The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Tied
10 Points
The Contender
shift4101
Con (against)
Tied
10 Points

Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 20249
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

This round is for acceptance, or my opponent can bring up opening arguments here.
shift4101

Con

Since it seems you will just copy your arguments you posted on your other debates, I will simply accept this round.

Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

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.

References:
Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <" target="blank">http://www.businesspundit.com...............;.
Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://userwww.service.emory.edu...............;.
Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://www.policyarchive.org...............;.
shift4101

Con

I would like to remind everyone, the debate is over whether or not Gay marriage should be recognized formally by the government, not whether or not it should be considered a crime to pronounce your love publically to a member of the same sex.

Rebuttal Sub-point 1a

My opponent has failed to correlate homophobia and marriage. How will legislation deter those of us who are homophobic from causing harm? She also fails to show how the government is responsibile to prevent any sort of discrimination. Why is the government entittled to provide affirmative action?

Rebuttal Sub-point 1b

My opponents argument is beside the point. Surely she does not believe that it is legitimately illegal to pronounce your love to another person in public ceremony. (Or did I miss that story about the S.W.A.T. team at the gay wedding?) Marriage has occured since times before the government formally recognized it as an institution. Since people can still get married without the governments intervention, why should the government provide tax cuts, legal benefits, and economic benefits to homosexual couples? [1]

Rebuttal Sub-point 2a

Before we can conclude whether or not a certain group is not being treated unequally, we first need the relevant facts. What is marriage, and why does the state recognize it? If marriage is about procreation, which I argue it is, then nobody is being barred from the institution. If homosexual couples do not fit the required criteria of being able to perform acts that directly relate to procreation, they are justly barred from the institute of marriage. Blacks are capable of such acts, so they would qualify as a suspect class if they were not permitted to marry.

Rebuttal Sub-point 2b

This debate has nothing to do with civil unions, although I do not believe that civil unions should represent same-sex couples either.

1. "Marriage Rights and Benefits."
Nolo Law for All. Nolo, n.d. Web. 10 Jan 2012. <http://www.nolo.com...;.
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Rebuttal 1: At the point where my opponent is saying that I failed to correlate the two, it's obvious that my opponent has not looked toward my evidence at all. The correlation is that homophobia is the main cause of these negative statistics in the homosexual community, and by promoting gay marriage through the administration of law, these numbers would decrease. The government is instrumental in ensuring the security and maintenance of the society, and at the point where we have the ideals of social contract theory to stand behind government, this argument is still upheld.
Rebuttal 2: My evidence shows that the products bought for gay marriage stimulate the economy. My opponent has not attacked that point whatsoever. Furthermore, we move on to the idea that when we analyze the reasons as to why someone would buy products, there really is no reason nor incentive for homosexuals to spend on these arrangements, as clearly shown by the states who have fewer dollars in their GDP because they do not allow gay marriage. Marriage in general has become something recognized by the government, and at the point where we are bound to a duty not only to protect freedom but also promote economic stability, gay marriage is the way to go. Tax cuts and legal benefits are great for homosexual couples in the idea that it provides them with more spending power.
Rebuttal 3: At that point, then the argument about infertile couples getting married also stands or couples who simply do not want to marry also stands to reason because they do not reproduce either, but their marriages are still considered to be acceptable. This is nothing more than a double-standard at this point.
Rebuttal 4: This debate does have something to do with civil unions at the point where it is considered to be an alternative to the very thing that we're talking about right now. At the point where civil unions are directly made in order to be considered less than marriage, this is the epitome of what encompasses inequality.
shift4101

Con

Thanks to Pro for providing a reply! I admit, I was worried you had forgotten to reply with less than an hour left to reply!



Rebuttal 1:

My opponent again is making assumptions, and leaves my questions unanswered. How would promotion of gay marriage through the administration of law reduce homophobia in citizens, be it religious or not? And where in the US constitution and/or other law document declare the government is "instrumental in ensuring the security and maintenance of the society"? And if a majority of people are against the idea of Gay marriage to the point where the vote against it, such as with California's proposition 8, why should the government feel abliged to legislate in favor of it? And follows the slippery slope. Wouldn't recognizing other forms of marriage (Beastial marriages, necrophilia marriages, pedophilic marriages, poligamous marriagous, self-marriages) integrate these persons into society? Why shouldn't the government recognize their unions?

Rebuttal 2:

Keep note, my opponent has tried to belittle my argument by ignoring it. I asked why the government should provide economic benefits to a certain group just to recieve economic benefits in return? This point also has multiple failures. If the purpose of allowing Gay marriage is to stimulate the economy, shouldn't there be a mandate requiring homosexual couples to have weddings and make purchases that will benefit the economy? And if so, is this institution legitimately the same as marriage? And follows the slippery slope. Wouldn't recognizing other forms of marriage (Beastial marriages, necrophilia marriages, pedophilic marriages, poligamous marriagous, self-marriages) stimulate the economy in the same way? Why shouldn't the government recognize these marriages?

Rebuttal 3:

Mr. Alan Keyes puts it nicely in the video provided. Marriage is not about the act of procreation, but rather the types of relationships in which procreation is inherantly possible. Because the infertile are still capable of being in a relationship where procreation is possible, they are not excluded. However, homosexuals are not capable of such acts, and are justly barred from the institution.

My opponent might contend that marriage is about love rather than procreation. But why should the government recognize our interpersonal relationships, romantic or not? What legitimate government interest does this action satisfy? And why is this marriage conceived around love greather than a marriage conceived around procreation? And follows the slippery slope. Wouldn't recognizing other forms of marriage (Beastial marriages, necrophilia marriages, pedophilic marriages, poligamous marriagous, self-marriages) be a responsibility of the government, since all of these marriages revolve around love and intimacy?

Rebuttal 4:

By my statement, I meant that I do not care about civil unions, nor do I believe there be legitimate reason to recognize such unions. They may as well be irrelevant to the entire debate, as they satisfy neither of our positions.


I now turn over to you!
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
shift4101

Con

shift4101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
shift4101

Con

shift4101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by shift4101 4 years ago
shift4101
I quoted the wrong thing in my Rebuttal 1. I feel like an idiot.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
um...pro why use the same arguments word for word every SSM case you do? I have gotten better at SSM debates BTW
Posted by shift4101 4 years ago
shift4101
Considering the act of Gay marriage is legal EVERYWHERE in the US, the debate is really about whether or not the government should recognize Same-sex marriages.

Please change the title accordingly- I don't want to be pulled into a trick debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
ScarletGhost4396shift4101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The instigator is cutting and pasting her arguments from previous debates, to bolster her win ratio. She is playing the liberal majority to boost her profile standing. That, I believe is misconduct. Con gets conduct. Also, the instigator bears the burden of proof. Gay marriage is already illegal on a federal level (DOMA) and only 3 states out of 50 have legalized it. Pro provided NO argument why the American public should REVERSE the votes already cast. She played the emotional appeal card.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
ScarletGhost4396shift4101Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter-bomb Ron Paul
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
ScarletGhost4396shift4101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Huh.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ScarletGhost4396shift4101Tied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: She had more sources and reliable ones. Also cons refutations where poor. Also he had no arguments, just rebuttals. He did better than 0 points though so I will give him conduct because his weak rebuttals where ok. Also scarlet wanna re-match our SSM debate?