be distorted until marriage is just a union for two people that love each other.



My opponent talks about how allowing gay marriage won’t affect our population. This is irrelevant seeing that not wanting gay marriage to be recognized is not because of our population, but is so that the meaning of a marriage that best benefits society does not get distorted.



Allowing same-sex marriage does not affect the survival of humanity, however, it does affect the society as a whole. One must only look at other countries that have legalized same-sex marriage for years now. Many couples don’t even get married because its meaning was completely lost, most first-born children are born out of wed-lock, and many couples only live together but do not have long term commitment. These are some of the negative effects that same-sex marriage can bring.



My opponent attempts to refute scientific evidence over how homosexuals are not as good at parenting as heterosexuals with his own opinion. This simply will not do. My opponent must provide some kind of evidence against me to actually debunk my source. My opponent then just decides to generalize everything as “anti-gay propaganda” because it seems that he can’t actually find a way to refute my claims.



My opponent completely misses the message of my analogies and instead tries to laughably take them quite literally.



The point is, although some homosexual couples can raise children just as good as some heterosexual couples,doesn’t mean we should allow them to marry.



Heterosexual couples are naturally geared to raise children properly whereas homosexual couples are not. Again, heterosexuals have a special link to children, and it is in the State’s interest to support that, and not something that does not have that kind of link.



I await my opponent’s response.


Debate Round No. 2
Finalfan

Pro

I use definitions in my debate because often my opponents fail to recognize that it is important in communicating to know what your talking about! I gave you the universal definition for marriage so we have a common ground for debate! People tend to misunderstand the core concepts of the ideas that we are defending! According to Merriam-Webster Marriage is the union of both same sex and opposite sex marriages! You want to distort the definition by claiming that same sex marriage should not be recognized! Your argument is that same sex marriage is not beneficial to society!

My argument is that allowing gay marriage is perfectly natural and beneficial to society! You have taken a leap of faith to believe the information you have provided! That leap was propelled by homophobia (or miso-homosexual if you like) The fact that you even searched out the information shows your agenda which is fueled by an ignorance towards homosexuality! That goes the same for the evidence provided by your sources at "Journal of human sexuality"! Have you ever heard of "Look and you will see" (if you don't I can explain it further) You can provide substantial evidence for just about any point of view and it is up to me to decide what is real and what is being manipulated!

"On Jan. 6, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum told a New Hampshire audience that children are better off with a father in prison than being raised in a home with lesbian parents and no father at all. And last Monday (Jan. 9), Pope Benedict called gay marriage a threat "to the future of humanity itself," citing the need for children to have heterosexual homes.

But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn't back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."

And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table.)

Research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are actually 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 in foster homes headed by gays and lesbians. (There are currently more than 100,000 kids in foster care in the U.S.)

An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 " typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

Research suggests that gays and lesbians are more likely than heterosexuals to adopt older, special-needs and minority children, he said. Part of that could be their own preferences, and part could be because of discrimination by adoption agencies that puts more difficult children with what caseworkers see as "less desirable" parents.

No matter how you slice it, Brodzinsky told LiveScience, gays and lesbians are highly interested in adoption as a group. The 2007 report by the Urban Institute also found that more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians in the U.S. would like to adopt. That adds up to an estimated 2 million gay people who are interested in adoption. It's a huge reservoir of potential parents who could get kids out of the instability of the foster system, Brodzinsky said.

In addition, Brodzinsky said, there's evidence to suggest that gays and lesbians are especially accepting of open adoptions, where the child retains some contact with his or her birth parents. And the statistics bear out that birth parents often have no problem with their kids being raised by same-sex couples, he added.

"Interestingly, we find that a small percentage, but enough to be noteworthy, [of birth mothers] make a conscious decision to place with gay men, so they can be the only mother in their child's life," Brodzinsky said.

Research has shown that the kids of same-sex couples " both adopted and biological kids " fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures.

In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.

"There's no doubt whatsoever from the research that children with two lesbian parents are growing up to be just as well-adjusted and successful" as children with a male and a female parent," Stacey told LiveScience.

There is very little research on the children of gay men, so Stacey and Biblarz couldn't draw conclusions on those families. But Stacey suspects that gay men "will be the best parents on average," she said.

That's a speculation, she said, but if lesbian parents have to really plan to have a child, it's even harder for gay men. Those who decide to do it are thus likely to be extremely committed, Stacey said. Gay men may also experience fewer parenting conflicts, she added. Most lesbians use donor sperm to have a child, so one mother is biological and the other is not, which could create conflict because one mother may feel closer to the kid.

"With gay men, you don't have that factor," she said. "Neither of them gets pregnant, neither of them breast-feeds, so you don't have that asymmetry built into the relationship."

"People who say children need both a father and a mother in the home are misrepresenting the research, most of which compares children of single parents to children of married couples. Two good parents are better than one good parent, Stacey said, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. And gender seems to make no difference. "

You see... I didn't want to resort to that (Don't suppose you think evolution is a farce? I can do the same thing with that!) Evidence needs to be under scrutiny and have a strict ethical code, where your evidence is opinion based teachings against an innocent minority! The fact that you accept that evidence without ethic or scrutiny shows your fear of what you don't understand! I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you must be religious person and are following morals and ethics from an ancient book! Your religious social backgroung provides you with a sort of morel impunity in this case since you can't see how sinister those beliefs are!

Stop repeating your procreation argument.. It has no relevance whatsoever! Just a suggestion because it is a waste of your characters and I completely disregard it! Sorry if that sounds rude I just don't want to waste our time.. I'm out of characters and I barely scratched the surface!!
xXCryptoXx

Con


Note: After reading through my opponent’s argument, I would like to note that instead of my opponent actually giving substantial evidence against me, he often times disregards what I say by calling me a homophobe and how all my sources are anti-gay propaganda and even goes as far as to attack the morals of my religion.



To clear up any confusion we have caused on this debate about the use of the definition of marriage: This debate is not about how marriage is defined. This debate is about how marriage should be defined.


I am arguing that marriage should be defined between only man and woman, and you are arguing that marriage should be defined between two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation.



My opponent attempts to refute The Journal of Human Sexuality by simply calling it a homophobic source. He talks about how me using scientific evidence to prove my claims is just fuel for my ignorance and anti-gay agenda.


I’ve already explained in our last debate that there is no homophobia in my arguments; I simply want to define marriage in a way that best benefits society. Any unjust discrimination against homosexuals is uncalled for and should be stopped.


Other than this, my opponent completely fails to show any scientific evidence as to why the Journal of Human Sexuality is not an adequate source.



Please elaborate on what "Look and you will see" is.



At this point my opponent ignores every single other argument I made and goes straight to arguing how homosexuals can adopt children. He didn’t even present his own arguments; instead he just seems to have copy/pasted an article then submitted it as his argument.



First off, I have already explained that even if homosexuals could raise children properly, that still isn’t enough to allow them to marry.


I will explain again: Homosexuals cannot pursue a relationship that naturally beings children into the world through a loving relationship.


Heterosexual relationships naturally through their loving relationship produce children for society to be properly raised by that couple.


Homosexuals do not have this special connection to children, so even if they could raise them properly, that does not justify allowing them to be married.


“The ability to raise children on its own is not a marriage. Roommates raising children is not a marriage. This presumes that marriage is only a material good, when marriage itself has an inherent good. Being able to raise children is not a requirement for marriage, but being in a union suited for and oriented to having children is.”(1)


This right here basically refutes Pro’s entire article. I have shown why the ability to adopt is completely irrelevant.


Even if homosexuals are more likely to adopt children, this still doesn’t mean they can raise them properly.


My opponent does post one thing that says that research shows homosexual parent just as well as heterosexuals.


However, it has been scientifically shown that studies who have a large number of random participants, will come to the conclusion that homosexuals do not parent as well as heterosexuals, and that studies that have a small number of non-random participants will usually conclude that their parenting is the same.


“A persistent claim by those supporting same-sex marriages is that there is “no difference” in the outcomes of children raised by a biological mother and father and those who have been raised by two women or two men. That claim was made to the courts below, and will no doubt be made to this Court by associations like the American Psychological Association (“APA”). But as recent scholarship indicates, the claim is difficult to support because nearly all of the studies upon which the “no difference” assertion is based are rather limited, involving non-random, non representative samples, often with relatively few participants. Specifically, the vast majority of the studies were based on samples of fewer than 100 parents (or children), and typically representative only of well-educated, white women (parents), often with elevated incomes. These are hardly representative samples of the lesbian and gay population raising children, and therefore not a sufficient basis to make broad claims about child outcomes of same-sex parenting structures.”(2)


After my opponent finishes copy/pasting he talks about how all of my arguments are opinion based, has no scientific facts to support them, and then attacks my moral code.


Lol.


He then simply disregards my procreation argument because he feels like it.


Conclusion


Let’s take a look at all of the arguments my opponent dropped shall we?



  1. My opponent drops the procreation argument.

  2. My opponent concedes that heterosexuals have a special relationship that homosexuals cannot pursue.

  3. My opponent does not even attempt to refute my points on how heterosexual marriage benefits society.

  4. My opponent concedes that the government needs to draw the line where marriage best benefits society, and that that line should be drawn at heterosexual marriage.

  5. My opponent drops a plethora of other smaller arguments.

  6. In fact, my opponent dropped every single argument except how homosexuals can still adopt children.



Instead of actually responding to the bulk of my argument, my opponent instead disregards all my arguments then calls me a homophobe.


I await my opponent’s response.


(1) http://weare1776.org...


(2) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...


Debate Round No. 3
Finalfan

Pro

To begin, I will enlightened you to my last post (You clearly didn't read most of it) Do to the limitations of this website I got out about an 1/8 of my response to your argument. As I mentioned in my final statement. Where I also mentioned that your procreation argument is completely arbitrary. Saying that gay people can't get married because they don't procreate is not even a hint of evidence and you keep repeating it because it is your only argument to why marriage should be defined as man and woman only! I will say this again so you can move on.. Your procreation argument is the epitome of "reaching" Like I said it took an already biased opinion to think that even resembled an argument! That preconceived notion and biased opinion comes from years of homophobic selective social clubs that don't want the weird kid in the group! The same feeling you have about gay people getting married was the same as interracial marriage at one point.. It is the same thing anyway you look at it A fear of what you do not understand! That is homophobia, nothing to be ashamed of. I am being rude for your sake, because the whole time you have been critiquing my debate style you haven't listened to a single word I've said! Also my head hurts from bashing it against the wall over your obtuse perspective!

The fact that you require "Scientific evidence" for this debate put me on a quest to find you some scientific evidence. (Are you really not gonna let me cut and paste... I only have a short time here... I'm not going to a laboratory and having scientists sign and date evidence so it meets your expectations) The purpose for my last post was to show you that "If you look for it you will see" I found several sources that were updated and reliable stating contrary evidence to your cut and paste from The Journal of cruelty to homosexuals! I'm sorry for being so blunt (Clearly I am not trying to pander to any voters) But your arguments are the same ones I had when I was 14! Then my brain started functioning properly and realized I was being an ignorant jerk. I am actually trying to teach you, not debate because honestly I had you beat from my opening statement. I hope to at least plant a seed in you (not gay) because I want progression in my society, not clinging on to the rotten corpse of the (Horrifying) past!

So I didn't like your source and you didn't like my source.. hmm are we at an impasse since neither one of us can come up with compelling evidence that is considered unbiased! Maybe we can take all of the research done by all scientists and create an algorithm to find out if the gays can have their dream wedding or not!

I stated my argument which is that gay people are good at raising children what more is there to say! I hope you don't debate whether gay people should be able to adopt (Your sources at "The Journal.." shared their views on homosexuals adopting)! You then repeated your procreation argument which has become the bane of this debate!

(previous post) "Many couples don"t even get married because its meaning was completely lost, most first-born children are born out of wed-lock, and many couples only live together but do not have long term commitment. These are some of the negative effects that same-sex marriage can bring."- your quote

If people stop getting married because gay people get married then we really are in trouble here. That is homophobia at its finest! I'm not going any further with this because I'm sure it will be extremely rude! But I will say... Do you really want to compare USA to other countries? What do you hate America? Just kidding!

"My opponent completely misses the message of my analogies and instead tries to laughably take them quite literally."

Your Analogies were irrelevant because it claimed homosexuality to be dangerous.

Your argument that gay marriage doesn't benefit society is trumped by their eagerness to adopt! Gay people adopting is more important than people having children. When the population hits around 4 billion I will be with you on the front lines stopping the poisonous institution of gay marriage. Then I will admit "I should have listened" But so much for Gay people adopting being irrelevant! Funny I just read your sentence about gay people not raising children properly.. Didn't we already set aside that argument since it is an opinion (an ignorant one at that)!

I want you to be honest with yourself here. Do you really care how marriage is defined? Tell me what exactly is your reasoning behind your "Specializing in gay marriage debate"! Why not Evolution? Why not defend the reality of the Garden of Eden story? You are not Evangelizing here! You are trying to make a push for the tipping point where you finally see gay marriage denied! What motivates you to do that? What motivates me to debate gay marriage is because I feel like I am standing up for someone being bullied!

I was looking Forward to this section :)

1. "My opponent drops the procreation argument."
Rightfully so. I ignore it because it does not give reason for denying homosexuals to marry. I can't imagine why you still cling to it even though I have repeatedly disregarded it as white noise. Not just because I wanted to but because It is circular reasoning and ad hoc speculation! With no evidence to support your theory I doubt any one would disagree with me!

2. "My opponent concedes that heterosexuals have a special relationship that homosexuals cannot pursue."
Huh? You lost me there. I reviewed my postings and found nothing about heterosexuals having a special relationship that homosexuals can't pursue. If your talking about procreation I wouldn't call it special I would call it something that is done willy nilly and sometimes aborted! I would almost call it boring.. but I won't go that far just to sensationalize my argument (I know I'm a smart tush) ;)

3. "My opponent does not even attempt to refute my points on how heterosexual marriage benefits society."
Funny I don't think that is part of this debate. Of course its beneficial. Maybe more so in my case since I'm getting married in a month so naturally I'm more important... I would like to think I benefit society by getting married but I see no reason why it is different for homosexuals!

4. "My opponent concedes that the government needs to draw the line where marriage best benefits society, and that that line should be drawn at heterosexual marriage."
My opponent refutes his own God. He Claims that he would spit in the face of Jesus if he ever returned. His blasphemy is followed by irrational acts of violence on random people in church camps. O.K. I might have been lying a bit there but you started it!

My opponent drops a plethora of other smaller arguments.
In fact, my opponent dropped every single argument except how homosexuals can still adopt children.

That was my fault.. I got overzealous about my argument that the evidence you are looking for depends on where you look for it and ran out of space.

If you wanted to debate pro on gay marriage you would have found the same caliber of evidence.. but you didn't. That is what leads to my ultimate conclusion that you are plagued by a subtly crafted homophobic desire to stop people that are different and against your biblical morel background, from having the same rights as you. I bring your relationship with Christianity into question because it is at the heart of your motivations! You have only made two arguments.

1. Gay marriage does not benefit society.

Proved wrong substantially by common sense!

2. Gay people can't raise children properly.
"
First off, I have already explained that even if homosexuals could raise children properly, that still isn"t enough to allow them to marry."-Your quote

Both of your arguments are like bringing a knife to a gunfight. I imagine you are going to have nothing more constructive to say considering your only two arguments have been laid to waste.
xXCryptoXx

Con


Wow! Well wasn’t that a fun read! Let’s get started, shall we?


I don’t even know where to begin; I truly don’t. My opponent goes so far off subject that I am just wow.


So to sum it all up, Pro’s response was 90% bashing my views, calling me a homophobe, and disregarding my sources over “homophobia” being at the base of them, and 10% of my opponent’s response is actually debating against me.


I’m going to ignore the insults, and actually search out and respond to anything that was even remotely substantial that my opponent said for the sake of getting to round 5 in this debate without banging my head against the wall and not being able to continue.



My opponent’s excuse for not being able to respond to everything I said is that he didn’t have enough character space. Well first off, it is your job to find enough character space to be able to respond to everything, and you also could have saved plenty of space by cutting off like 3/4 of the source you posted because all you did was repeat yourself 12 times over on how homosexuals can adopt children.



My opponent once again disregards procreation argument but gives no reasoning why except for my untrustworthy homophobic views.


Let me remind you that the state recognizes marriage because of marriages public role in society, not private role. The relationship heterosexuals pursue naturally turns into a public role for society because of procreation and the proper raising of children. The private role in marriage has to do with the love and commitment the couple shares. Although that is important, it is not what the state is interested in because that is a private matter between the couple. Homosexual couples can only keep their relationship at a private matter because they share no link children like heterosexuals do. This means their marital relationship is based solely on private matters, which the state has no interest in.



My opponent states, “So I didn't like your source and you didn't like my source.. hmm are we at an impasse since neither one of us can come up with compelling evidence that is considered unbiased!”


Actually no.


I have already provided evidence as to why my sources are better than yours. I already showed why homosexuals adopting is irrelevant but you seem to like ignoring my arguments and repeating yourself.


I will repeat my arguments so you can actually respond to them adequately.


“A persistent claim by those supporting same-sex marriages is that there is “no difference” in the outcomes of children raised by a biological mother and father and those who have been raised by two women or two men. That claim was made to the courts below, and will no doubt be made to this Court by associations like the American Psychological Association (“APA”). But as recent scholarship indicates, the claim is difficult to support because nearly all of the studies upon which the “no difference” assertion is based are rather limited, involving non-random, non representative samples, often with relatively few participants. Specifically, the vast majority of the studies were based on samples of fewer than 100 parents (or children), and typically representative only of well-educated, white women (parents), often with elevated incomes. These are hardly representative samples of the lesbian and gay population raising children, and therefore not a sufficient basis to make broad claims about child outcomes of same-sex parenting structures.”


And in response to homosexuals adopting:


Homosexuals cannot pursue a relationship that naturally beings children into the world through a loving relationship.


Heterosexual relationships naturally through their loving relationship produce children for society to be properly raised by that couple.


Homosexuals do not have this special connection to children, so even if they could raise them properly, that does not justify allowing them to be married.


“The ability to raise children on its own is not a marriage. Roommates raising children is not a marriage. This presumes that marriage is only a material good, when marriage itself has an inherent good. Being able to raise children is not a requirement for marriage, but being in a union suited for and oriented to having children is.”


I refuted on your arguments on gay couples being good parents, so my opening arguments on their parenting skills still stand. Even so, it is irrelevant whether they can raise children or not because they do not have a special link to children in the relationship they pursue.



The point of the analogies was to show that we shouldn’t allow exceptions to get passed the law.


Some homosexuals may be able to raise children well, but not nearly all of them. We shouldn’t allow homosexuals into marriage just because some can raise children well. Even so, I already showed earlier that even if homosexuals can raise children, it would still be irrelevant as to whether they should get married or not because they do not pursue a procreative relationship.



My opponent asks me if I really care how marriage is defined. My answer? Yes.


If I didn’t I wouldn’t have bothered to study up on my arguments so much. I want, like you, what’s best for society as a whole. We simply have different views on how to go about that.



Dropped Arguments



(1) Procreation


You must first know why the state recognizes marriage before you can go saying who marries what. The state recognizes marriage for the relationship heterosexuals pursue, that when fulfilled at its best has a special link to children. So, the inability to procreate means that they’re relationship lacks that link to children, which is the reason the state recognizes marriage.


(2) Heterosexuals and their special relationship


I mentioned that they have a special relationship that homosexual couples cannot have in my opening arguments. You never denied that what I said was true. The reason the state recognizes marriage is for that special relationship, so homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry. Their relationship is special because of its special link to children.


(3) Heterosexual Relationship Benefits Society


Actually I some-what agree with my opponent here. Heterosexual relationships benefiting society is a bit off-topic. What I mean to say is that only heterosexual relationships benefit society. Homosexual relationships should be recognized because their relationship doesn’t have a special link to children.


These are the only points my opponent argues that he didn’t drop. The rest he conceded. Actually, my opponent did indeed drop the procreation argument too.


Debate Round No. 4
Finalfan

Pro

Lets Recap: You believe that Homo Sexuals should not be allowed to get married because it does not benefit society. You believe that homosexuals do not make good parents and stated that even if they did raise children properly that it would not be enough to let them get married.

My challenge was that they do infect benefit society because they adopt children and can provide homes to very needy children! I even went as far to say that IMHO their eagerness to adopt makes them almost more valuable than couples that want to add to our exponentially increasing population that needs to compromise somewhere to help conserve our precious resources!
Allowing homosexuals to get married would help benefit the adopted child and provide benefits for those who are committed enough to raise a child and have a meaningful relationship recognized by the state!

You asked for evidence but I would rather argue with common sense. Like I said, if you want to do the research and find that gay marriage is beneficial the information is out their, but you went looking for the evidence against gay marriage because you have a "bad feeling about it. That bad feeling is called fear of what you don't understand. Its an irrational fear. In this case it has been called homophobia. You see that word as an insult but it is very real. It has been part of the church doctrine in our culture spreading hatred and protest against gay rights! (Not calling you Westboro) It is very common in fact I could admit that I had suffered from it in my adolescence. My biggest clue to your homophobia (Other than your religion) is that you easily shrug off my adoption argument because you are repulsed by the idea of two gay men having a child together. Not because you care about the implications it has on our society!

I do enjoy being feisty and "clever" with my arguments, but it is not to be taken personally. Like I said before, I love to argue. I think the Gay marriage debate is extremely opinion based reflecting the morels of the debater. In this case we are at a stale mate because of the stubbornness of both debaters! I'm unwilling to accept your evidence on homosexuals adopting because it is so extreme that it is obviously biased. When I looked at the information for either side of the debate it all seemed extremely divided, like the abortion debate. It is also like debating religion. It is one persons belief that they are perfectly entitled too but there is hardly any proof for either side!

I know that sounds like a closing statement and we have one round left but I will be thinking and researching a new angle to bring this debate to a satisfying finish!

Hats off to my opponent for your patience and endurance through my erratic debate style!
xXCryptoXx

Con


My opponent decides to blow off his one final argument by using half of it to once again, rant on about how homophobic I and every other person that supports traditional marriage is.


I will respond to the actual rebuttals my opponent made.


I will quote my opponent and respond accordingly in order to make sure I fully rebut his points and hopefully drive it through his head that I’ve already responded to these arguments before.



“You believe that Homo Sexuals should not be allowed to get married because it does not benefit society.”


Indeed. In fact, not only would gay marriage not benefit society, but gay marriage would actually hinder society because it would degrade the image of what marriage is.


“You believe that homosexuals do not make good parents and stated that even if they did raise children properly that it would not be enough to let them get married.”


Frankly it is irrelevant whether they are good parents or not. I personally agree that homosexuals aren’t good parents, but because of the sheer amount of controversy over the subject I believe it would be foolish to simply skip to conclusions. To be fair though, studies that had a large amount of random participants tended to come to the conclusion that homosexuals were bad parents, whereas studies with a low amount of non-random participants tended to find that homosexuals were good parents.


However, it is irrelevant because the state isn’t interested in the child rearing itself, but the relationship that has a special link to children.


“My challenge was that they do infect benefit society because they adopt children and can provide homes to very needy children!”


Adoption would only be a legitimate argument if the below criteria is met:



  1. The couple has a special link to children.

  2. The couple is capable of raising the children properly.


The first criteria is not met and the second criteria has far too much controversy over it.


The government is only interested in recognizing marriage that benefits society specifically through a relationship that naturally has a special link to children.


“A man and a woman are sexually complementary by nature, and will procreate. Whether or not the goal of their marriage is to create children, these sex kinds have a natural tendency to do so. Even though these couples cannot really have procreation in effect, they are still procreative in type and still benefit society.” -16KAdams



“I even went as far to say that IMHO their eagerness to adopt makes them almost more valuable than couples that want to add to our exponentially increasing population that needs to compromise somewhere to help conserve our precious resources!”


May I remind my opponent that this is a debate over gay marriage, not population.


I already explained how population is irrelevant because the old will eventually die and we need human beings that are properly raised in order to beneficially continue society.



“Allowing homosexuals to get married would help benefit the adopted child and provide benefits for those who are committed enough to raise a child and have a meaningful relationship recognized by the state!”


I already provided my response to this in my previous rebuttal.


Conclusion


My opponent only repeats himself over several rounds of this debate. I simply rebut the same arguments every time and that basically sums up this entire debate. My opponent dropped every single argument except that homosexuals can adopt children to benefit society which I successfully rebutted.


I would like to thank my opponent for sticking to this debate the entire time and not forfeiting.


“Hats off to my opponent for your patience and endurance through my erratic debate style!”


No kidding.


Thank you for the debate, I hope it was at least moderately satisfactory to you.


Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
Dude! I'm going to say this one last time! I did not use scientific evidence from anywhere to use as my argument! When I posted information from that website it was to illustrate your "agenda" when researching gay marriage! If you went looking to defend gay marriage there is plenty of information out their. But you didn't did you? Did you ever type in Google "The benefits of gay marriage"? I'm guessing no... Now THINK!!! Why is that? You already had the preconceived notion that everything that passes through your head is pure gold! (like everyone else)

So long story short. I may have not proved whether gay marriage is beneficial to society but I definitely proved that your a homophobe!
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Final, when I post scientific evidence you write it off as a homophobic and untrustworthy source; when you post scientific evidence you are automatically correct.

Would you please say again who is being ignorant?

There is no bullying going on here my friend. Just a guy who wants to defend marriage in a way that best benefits society and another guy that can't get it through his skull that some things are best left unchanged.
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
I'm going to put this baby to bed. The "debate police" that troll this website need to understand that we are not debating for scholarship. There are no rules here. The debates I have chosen are common sense perspective on social conduct. (Evolution is fact. Homophobes are keeping the gays from marrying. The story of Noah and the flood are demolished by science and reasoning!) I see how calling someone homophobic sounds rude but it is obviously needed. Why would I pander to someone who "specializes in debate on gay marriage". When I see a child bullying another child for being different, I hardly see the need for politeness. People need to be taught because their ignorance is beyond frustrating! Have you ever heard someone say "people are idiots"? This debate has proved that they were referring to you! Read my 3rd round "plagiarism". I stated that I was using the website for an example of look for it and you will find. Therefore I was not using it as evidence fro the topic of gay marriage but proving that any information given on a website needs to be scrutinize and not accepted at face value, because you can find evidence for any point of view. This debate required zero effort from a scientist doing research on homosexuality! It only needs an intelligent perspective to see the parallels of discrimination throughout all of human history! We are evolving out of such an obtuse point of view and I'm trying to help you lesser evolved people to catch up! I know sore loser right? Ha more like concerned adult!
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
Whoops thought we had another round. :) Anyways, I will be awaiting the final post from my opponent.
Let me guess, I failed to provide evidence? Well hogwash, sounds like alot of work to cut and paste arguments from websites. I hardly know any gay couples to share the news of my "failure" but I guess it was fun anyways!
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Thank you ^^
Posted by jzonda415 4 years ago
jzonda415
@xXCryptoXx:

Will do.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Jzonda you can save this for the voting my friend. :P

I would prefer people not to post thousands of giant paragraphs in the comments section.
Posted by jzonda415 4 years ago
jzonda415
Firstly, I have payed attention to what you have said. You reasoning and refutations have been quite weak. Also, please, tell me in just a few sentences, what you have been saying, because through the insults, I can't find it. And you probably have the worst conduct I have ever seen. You classify a refutation as just saying "Oh that's homophobic."

Secondly, I understand using other websites for info and such, I mean, that's a good chunk of debating. However, you didn't cite or even give some credit to the website. Also, if you say took one or two paragraphs from there and made it clear you were quoting from there, then that would be okay. Copying and pasting pretty much an entire article for your argument is not. You can have a lot of evidence, but don't make all of your evidence just a quote from an article. You of course don't have to meet these common sense expectations, but just remember who's voting on the debate.

Thirdly, neither I nor xXCryptoXx is homophobic. I want what is best for society and I do not believe that gay marriage helps society. I have no negative or violent feelings towards homosexuals and I doubt xXCryptoXx does either. Just because you say I or xXCryptoXx is homophobic doesn't make us homophobes.
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
Oh Crap you guys are on to me.. Or you are not paying attention to what I have said! I posted the article from that website to make a point. My opponent said that I needed evidence like the evidence provided by the journal of human sexuality website. So I went on a hunt and found several pro gay marriage and gay adoption websites. So I picked one and cut and pasted it, not as my evidence but to show that if you look for something you will find it. If you want to find evidence that gay people can't raise children Boom, you will find it. Looking to prove that gay people are better at raising children.. Boom the research is out there! The fact that you called me out on plagiarism shows that you did not take the time to read the reasoning behind posting website information verbatim! I really don't see the difference however in cutting and pasting stuff from a website or paraphrasing. The evidence from the Journal of human sexuality may as well have been cut and pasted. It is good to know my opponent has some homophobic friends to back him up!
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Thank you Jzonda. I wanted to point out that he did indeed quote, and I don't believe he tried to use that article as his own arguments. I already pointed out in the round after that, that he just copy/pasted and article as the majority of his argument.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
FinalfanxXCryptoXxTied
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: I think Pro was less civil in the debate. Pro said, "Stop repeating your procreation argument.. It has no relevance whatsoever! Just a suggestion because it is a waste of your characters and I completely disregard it! Sorry if that sounds rude I just don't want to waste our time.. I'm out of characters and I barely scratched the surface!!" Now, Pro may have tried not to sound rude, but his attempt was somewhat futile. So, Con gets conduct points. I believe that Con was more convincing because he explained that marriage is meant to be man to woman. However, pro just said, "It's perfectly normal and you had faith in the info you provided!" Also, Con actually cited his sources. Pro may have quoted his sources, but did not name the actual books or links.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 4 years ago
jzonda415
FinalfanxXCryptoXxTied
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: Pro without a doubt loses conduct. He plagiarized and kept calling Con homophobic. Con maintained his cool pretty well and behaved more civilized. Con was far more convincing, with Pro dropping many refutations and points. Con was more logical and was sound in reasoning. Spelling and grammar was about a tie, I thought I saw a few more on Pro, but I'll call it a tie. Con wins sources by having them.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 4 years ago
Ameliamk1
FinalfanxXCryptoXxTied
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: Con made the same old arguments as all who oppose same-sex marriage, but pro failed to respond to them, so this one goes to con.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 4 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
FinalfanxXCryptoXxTied
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: Pro had no sources to back up his theories and I wasn't a fan of his attitude.