The Instigator
amberlynnsnyder
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheDiabolicDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

"Resolved: Gay marriage should be okay in the united states"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
TheDiabolicDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,361 times Debate No: 21837
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

amberlynnsnyder

Con

I need someone who is willing to argue with me on this topic and if i offend anyone ......sorry :) my beliefs just saying
okay first round intro
second full argument
3rd questioning
4the closing statements
TheDiabolicDebater

Pro

I gladly accept my opponent's challenge.

In the resolution I'm assuming the focus is on whether or not gay marriage should be legal or not. For clarity, I would have titled the resolution "Gay marriage ought to be legal in the United States." This is probably what you meant though, so perhaps I'm just being nit-picky.

I just have one question for my opponent regarding the structure. What exactly do you mean when you say the third round is for questioning? Is it like cross-examination?

With that, I turn the floor over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
amberlynnsnyder

Con

Yes that is what i meant...sorry..and thank you
New York State, the media report with poorly disguised elation, is set to legally redefine marriage to include relationships between two same-sex adults.

Before this happens, people of good conscience, supporters and opponents both, should at least be given the opportunity to consider the possible consequences.

1. Religious freedom. Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry.
A recent Newsday editorial said opponents "will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation." Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan?

Proponents of gay marriage insist that a "religious exemption" will be sufficient to protect the rights of faith-based traditionalists. Maybe, maybe not.

2. Rights of children. Legal equality for gay marriage will mean there can be no discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples in any sphere, including adoption, custody and reproductive services. Social workers showing preference to heterosexual couples in foster care or adoption placement will lose their jobs or face lawsuits.

More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion.

3. Whither traditional marriage? Gay marriage may, as its proponents insist, strengthen the ideal of marriage by offering the highest public acceptance only to those in committed relationships.

But even gay activists admit they are seeking to change the marriage ideal. Eliminating the complementarity of the sexes in marriage changes its essence. It may be old-fashioned to believe women are still necessary to domesticate sexually predatory men. But most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional. Many gay advocates tacitly admit as much.

Andrew Sullivan, in his book "Virtually Normal," writes that the need for "extramarital outlets" should be recognized by partners in a same-sex marriage and that gays should not be constrained by a "single, moralistic model."
TheDiabolicDebater

Pro

First I will be going over my con's case and then I will be giving my own.

CON'S CASE:

1. Religious Freedom. My opponent's tag line for this contention is "religious freedom," but she never really makes a clear connection to it. She has not proven how legalizing gay marriage would infringe upon religious freedom. This is quite simply, because gay marriage does not infringe upon religious freedom. Allowing same-sex couples to marry can not and will not adversely affect religious individuals. Under the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."[1] The first amendment is pretty self-explanatory. Legalizing same-sex marriage will not prohibit the free exercise of religion. On the contrary, America is a secular state and if same-sex marriage remains illegal under a Christian pretense it would be unconstitutional because it would be respecting an establishment of religion. Furthermore, freedom is a two-way street. The United States is a very diverse nation with many different cultures and religions. It wouldn't be right for one religious group to decide what is and is not legally permissible for the rest of the citizens.

"Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan?"

First of all, my opponent has not provided the source for this evidence. I researched it myself and found that the "70%" she's referring to is only based on the proposition 8 vote in California a few years back [2]. Regardless of how many people support the ban on gay marriage has nothing to do with how just it is. Numbers alone have nothing to do with whether or not an idea is right. There are countless historical examples of this. At one point in time, most Americans believed that slavery was justified. At another point in time, most people believed the Earth was flat. Arguing that something is right because it conforms to the beliefs of a majority is known as a "bandwagon fallacy." Additionally, comparing opponents of gay marriage to the Ku Klux Klan is not even an argument. I don't see how this is relevant to anything.

2. Rights of Children.

"More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion."

In the case of children who are waiting to be adopted, they are already living without any biological parents. It would be far better for these children to be adopted by a same-sex married couple than sit in an adoption home for countless years waiting to be adopted. Same-sex couples obviously can't procreate so if we were to allow them to marry and adopt, then foster homes and adoption centers wouldn't be nearly as occupied as they are today. This would essentially be providing for the greater good. As for emotional pain and confusion, I would like to see some evidence for this claim as the con has provided none. Therefore, this premise is dropped.

3. Whither traditional marriage?
This entire contention is about tradition and how legalizing gay marriage would change the essence of marriage. This is totally and completely irrelevant. Tradition has no bearing on what is just, or moral, and therefore has no say in whether or not same-sex marriage should not be legalized. Furthermore, the concept of marriage is not exclusive to any religion currently practiced in America today. The concept of marriage is even older than Christianity. If that is not a sufficient refutation, I also provide civil marriages as an alternative to "traditional" marriage. Civil Marriages are undertaken in accordance with law and have no relation to the traditional religious marriages[3]. If we allow same-sex couples to partake in civil marriages then both sides are satisfied, and everything is just peachy.

"most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional."

Once again, I must see some evidence before I can take a claim like this seriously.

MY CASE:

This resolution is specifically referring to the United States and the legality of same-sex marriage. Because this debate is centered on the U.S., we must refer to the United States Constitution as this is the very foundation of this country's legal system. In order for my opponent to win this debate, she has to prove that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Contention 1: The Harm Principle. The Harm Principle essentially states that an individual is free to do as they please as long as their actions don't cause harm to another person[4]. Allowing same-sex couples to marry under Federal law would not adversely affect any individual, nor would it cause harm to any religious groups. Therefore, same-sex marriage is morally permissible and should be legally permissible as well.

Contention 2: Equality. In the Declaration of Independence, individuals are guaranteed three unalienable rights. These include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness[5]. Same-sex couples, just like any other couple should be guaranteed the right to marry. To not allow this is bigoted discrimination that can't be justified rationally. The only criticisms of same-sex marriage are religiously inspired, and as I have stated earlier by quoting the first amendment, America is a secular state. In a truly secular state, religion has no say in what shall be written into law. Same-sex couples have every right to be allowed marriage and the legal privileges that come along with said marriage. If you are a proponent of equality, freedom, and love; I strongly urge a vote for pro. Thank you.

Sources
1)http://www.house.gov...
2)http://www.cnn.com...
3)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
4)http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk...
5)http://www.archives.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
amberlynnsnyder

Con

Sources:
http://civilliberty.about.com...
http://atheism.about.com...
http://articles.nydailynews.com...

First of all it says in the bible that god created Adam and Eve, not Eve and Eve or Adam and Adam . my points are not just based of religion but it does has something to do with it.
Is there any benefits to gay marriage?
if so what are those benefits?
If they legalize gay marriage everywhere is this going to cause chaos?
Yes this would cause harm to religious groups!!
Is it appropriate to have opposite sex friends when you are married and your spouse has trust issues?
It would be great if my opponent could answer my questions!
For these reasons id like a CON vote into days ballet
Thank you
TheDiabolicDebater

Pro

First of all, I don't understand the links my opponent provided. The first two aren't even relevant to this debate, and the last one is just the site where she copied and pasted her arguments from. She still hasn't provided my the evidence I have asked for.

"First of all it says in the bible that god created Adam and Eve, not Eve and Eve or Adam and Adam . my points are not just based of religion but it does has something to do with it."
What the bible says is completely irrelevant. We are not talking about whether or not the bible permits same-sex marriage, we are talking about whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal. As I have stated before, America is a secular state and religion does not have any say in what laws are made.

"Is there any benefits to gay marriage?"
Yes. The benefit is that same-sex couples would be allowed the same opportunities and commitments as heterosexual couples. It is the right thing to do.

"If they legalize gay marriage everywhere is this going to cause chaos?"
Absolutely not. There is no credible evidence that supports the premise that same-sex marriage is harmful.

"Yes this would cause harm to religious groups!!"
How? They are not directly affected by the marriage of same-sex couples.

"Is it appropriate to have opposite sex friends when you are married and your spouse has trust issues?"
Yes, I suppose. However, I don't see what this has to do with the topic we are debating.

My opponent has not attempted to reaffirm her own case after I offered my rebuttals, so her case falls. Additionally, my opponent has not attacked my case. Therefore, my case still stands. Please vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
amberlynnsnyder

Con

I don't see how my opponent does not understand my cities, and yes they were relevant to the debate.
I did give my opponent the evidence they asked for.
It doesn't matter if my opponents case is based on religion or not. Some of my points are.
The bible is not "Irrelevant"
I would like to ask how is same sex not harmful?

HERES AN EXAMPLE THAT NOT ALL STATES WANT GAY MARRIAGE
U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, last week. He said that it amounts to unconstitutional discrimination. Today, Judge Walker put gay marriage on hold for another six days to give opponents to his ruling more time to get a decision from a higher court on whether gay marriage will be permitted to resume. Otherwise, gay marriage will be legal in California beginning next Wednesday.

Id like to say that my opponent failed to attack my case!

NOW ITD LIKE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS TO BRING!! WHICH WOULD BRING MY CASE BACK UP AND ATTACK MY OPPONENTS CASE
Gay rights advocates and others say that gay and lesbian people want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do - they want to be in caring, stable relationships, they want to build a life and even start a family with someone else. Why shouldn't they be able to do this?

See, I think that's the foundational flaw with this whole debate. The law is as it has been for 200-plus years, and so the burden is on them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married, not just for their benefit but for what the impact is on society and marriage as a whole, and on children.

I would argue that the gay community has not made the argument. They may have made the argument as to why they want it, but they have not made any arguments as to why this is beneficial for society. They have not made any argument - convincing or otherwise, that I'm aware of - as to what the impact would be on heterosexual marriages and what the impact would be on children.

They have no studies. They have no information whatsoever about what it would do to the moral ecology of the country, what it would do to religious liberty, what it would do to the mental and physical health of children - nothing. They've made no case. Basically the case they've made is, "We want what you want, and therefore you should give it to us."

So you're saying that advocates of same-sex marriage are not seeing the big picture?

Yes. I have a book that was written a few years ago called It Takes a Family. In that book I have a chapter on moral ecology, and I explain that if you go to the National Archives, you will come to a section that has, as far as the eye can see, rows and rows and rows of environmental impact statements, because we have laws in this country that say before you go out and you put in a bridge across a creek, you have to go out and see whether what you're doing is disturbing the landscape there.

Yet when it comes to something that I happen to believe is actually more important than a particular plot of land - the entire moral ecology of our country, who we are as a people, what we stand for, what we teach our children, what our values and ethics are - people argue that we can build the equivalent of a strip mall without even thinking about what those consequences are.

Some people in favor of gay marriage have argued for a "go-slow" approach, acknowledging that we're in largely unknown territory and that a majority of Americans are not yet comfortable with same-sex marriage. Does that attitude allay any of your fears?

No. They want the convenient accelerator of the courts to put this in play, and then they want the judicious temperament of the American democratic system to govern it. I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. Same-sex marriage advocates are not going to state legislatures, except in some cases for civil unions. They are using the courts.

If the courts are going to be your accelerator, then get ready for a ride. And if the courts ultimately say, "Marriage must be allowed between anybody and anybody," the gay rights advocates are not going to say, "Well, you've gone too far." No, I think the go-slow argument is there to make us feel better, but it doesn't hold water.

Another argument made by gay rights advocates is that with or without marriage, gay families are already a widespread reality. They point out that we already have gay couples living together, some with children. And they ask: Isn't it better that they be legally married to each other, if for no other reason than for the benefit and the welfare of the children?

The answer is no - because of the consequences to society as a whole. And again, those are consequences that they choose to ignore. What society should be about is encouraging what's best for children. What's best for children, we know, is a mother and a father who are the parents of that child, raising that child in a stable, married relationship, and we should have laws that encourage that, that support that.

What you're talking about with same-sex marriage is completely deconstructing marriage and taking away a privilege that is given to two people, a man and a woman who are married, who have a child or adopt a child. We know it's best for children and for society that men and women get married. We know it's healthier. We know it's better for men. We know it's better for women. We know it's better for communities.

What we don't know is what happens with other options. And once you get away from the model of "what we know is best" and you get into the other options, from my perspective, there's no stopping it. And also from my perspective, you devalue what you want to value, which is a man and woman in marriage with a child or children. And when you devalue that, you get less of it. When you get less of it, society as a whole suffers.

Do you feel confident that if same-sex marriage became the norm in our society that we would get less traditional marriage?

The answer is yes, because marriage then becomes, to some degree, meaningless. I mean, if anybody can get married for any reason, then it loses its special place. And, you know, it's already lost its special place, in many respects, because of divorce. The institution of marriage is already under assault. So why should we do more to discredit it and harm it?

Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has written extensively about this, about what the impact is in countries that have adopted same-sex marriage. We have, in fact, seen a decline in the number of marriages, a delay in people getting married, more children being born out of wedlock and higher rates of divorce. None of those things are good for society. None of those things are good for children.

But can you lay these changes at the feet of same-sex marriage?

Yes, I think you can lay them at its feet. Kurtz notes that the marriage rate in the Netherlands was always actually one of the lowest in the EU. And once same-sex marriage was put in place, it broke below the line.

As a person who has positioned himself as a defender of Christian values, why is gay marriage particularly opposed to those values?

Well, the laws in this country are built upon a certain worldview, and it is the Judeo-Christian worldview. And that worldview has been expressed in our laws on marriage for 200-plus years. Up until 25 years ago, we would never have sat here and done this interview. It would have been beyond the pale. And so it is clearly a dramatic departure from the Judeo-Christian ethic that is reflected in our laws that say marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.

For these reasons I respectfully ask for you CON vote for today's debate thank you
TheDiabolicDebater

Pro

"I don't see how my opponent does not understand my cities, and yes they were relevant to the debate."
No they weren't. They did not provide any evidence for me. They had nothing to do with the contents of your arguments.

"I did give my opponent the evidence they asked for."
No you haven't. You said: "most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional." I asked you to provide evidence for this, and you have failed to do so. This weakens your case.

"The bible is not irrelevant."
Yes it is. This is not a religious debate. This is a debate about same-sex marriage being legal. In a secular state such as America, religion has no sway over laws.

"I would like to ask how is same sex not harmful?"
It's not harmful because it does not cause harm to anyone. If it did, there would be evidence of this. If there was evidence of this, surely you would have provided some?

"HERES AN EXAMPLE THAT NOT ALL STATES WANT GAY MARRIAGE"
It does not matter what certain individuals believe. As I have established before, it is bigoted discrimination to not allow same-sex couples to marry. It does not cause any harm.

"Id like to say that my opponent failed to attack my case!"
Of course I did. I dissected every facet of your case in my second round.

"See, I think that's the foundational flaw with this whole debate. The law is as it has been for 200-plus years, and so the burden is on them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married, not just for their benefit but for what the impact is on society and marriage as a whole, and on children."
The burden is 50-50 here. We each need to prove why same-sex marriage should be legal. I have proven my burden, you have not proven yours.

"They may have made the argument as to why they want it, but they have not made any arguments as to why this is beneficial for society."
I do not have to prove that it would benefit society as a whole. I just need to prove that it would not harm society as a whole. I have done this. In fact, looking back at my second round, you can see that I provided an example of how this would benefit society. I argued that allowing same-sex marriage would mean more homosexual couples could adopt children. Surely it is beneficial for homeless children to be adopted.

"They have no information whatsoever about what it would do to the moral ecology of the country, what it would do to religious liberty, what it would do to the mental and physical health of children - nothing."
The absence of incriminating evidence would suggest that there is quite simply, nothing morally wrong with same-sex marriage. Once again, I must ask: How does same-sex marriage affect religious liberty? This question has still not been answered by my opponent.

The next big portion of my opponent's argument is irrelevant altogether so I won't be addressing it.

" Isn't it better that they be legally married to each other, if for no other reason than for the benefit and the welfare of the children? The answer is no - because of the consequences to society as a whole."
What consequences? You have failed to provide evidence of any existing or potential consequences, so this premise is dropped.

"We know it's best for children and for society that men and women get married. We know it's healthier. We know it's better for men. We know it's better for women. We know it's better for communities."
No evidence. No argument.

"Do you feel confident that if same-sex marriage became the norm in our society that we would get less traditional marriage? The answer is yes, because marriage then becomes, to some degree, meaningless."
Marriage would not become meaningless. It would still be performed for the same purpose that it does today, except now same-sex couples would be allowed that same opportunity.

"We have, in fact, seen a decline in the number of marriages, a delay in people getting married, more children being born out of wedlock and higher rates of divorce."
Once again, no evidence. I can not simply take your word for this.

"Well, the laws in this country are built upon a certain worldview, and it is the Judeo-Christian worldview."
This is demonstrably false for many reasons. First of all, looking again at the first amendment, we can see that our legislators are not legally permitted to make laws that respect religion. Some of the more prominent founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists[2]. Additionally, in the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams writes, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[3]."

So in summation, I see no other ballot than that of the pro. I have provided credible sources to back up my claims and I have made arguments based on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Treaty of Tripoli. All very important American legal documents. My opponent has provided no evidence for any of her claims regarding same-sex marriage being harmful, so her case can not be taken seriously. Furthermore, she has not addressed my case, nor has she addressed my attacks on her case. Her case is dismantled, and mine stands strong. Not only that, but her arguments from her 2nd and 4th round were simply copied and pasted from another source. She is not even attempting to argue with me. Most importantly, my opponent has not established that same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional. This was important because the topic is referring specifically to the United States. For these reasons and more, I strongly urge a vote for pro. Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources
1)http://www.pewforum.org...
2)http://www.britannica.com...
3)http://www.stephenjaygould.org...
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
Ahh yes. I was a little confused by that at first. It was like I was debating a completely different person.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Wow, Con sure fell apart after round one when she wasn't copy/pasting from other people anymore lol
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
I just realized I was using the term "drop" incorrectly. Facepalm.
Posted by amberlynnsnyder 4 years ago
amberlynnsnyder
Sorry on one of my answers it was a congress man who answered it and i did not mean to write i its on my
"So you're saying that advocates of same-sex marriage are not seeing the big picture?"
by Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer at The National Journal.
and Rick Santorum
Posted by amberlynnsnyder 4 years ago
amberlynnsnyder
Sorry on one of my answers it was a congress man who answered it and i did not mean to write i its on my
"So you're saying that advocates of same-sex marriage are not seeing the big picture?"
by Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer at The National Journal.
and Rick Santorum
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
amberlynnsnyderTheDiabolicDebaterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Literacy: that's my RFD
Vote Placed by mariahjane 4 years ago
mariahjane
amberlynnsnyderTheDiabolicDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Read the debate...it's pretty obvious.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
amberlynnsnyderTheDiabolicDebaterTied
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: Con loses Conduct and S/G simply because she c/p her opening arguments. Also, Con failed to provide any sources which were needed to back up here argument, Pro did provide sources where needed. The main question is arguments..and Pro wins this simply because he 1) established a case 2) took apart all of Cons claims and 3) defended against Cons attack which was unsubstantiated.