The Instigator
Pro (for)
21 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
23 Points

Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 8 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,027 times Debate No: 20139
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (8)




This round is for acceptance only.


I accept. Make the opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Contention 1: The legalization of gay marriage aids to society.
For the following reasons, legalization of gay marriage has been beneficial to society, meaning that it has aided people at some level. The legalization of gay marriage has aided to society in the following ways:

Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community.
The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: " Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases.

Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.
The following evidence of economy after the passage of legalization of same-sex marriage shows us that the legalization is a great supplement to commerce because of the increase of demand for products.

Contention 2: Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.
Aside from the aids to society, however, gay marriage at some level better establishes equality. This idea is supported by the following points:

Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.
The equality within the promotion of same-sex marriage in society lies within the balance of interests of all members of society at a moral level, including the homosexual portions of society. This is a scenario similar to the idea against the legalization of interracial marriage, where two people from two groups of people couldn't acquire a legal marriage based merely on the fact that they were members of that social group and nothing else, which is the pinnacle of what embodies prejudice and discrimination in society. The status against same-sex marriage is similar in this manner.

Sub 2b:
Civil unions are not a good alternative.
Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.

Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <" target="blank">;.
Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <" target="blank">;.
Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <" target="blank">;.


Response Point 1:
MSM account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an estimated 580,000 total persons).

MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300

While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among
MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per
100,000 other men).

So gays account for almost half of all HIV cases. And thousands of new cases are in gays. They seem to not know the risk of HIV. The intolerance of gays has no root in intolerance, but is there own mind. As you stated "Internalized homophobia may impact men's ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance abuse". I think that being gay is probably a gene, or the "gay gene". And that gene influences their bad choices as stated in that quote. Intolerance for gays has no effect.

Response Point 2:
The products that gays use would still be bought the same if marriage of gays was legalized or not. They still have sex. The products are still being used.

Response Point 3:
The marriage of interracial couples is not like the marriage of gays at all. The marriage of interracial people was still within the bounds of marriage, and still had one man and one woman on the altar. The marriage of gays involves two of the same sex.

Response Point 4:
Gays are not deservant of equality.

Response Point 5:
Yes, a Civil Union does not provide the same benefits as Marriage, but that is great for Gays. It is an excellent way for Gays to be "married".

Attack Point 1:
People who advocate for the equality of gays constantly state the "Love is love" argument. Something they fail to realize from that statement is "Love is love" goes too far. One could make the statement that an adult should be able to marry a child. Or one could make the statement that a person should be able to marry a dog (the latter statement would be to gain the benefits of marriage). Or one could make the statement that polygamy is justified. Do you agree with any of these three statements?

Attack Point 2:
One of the few goals or reasons for marriage is to produce children. This is where the gay equality debate falls apart. Because of course, they can't produce children. Gay equality people then state that you could use artifical methods. But these methods are not as effective or safe. Then they state the Gays can adopt. Well this point is again countered by your previous statement: "Internalized homophobia may impact men's ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use." This proves that either being able to artifically create a child or to adopt should be banned because gays are not good parents due to the last statement. The fact that gays would not make good parents ultimately crushes the gay side of the child debate. And the fact that they can't have or adopt children essentially gives no point for a gay marriage except to receive benefits. This means that they shouldn't be equalized by society because they can not contribue to society. Having children contribues to society by producing the next generation of workers and laborers. And gays can not to this. Therefore, they do not contribue to society.

Attack Point 3: Marriage is an institution, not a right. The Government is not required or obligation to recognize a gay marriage. And for the same reasons that society should not equalize gays, the government should not recongize gays either.

Attack Point 4: A major argument of pro-Gay Marriage people is that gays help the economy by buying marriage licenses. This is automatically shot down by the fact that there are many Government benefits of marriage. These receiving benefits soon outweigh the cost of a marital license.

Attack Point 5: To state your earlier comment one more time: "Internalized homophobia may impact men's ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use." misses one effect. That the percentage of gays murdered by their partner is a lot higher than the percentage of straights murdered by their spouse. Statement:"Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims. Overkill or wounding far beyond that required to cause death is a frequently used descriptor of these deaths. We quantified the number and extent of injuries between homosexual and heterosexual homicide victims to determine whether one group suffered more violence than the other...Homosexual homicides are more violent than heterosexual homicides when one compares the mean number of injuries (fatal sharp, blunt, and total)/case and the extent of injuries on the body" . And also that murders between gay partners have a lot more overkill than those in heterosexual couples. Statement: "Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.". Source: Broward County, Florida, Medical Examiner's office. Proof of first statement: Proof of second statement: Now, you, might be asking, "Why does this matter? People are going to be gay anyways. Perhaps if we legalize gay marriage, this will stop". However, the opposite is in fact true. Lets use this logic and replace it for a murder metaphor: "Why does this matter? People are going to murder anyways. Perhaps if we legalize murder, it will stop. "If we were to legalize gay marriage, then we would be, in essence, promoting these activities of increased violence. We, as the people of the United States and as the federal government would be saying that it is O.K. to promote domestic violence and murders within the gay community and society at large. Gay relationships won't stop. However, not recognizing them will make the government not affiliated with increased violence.

Defense Point 1: I am not intolerant of gays. I do not hate them. I just don't think that gay marriage should be legalized.
Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttal 1: In my opponent's first rebuttal point, he explains the statistics of transmission of HIV amongst homosexuals in America although I have absolutely no clue what kind of point my opponent is trying to reach through saying this argument, for one thing. He just gives out this statistic and nothing more. He moves on to explain how these statistics are not a result of intolerance at all but just the condition that homosexuals are born with although there really is no evidence to supplement it. What internalized homophobia means is that they are endowed with the general idea that homosexuality is completely and utterly wrong along with the idea that they are reprehensible for being homosexual, thus driving them to commit these actions. My opponent has a lot to prove if he's making these assertations that intolerance has no effect on the behavior of homosexuals when my evidence clearly states otherwise.
Rebuttal 2: If my opponent is honestly saying that homosexuals will buy the same products regardless of whether homosexual marriages are legal or not, then he doesn't understand much about supply and demand nor about GDP. With the legalization of such marriages, this would create an increase in the demand of products used for marriages, including flowers, attire, photography, location rentals, and any otherexpenses that may have escaped me.With this increase in demand, there is an increase in the price of the products and presses industry to use more money on capital in order to be able to produce these goods, and with reductions infederal and state taxes for the status of being married, these people are able to make more economic choices, all in the end increasing the GDP and thusGDI. This isjust what I know from my studies inAP economics, supplemented by the case studies provided in this case about how GDP inindividual states that legalized marriages increased through the spurring of commerce.
Rebuttal 3: Although the nature of these two examples may different, the very base of the argument is the following: Group X and Group Y should not be together for Reason A. This reason needs to be a morally relevant reason in order to be justified, but in the case of interracial marriage and gay marriage, the idea is incredibly similar. The reason for arguments against interracial couples is of a belief that blacks and whites should not be together, and the reason for arguments against gay marriage is of a belief that men and men should not be together. Both are morally irrelevant reasons for denying such marriages, and at that point, these marriages are at the very least similar in their nature. Therefore, analogies comparing them are fair.
Rebuttal 4: My opponent's point about how homosexuals do not deserve equality isn't justified in any sense. He gives no explanation as to why this true.
Rebuttal 5: I believe in the establishment of equality of gays considering that homosexuals are not morally reprehensible for any particular reason other than the ideals of religion, which are considerably negative perceptions of morality for society. Eqaulity should be established in the world that I am suggesting, and at the point where my opponent agrees that there is no equality between weighing civil unions and marriage, it only reinforces my argument.
Rebuttal 6: My opponent is bringing the entire basis for the gay marriage argument down only to this perception of "love is love," which is not true, for one thing. For another thing, love is only justified when it is moral, and when it comes to an immoral union between adult and child, this wouldn't be justified in the idea of love is love. This is so because an adult is taking advantage of a child's lower conscious reasoning as well as causing harm to the child definately, thus it is immoral. My opponent would have to prove that bestiality and polygamy are inherently immoral in order for his argument to have any worth.
Rebuttal 7: At the point where gays can still be able to reproduce at some level regardless of the effectiveness or safety of the procedure, what this prove is not only that gays have some possibility of reproducing and upholding my opponent's standard of what marriage should be anyway, but this would also call into question heterosexual couples that are infertile as well considering that he would implicitly be condemning these marriages as well for the same reason. My opponent doesn't really explain why marriages should be with reproduction. This argument opens many holes in his reasoning, especially since we're talking about the actual act of marrying itself and not the children that result.
Rebuttal 8: Marriage is not a right anywhere? Does my opponent mean like the one iterated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Supreme Court cases that rule that marriage is an inherent right, including Loving v. Virginia? This was the only real point in his argument.
Rebuttal 9: I've already explainined the economy argument.
Rebuttal 10: I've already explained the issue of internalized homophobia (whereever it was that I said it). My opponent is basically trying to make the generalization that all homosexuals somehow engage in domestic violence by stating that the federal government would be promoting domestic violence by promoting gay marriage. Do all homosexual couples engage in domestic violence? Further, my opponent doesn't show anything about how promoting gay marriage will have an effect on the domestic violence therein. If internalized homophobia is the problem, then the clear solution is to reduce it (one step being getting rid of legislations that discriminate against them).


Response Point 1: The statistics were to prove that MSM has a higher percentage of getting HIV. Legalizing gay marriage would increase the amount of MSM tenfold. This means that thousands if not tens of thousands of new HIV cases will be added just due to this. And it is simple logic: People are going to receive treatment for a disease that they have. Intolerance has nothing to do with this. Being homosexual is a gene. In other words, if you have the gay gene, you are going to be homosexual.

Response Point 2: The difference will be so small, that it is irrelevant to GDP. Remember, even though most states to not recognize same-sex marriages, that dosen't mean that the couple to not feel married. Most likely, the products that homosexuals buy will be virtually unaffected for this reason.

Response Point 3: Then in that case, you could even extend your argument to people with brown hair can not marry people with black hair. That both people must look exactly alike. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman. There is no stipulation on different races. Interracial marriages are still between a man and a woman, and therefore, within the bounds of marriage. Gay marriage on the other hand, is not.

Response Point 4: To be deservant of equality, one must prove himself. Gays have not proven themselves of this privilege.

Response Point 5: A civil union works out great because gays feel married, and yet, are not a burden on the state's budget.

Response Point 6: Polygamy is marrying more than one person. This again, goes beyond the legal and moral bounaries of marriage. Both polygamy and marrying a child fall to the same reasons as Gay Marriage.

Response Point 7: Failed logic here. My point was that the main reason for marriage was to reproduce to create the next generation of workers and laborers. Again, marriage is a privilege, not a right. One must live up to the responsibilities of society in order to be recognized and appreciated. Reproduction is the main reason for marriage. There are no other benefits to society than this. Thus, if you can not have children, you are not bringing anything to society for your privilege. And plus, thousands of infertile heterosexual couples use in vitro fertilization to have a child. In fact, the vast majority do this.

Response Point 8: This argument has not been transmitted to homosexual couples. It does not apply to them. And plus, and stated earlier, the Government does not HAVE to recognize a marriage. But it usually does.

Response Point 9: No you haven't. You stated that being legalizing same-sex marriages would increase the demand for homosexual or marital products (which I have already proven wrong). You have stated nothing about what I said. I simple reinstate my Attack Point 4 argument and await your response.

Response Point 10: More failed logic here. Did I say that all same-sex couples would have domestic violence? No. I just said that their would be a higher percentage of domestic violence and overkill from murder between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. And that is just it. Internalized homophobia does not cause more violence.

Attack Point 1: Do you think that the legalization of same sex marriages would decrease violence? That is impossible. There are three stances on Gays: 1. No sex between homosexuals whatsoever and against gay marriage 2. Sex should not be regulated for all consenting adults, but no gay marriage 3. Gays should receive all the same rights as normal marriages. Most believe in stance number 2. Legalizing gay marriage most likely would place millions more people on the anti-Gay spectrum. Like during the civil rights movement, after all of the legislation was passed making segregation illegal, millions of people made anti-Black protests. Violence increased after legislation.

Attack Point 2:
"A series of articles in 2004 by Stanley Kurtz, a Harvard-trained social anthropologist and fellow at the Hoover Institution, show that the introduction of same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia has coincided with a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births."
"When society continually calls "marriages" unions that almost invariably end in divorce in 1 to 10 years or turn into "open relationships," the cheapening effect on the institution of marriage will be inevitable."
"We can expect an eventual end to any structural prerequisites for a legitimate sexual relationship."
"There is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisex
"Third, "gay marriage," as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice uality, not just homosexual practice." Debate each and every one of these points, and if you want, debate more in this article.

Attack Point 3:
"We cannot govern a nation consisting of married mothers while trying to collect child support from a nation full of de-socialized underachieving men who predictably will end up in prison in large numbers.
All major studies on childrearing indicate that children do not fare well when raised absent the father.
Since 1960, increases in crime, illegitimacy, poverty, personal bankruptcy, suicide, violence, truancy, and drug abuse paralleled the "Great Society" welfare state of the 1960's, and moved into the middle and upper classes with the feminist-inspired "divorce revolution". What was urban gang-violence of the 1960's became school shootings in nice suburbs across America in the 1990's.
Men are not genetically different than they were in 1950. The difference today is that we have driven men out of the family and society in large numbers.
Reactive social service expenditures are now the largest line item in many states, surpassing education expenditures in the mid-1990's. Burgeoning social service demands are the reason why state and federal budgets cannot be balanced at reasonable tax levels, and why infrastructure and schools are perennially under-funded.
If social factors remain unconvincing, understand this: Schools and academia fund and stimulate programs establishing homosexuality and lesbianism as indisputably-attractive behaviors. These behaviors are known to cause high rates of death and disability. Such institutions predictably bear great risk of liability suits from students who were dragged into that lifestyle, and from their distraught parents. Academic institutions should immediately replace existing programs with thoughtful and effective recovery programs -- as we do for drug and alcohol use -- and they should advocate against same-sex marriage.
Our very competitiveness in the world economy depends on the stability of the intact, two-parent heterosexual family, and equality for all regardless of gender.":

Attack Point 4:
"The reason why same-sex marriage is absolutely unconstitutional -- even in Massachusetts -- is easily proven when we draw from a number of bodies of law, including women's rights, racial equality, and separation of church and state.
Those working to protect marriage continue losing the legal battle because they have largely litigated morals and tradition in "forward looking" courts which, since the court reforms of 1938, have increasingly refused to rule on those bases.":

Attack Point 5:
"Now here is the long-overdue civil-rights issue we have all been waiting for that effectively ends the same-sex marriage issue: We must now grant to fathers the same right to be in the family as we have granted to women in the workplace.": Debate each and every one of these points, and if you want, debate more in this article.
Debate Round No. 3


Rebuttal 1: At this point, it is evident that my opponent's first point really has no foundation. It's one thing to say that homosexuals have a larger percentage of diseases, and another thing to prove that the legalization of gay marriage is going to increase this amount by any amount. I have provided a case study examining regions that have legalized gay marriage having their reductions in HIV transmission rates relating it all to homophobia and how the laws create better reflections on homosexuals once they are changed toward creating more accepting to their community in order to reduce these statistic. What my opponent implies by saying that intolerance has absolutely nothing to do with the conditions of homosexuals and it all relates only to their genetics is that all homosexuals are inevitably going to end up being part of these statistics, which is not true. Not all homosexuals end up committing suicide. Not all homosexuals end up falling into drug or alcohol abuse. Not all homosexuals end up having HIV. My opponent has yet to prove anything that he has just said about genetics and how it relates to the statistics of homosexuals is true.
Rebuttal 2: The GDP is composed of consumer spending, investment spendings, government spendings, and net exports. This increase in demand would spur businesses to invest in more capital in order to be able to produce as more consumers will spur to purchase marriage items, thus increasing the GDP in consumer and investment spending, and with the reductions in their taxes as a result of increased benefits from legal marriages, more couples will be able to have more money in order to make better decisions as far as economics goes. My opponent talks about how it will have an insignificant impact on the GDP, but doesn't make any response to the great success that states with SSM have had with their legalization as far as economics goes, and at the point where he talks about any difference at all to the GDP, it means that at some level, gay marriage helps the economy.
Rebuttal 3: The last time I checked, a person with brown hair can marry a person with black hair. My opponent doesn't really explain how my argument comes to that at all nor does he really attack anything I said. Judges, please extend everything I said in the previous point regarding this issue.
Rebuttal 4: To be deservant of equality, the last time I checked, one must submit to social contract and accept the rules of society when it comes to its safety and welfare in exchange for the protection of rights and security. At least this is what I believe and this is what almost every society supports, along with the fact that this idea can be sustained. My opponent gives a completely vague point about proving oneself. How does one prove oneself? The last time I checked, gay people were members of the society, they are not morally reprehensible in any way for the basic idea that they are gay as my case contends, and this is all that one needs in order to obtain equality under the society, along with the basic fact of being human.
Rebuttal 5: It doesn't matter that gays feel married. The basic fact at the end of the day is that they're not and do not have equal benefits as a traditional marriage. It doesn't change anything. My opponent contends that gays do not deserve equality, but he hasn't explained that in great detail yet either.
Rebuttal 6: Why? Why does it go over moral boundaries? I was very clear to explain why marrying children goes over moral boundaries, but my opponent has yet to explain why things such as polygamy or marrying animals is morally reprehensible in any way, along with gay marriage. Nothing he's saying makes sense here.
Rebuttal 7: At the point where you deny a privilage to someone who hasn't done anything in order to make him/her less deserving of that privilage, that's still inequality, and in my opponent's case, that's the idea that my opponent capitalizes on, which isn't necessarily moral. My opponent mentions in vitro fertilization in order to have children and this is what heterosexual infertile couples do in order to have children. So do gays. Gays still have the ability, and even under my opponent's logic, gay marriages can still be considered to be legitimate because as my opponent's states, reproduction is the main idea for marriage.
Rebuttal 8: The only thing that I was trying to contend is the idea that marriage is a right, and at the point where the UN, the crafters of the human rights document I cited, made recently a resolution including gay rights, it can still extend to them.
Rebuttal 9: First of all, my opponent is contradicting himself. At first, he says that legalizing marriage is going to have at some level an effct on the GDP (even though he contends that it would be very small), but now he says that it will have absolutely no effect on the economy. My opponent hasn't proven anything I said wrong. He didn't look back at my evidence and contend that there was something wrong therein. He didn't go back to my explanation of supply and demand and explain exactly why it was wrong. All he did was say it was wrong.
Rebuttal 10: My question is like where? Where has legalizing gay marriage increased this number? There's a difference between saying that there is higher domestic violence between gays and proving that gay marriage will increase this number. My opponent has no evidence for that.
Rebuttal 11: Going back to my opponent's idea about civil union rights increased anti-black protests: in the long run after segregation was repealed, whites and blacks were able to create a society where it wasn't wrong to play with one another or be with one another. Racism has gone down significantly since the 1960s because the laws reflected the idea that equality is on the high horse in society. Regardless of what negative effects may come in the short run, it should not hinder our decisions to establish equality in society, and this is what should happen with gays even though my opponent has shown no evidence of violence against gays increasing with the passage of such legislation.
Rebuttal 12: The main basic idea from the quotes that my opponent in this attack point is that homosexual marriage destroys heterosexual marriage although the statistic that he gives only shows the correlation but not the causation and no explanation of the lurking variables or the methodology used in order to take this sample. His evidence here is questionable at best. As for the argument for public resentment of those who speak out against gays, they're morally reprehensible because they're being prejudiced against a group of people. The act of condemning is not immoral. The morality question comes in about what the condemnation is for.
Rebuttal 13: The main idea behind this attack point is that gay marriage hurts children, but my opponent already contends for one thing that gays cannot produce children, and under his idea that his statistics show that SSM destroys heterosexual marriage, it would make sense if only he had the causation to prove it. He talks about how the gay lifestyle will pour into the children even though my opponent contends that homosexuality is a gene, so he's contradicting himself, and he doesn't show where this has happened before.
Rebuttal 14: I don't understand why my opponent brings up the American Constitution. This debate isn't restricted only to the US. The only time I brought up the Constitution was when I referred to the idea that marriage is not a right, but all I did was contradicted that with some basic ideas. The Constitution is not the only thing here, and all my opponent is really saying in this attack point is that courts have been biased.
Rebuttal 15: I have no clue what my opponent is trying to say here. If he could explain this, that would be great.

Perkins, John L. "Universal Statement of Moral Obligations." Jan. 2004. Web. <" target="blank">;.



Response Point 1: Problem 1: "With homosexual men, the anus is less able to fight off disease as well, some may say because it was not originally evolved for such a function, travesti video it does not have the same defenses as the vagina which is rife with natural disease fighting bacteria and walls made of strong tissue that is harder to rupture than the anus.": Problem 2: Legalizing gay marriage to increase tolerance falls for one reason. Why don't we legalize murder? Tolerance will not increase. Problem 3: Being gay is a gene: "Previous studies in male twins have suggested that between 40%-60% of the variability in sexual orientation is due to genes. The rest is thought to be due to environment and possibly other biologic but nongenetic causes.""The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.": This suggests there is a gay gene. Problem 4: Since being gay is a gene, it can be suggested that intolerance does not increases HIV among gays. Why? Because they are going to have sex anyway regardless. Problem 5: Yes. Not all gays have HIV or drug problems. But there is a significantly higher percentage of gays who have these problems than straight people.

Response Point 2: Again, gays still buy these martial products regardless of the legalizaton because they still feel married. And again, this very insignificant effect on GDP (if it even exists), is countered by the fact that the state and the Federal Government still have to pay each couple thousands of dollars in martial welfare and tax deductions, and this amount of money taken out of the economy is a lot higher than the amount gays put in through martial products. So this means that the small contribution the Gays make to the consumer spending part of GDP is more than made up for in the government spending category (the contribution to the government spending part may actually seem good at first for the economy, but overtime, it will drastically increase government debt, which the Government then needs to pay off, whcih decreases government spending, which decreases GDP). We either need to eliminate this welfare, or reduce the number of unneccessary marriages (this means gays).

Response Point 3: My point was that interracial marriages and same-sex marriages are not alike, becuase marriage is still defined between a man and a woman. Interracial couples fit this description, gays do not. The brown hair argument was just disproving your connection between interracial marriages and same-sex marriages. They are not very alike.

Response Point 4: Gays are not deservant of equality for two reasons. One, they are a "lower" group of people (meaning that they commit crime more often and are generally not in the high parts of society). They add little to society but overdiversification, impoverishment, and crime. And two, as stated somwhere in my last argument, gays to not add anything to their marriage. Remember, the "reason" for marriage is to reproduce. This is why society has granted marriages.

Response Point 5: Again, all gays to is suck up government welfare money, and do not give back by reproducing. But a civil union still "feels" like a marriage to gays except that they to not get benefits. This is why civil unions make more sense for gay marriage.

Response Point 6: Let's look at an extension of my arguments. One, polygamy breaks the "between a man and a woman" policy for marriage because neither noun is plural. Two, marrying an animal is wrong because there is no animal in the policy for marriage. The same type of marriage destroying takes place with gays as explained earlier. And most children who people "want" to marry are generally older and developed enough to know the difference. But again, fails the policy for marriage argument yet again.

Response Point 7: Again, the policy for marriage argument destroys the gay equality argument. But when straight, infertile couples use in vitro fertilization, the child still has an adequate family (a.k.a. a mother and a father). One, gay men can not have children at all, and gay women lack the father aspect, so the child is growing up without the needed knowledge of a father.

Response Point 8: Well marriage is not a right. Again, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the Government HAS to recognize a marriage. I do not see what the UN has to do with this. They give rights to just about anyone.

Response Point 9: There was no contradiction in my argument. For this point, look back to this round's response point 2. Gay marriage decreases GDP.

Response Point 10: I gave you sources in Round 2, but I will repeat them here. " A forensics journal article by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology was published in 1996 called "Homicide in homosexual victims: a study of 67 cases from the Broward County, Florida, Medical Examiner's office (1982-1992), with special emphasis on "overkill". In the article it clearly stated (1): "Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims. Overkill or wounding far beyond that required to cause death is a frequently used descriptor of these deaths. We quantified the number and extent of injuries between homosexual and heterosexual homicide victims to determine whether one group suffered more violence than the other...Homosexual homicides are more violent than heterosexual homicides when one compares the mean number of injuries (fatal sharp, blunt, and total)/case and the extent of injuries on the body" Also, to conclude this premise, the American College of Paediatrics states that (2): "Violence between homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples." (1): (2): (This article also explains the dangers of same-sex parenting. You should read it and debate it if you want.)

Response Point 11: "There were 150 hate crimes incidents based on sexual orientation for these thirteen states in 2003, before ballot measures to ban same-sex marriage were on the radar. But in 2004 when voters were asked to approve these bans, this figure rose to 220 – a 47% increase. This rise far outstrips the increase in the covered population for these thirteen states (38.2 million for 2003 to 43.4 million for 2004, an increase of only 14%). Even if you account for the increase in the population covered by these statistics, it still amounts to an alarming 31% increase in reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation in these states.": Is this proof?

Response Point 12: Homosexual marriage destroys Heterosexual marriage through the bypass of the policy for marriage as stated earlier. You did not provide a good rebuttal.

Response Point 13: One, I am providing proof that gays should not be able to adopt (I said nothing about physical reproduction), so please argue that, and two, being gay is not just a gene, it can stem from the child's surroundings too. But he is not truly gay. He was just raised gay.

Response Point 14: My point was that after proving that the Government does not HAVE to recognize gay marriage, I just solidified the idea (with proof) that the American Government SHOULD not legalize it. We are talking about the American Government becuase we are talking about their laws and beliefs.

Response Point 15: Maybe you should read it again. It is self explanatory.

I would attack, but I am out of room
Debate Round No. 4


This is the final round of the debate, meaning that I'm basically going to go over my opponent's points and explain why I should be the winner of this debate.
Rebuttal 1: My opponent's general argument about how the negative statistics of homosexuals, including alcoholism, drug abuse, and transmission of STDs are all the result of their genetic disposition to their sexual orientation is a ridiculous argument. I have provided ample amounts of evidence about how homosexuals have these statistics because of the intolerance they face, and it also explains exactly how legislation of gay marriage increases tolerance and is able to inspire more self-worth into homosexuals. The only thing that my opponent has been doing is just trying to contradict everything I say even though he has no evidence of his own to counter mine and continues to say that homosexuality is just something you're born with. My first point has not been refuted at all.
Rebuttal 2: Gays would have no use for marital products. It doesn't make any economic sense. The assertion that gay marriage increases demand and puts a stronger impetus on the GDP is clearly shown within my evidence and shows that it has a significant impact on the GDP. My opponent just seems to ignore my evidence consistantly regardless of how many times I keep referring to it. Gay marriage has had a significant impact on states that have legalized it, including Vermont, Massachusetts, and at one point before Proposition 8, California. Taxes are reduced, but they are still implemented, and the reductions in taxes can inspire more economic decisions because they have more economic power to purchase more. It's a change in income, and this has an effect on supply and demand with an increase in demand. If my opponent is really willing to say that gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on the economy, then he has a lot to learn about economics.
Rebuttal 3: Once again, my opponent fails to address anything I said. I argued how the rejection of these marriages were similar in their nature in that they are all based on a prejudiced premise that a certain people cannot be with a certain other people. This is what I was trying to point out this whole time, and my opponent does not speak to this level at all.
Rebuttal 4: My opponent's arguments about equality have transformed from vague to ridiculous. What he's trying to assume is that gays in general commit these actions, so thus every single homosexual is morally reprehensible even though there are homosexuals who live honest lives free of crime. Unless, of course, my opponent is trying to argue that every single homosexual is a criminal. If he is to say that homosexuals are a lower group because of this, this is to say that African Americans and Hispanics are all less deserving of equality because of their higher rates of crime, even if many lead honest lives. If my opponent is trying to say that gays are overdiversified, but homosexuality is genetic, it's obvious that my opponent's knowledge on biology is minimal at best considering that environments require biodiversity in order to exist as well. This is all, of course, based under the premise that anything he's said is true with evidence. He hasn't provided any. I have explained the general double-standard for when it comes to reproduction: infertile couples cannot reproduce either, but because they are man and woman and could reproduce if they had organs had worked, my opponent argues that this is still justified, which is odd because at the end of the day, they still are not able to reproduce. Further, at the point where my opponent brings up in vitro reproduction, this is something that gays can do as well.
Rebuttal 5: Again, it doesn't matter if gays "feel" like they're in a marriage. The main point is that they're not, and in my case, I'm striving toward equality, which civil unions do not provide.
Rebuttal 6: What my opponent basically gives us in his sixth response point is nothing more than an ad Authoritatum argument. There's a policy that says marriage is between a man and a woman, so he states. He doesn't explain why this policy is correct either, so we're going under the assumption that the policy is correct.
Rebuttal 7: The UN was the original forger of human rights after the events of Nazi Germany, for one thing, and at the point where Supreme Court is the arbiter of the Constitution and there are about two or three court cases supporting the idea that marriage is a right, under this document, marriage is indeed a right. What my opponent states about the UN just giving rights to anyone is just an ad Hominem.
Rebuttal 8: What my opponent proves here is that homosexuals have a higher rate of violence in their household. What he doesn't prove is a connection to gay marriage nor why this is in any way relevant to the scope of this debate. He doesn't explain how or why or if this number will increase if gay marriage is allowed.
Rebuttal 9: RP 11 is definately proof....for my case. The report shows that the amount of hate crimes against homosexuals rose after voters were asked to approve bans on same-sex marriage in 2004 in 13 states. My opponent just substatiated my case.
Rebuttal 10: Basically what my opponent is arguing is that gay marriage will destroy marriage because it will go against the definition established. It's not that heterosexual marriages themselves will be harmed nor that anything will result badly from this occuring, so what my opponent is just saying is that we're changing the definition. Saying that bypassing the definition is nothing more than rhetoric.
Rebuttal 11: In this debate, we're not focusing on adoption but on the simple act of two members of the same sex being able to get married. His idea about gay being denied the privilege to raise children is extratopical to this debate.
Rebuttal 12: It is the responsibility of the American government to enforce the ideas of the Constitution and the responsibility of any government, America or otherwise, to provide protection to its people as long as they adhere to social contact. I explained how we weren't focusing on America because it's not explicitly stated within the resolution and how my quick reference of the American Constitution was just to provide a single viewpoint amongst many others that marriage is inherently a right. Even if my opponent were trying to focus only in America, he would still be wrong based on the information provided.
Reasons for PRO Vote: The reasons why the judges should vote PRO are pretty obvious at best. At the end of all of this, my opponent has really addressed nothing I said, including the ample amounts of evidence proving everything he said wrong and very vague rebuttals that didn't in any way address anything I said. His entire case is one full of contradictions and ludicrous conclusions, stating that homosexual marriages don't contribute anything to society and should thus be illegalized even though that infertile couples also cannot contribute under his standards, but were still justified, and he talks about in vitro reproduction and doesn't address the idea of homosexuals being able to use this as well, thus making their marriages legitimate under his standard. He creates this overarching generalization that gays are all part of this group of criminals that cause detriment to the society even though there are honest homosexuals who live decent lives but are still somehow morally reprehensible for being part of this group, so thus, he's being completely prejudiced on his part. If you go through the rebuttals, you will realize that most of everything I said goes unchallenged, and for these reasons, I urge a PRO vote.


As my opponent has done, I will go over each of my opponent's rebuttals, and I will expalin how I should win this debate.

Response Point 1: I find my opponent's response to this to be a desperate attempt at salvaging this debate. First, he accuses me of not having enough sources when I outnumber him in sources by 4-1, and his source states an opinion witn NO facts supporting that conclusion. Then, he goes on to say that my sources are "no evidence". I find this funny. I refuted this point in Round 3, and my opponent is just stating the same argument even after the rebuttal.

Response Point 2: My opponent here just seems to be throwing out "economic words" which he has no idea how to put into context. He has provided NO sources on this. None. He still fails to take into account the fact that a lot more money is paid into marriages than is paid out of marriages. Political economics fact 1. Gays can not increase GDP. And even if it did, than the strain on the economy and samll business would be so much (due to the dual-healthcare that employers have to pay to the employee's entire family) that the "supposed" increase in GDP would not be worth it's own weight. Poltical economics fact 2. The states that have or had legalized gay marriage decreased taxes because we are in a recession. It would be economic suicide to raise taxes in a recession (this is why Obama is a big idiot). Political economics fact 3.

Response Point 3: More repetitive arguments. Even after rebuttal. Again, gay marriages are on a different level than interracial marriages due to the property of marriage (one man and one woman). You have yet again failed to prove me otherwise.

Response Point 4: I am beginning to think that my opponent just repeats the same arguments over and over again. Problem 1: You are the one ignorant of biology. Biodiversity means that the population can be able to adapt to most changes in habitat. Being gay is actually a disadvantage in evolution and regeneration because if the majority or significant minority of the population is gay, that will stunt or decrease population growth even in periods of great abundance of natural sources. And when winter comes, the whole population will die out. Failed logic here. Problem 2: Infertile couples (heterosexual) can reproduce through in vitro fertilization. Gays can not. Your statement there was just wrong.

Response Point 5: Again, gays still feel like they are in marriage, even if they are not at the end of the day. Preventing gay marriage would stop a massive federal debt increase and massive small business debt increase (look at point 2). You get two benefits for the price of one. But before we apply the same thing to heterosexual marriage, heterosexual marriage still abides by the property of marriage.

Response Point 6: This property of marriage is essential to marriage, for if it was broken, than marriage would not be defined the same way anymore. I extend my Round 4 Points 6 and 7 arguments here.

Response Point 7: The UN gives rights to just about anyone. Homosexuals included. And plus, just because the UN says it is a right, one, does not mean it is a law that marriage is a right, two, does not mean that the law applies to homosexuals, and three, does not mean that it has to be enforced in this, or any other country. The country is allowed to make it's own laws. The UN has no say whatsoever.

Response Point 8: Legalizing gay marriage will increase the number of gay couples (even you know that), and thus, more people will be harmed. Simple logic. (This is hypothetical); if there were 100 gay couples with a 50% violence rate, than 25 die (50% of the couples). If the number if increased to 200 due to legalization, the dead will number 50. This will get the Government accosiated with violence and murder for their legalization. Just like will legalizing murder reduce the number of murders? Heck no. It will increase them.

Response Point 9: Apparently not. I said that after legalization, hate crimes rose sharply. I don't think you read throughly enough. Drop this point if you want (this is not a concession).

Response Point 10: First, legalizing gay marriage I have already linked to no increase in GDP, and a massive increase in Government and Small Business debt. Second, if there is a marriage that bypasses the property of marriage, than marriage does not need that definition anymore, and should be dropped; thus destroying real marriage (heterosexual).

Response Point 11: Fine. Drop this point. If anything, this should be a concession by my opponent. Voters, don't you agree?

Response Point 12: First, the Constitution states that the American Government does not HAVE to legalize any marriage, heterosexual or homosexual. And two, yet another concession by my opponent.

Reasons for CON Vote: I think that it is pretty obvious that this debate goes in my favor. I will break it down.

Conduct: I think that this should be a tie, but if you count concessions in this area, than give me this point.

Spelling and Grammar: I think that this should be a tie.

Convincing Arguments: I you count conceding half of his points and bringing ths same points over and over again even after rebuttal in this part, than these points go in my favor. If not, than you get to decide.

Sources: Most definitely vote for me here.

I find it hilarious that my opponent is always constantly asking me for sources when after Round 2 (which is a copy-and-paste argument) he provides no sources to me. I provided ample sources, and he still had the guts to ask for more when he provided none. I also find it hilarious that after Round 2 when I had refuted all of my opponent's arguments, he used the exact same arguments all over again, even when I had already disproved them. He does not make a good rebuttal to ANY of my points. He just restates the same cut-and-paste argument to fit with this debate. I also find it hilarious that my opponent uses the same reasons against me in his suggested ballot, when he knows I did not do this, and he did.

Short RFD:
No refutations for my opponent, and no sources for my opponent's arguments nor for my opponent's bad refutations (because my opponent did not refute me with sources).

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by THEBOMB 6 years ago
Wow....Ghost here is just using that same blanket argument for Gay marriage....over and over again....if only it would adapt.....
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 6 years ago
For my standard of morality, I will post that in my next round.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For ScarletGhost4396: I'll let you make the opening shots.
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
For ScarletGhost4396: I will have my argument for Round 1 posted later this afternoon. I am busy in another debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Sources to con. Con also had superior arguments and went far more in depth in refuting, while pro just repeated (some)
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 6 years ago
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as Stephen_Hawkings Pro rhetorically eviscerated Con's arguments. As a Ron Paul supporter, I'm disappointed someone with the name Ron-Paul would make such ridiculous claims and lose a debate.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 6 years ago
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 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: Countering teafood's vote bomb
Vote Placed by Teafood 6 years ago
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con flat out says that gays should not be equal
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 repeated herself over and over again and made obviously illogical economic arguments. Con gets sources too.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 years ago
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to con, but arguments go to pro, she was more detailed and had more logical arguments. Con never presented his own (that I can see) and just refuted. And both of their retaliations where underdeveloped. But pro explained in the character limit better then he. So she wins arguments.
Vote Placed by Angelo 6 years ago
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro destroyed and took apart many of cons arguments. Also her initial arguments where good. Con had much more reliable sources. Also in a 8000 character debate try not to have like 15 points. Many of the rebuttals where undeveloped.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 6 years ago
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Scarlet shot down every argument when it came up, the format and constant declarations of victory gives conduct to Scarlet as well, but Ron had more citations. Quality does not equal quantity, but there was a few good citations among the dozen, and therefore he gets the source vote (I grade positively).