Resolved: Same-Sex Marriage ought be legalized in the United States
Based on my analysis with the topic at hand as well as my own personal proclivity with this subject, I am obliged to affirm the resolution and state that same-sex marriage ought be legalized in the United States. Before, continuing, I must make observations on the topic at hand, and the main definition for this debate is the following:
Ought: [a term] used to indicate duty or correctness; used to give or ask advice
With this clear distinction on the resolution's text, it is obvious the arbiter toward the analysis of the debate at hand: the correctness or duty of the United States whether it be moral or practical. With considerations that the United States is a parameter in this resolution, we must also make judgement based on the Constitution and the governmental style described and established therein and upheld by the government.
Now, to my contentions:
Contention 1: Legalization of SSM benefits society
It is both morally and practically correct to make improvement to society through the utilization of moral methods, and by legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States, we would be doing exactly what the government is required by society and make improvements on it as such. The main improvement to society lies within the betterment of the population with regard to homosexuals and heterosexuals in relation to homosexuals as well as economically.
Sub 1a: Acceptance of same-sex marriagereduces negative statistics in the homosexual population, homophobia, and other negative acts as a result of homophobia.
The affirmative understands the conditions at which homosexuals are subjected under when it comes to the question of health in the gay community. The rates of HIV and AIDS as well as alcohol and drug abuse in the gay community have been known to have been larger than the amount in the heterosexual counterpart of the society. By reducing these numbers, we would be in a way benefitting the community, and thus showing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be correct. The following evidence shows that the high statistics in the gay community are strongly connected with homophobia/rejection of homosexuals and that same-sex marriage aids to the improvement of the gay community.
"HIV, AIDS, and Young Gay Men"-- Avert;http://www.avert.org......#
"The development of support networks for families plays an important role in increasing acceptance. Feeling accepted and supported as a young gay man is very important in terms of self-acceptance and self-esteem. Having high self-esteem among young gay men has been shown to have a positive impact on confidence about negotiating sexual relationships and practising safer sex. Permissive laws which equalise the rights of gay men with others in the population can help normalise sexual differences and restrictive laws can be widened to make sure that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is treated as are other forms of discrimination."
"Tolerance and HIV"--Francis and Mialon, 2009 (Emory University, Department of Economics)--http://userwww.service.emory.edu......
"We empirically investigate the effect of tolerance for gays on the spread of HIV in the Unitedv States. Using a state-level panel dataset spanning the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, we find that tolerance is negatively associated with the HIV rate. We then investigate the causal mechanisms potentially underlying this relationship. We find evidence consistent with the theory that tolerance for homosexuals causes low-risk men to enter the pool of homosexual partners, as well as causes sexually active men to substitute away from underground, anonymous, and risky behaviors, both of which lower the HIV rate."
"Gay Teens Turning to Drugs and Alcohol."-- Teen Drug Abuse, 2011 http://www.teen-drug-abuse.org......
"A study by Dr. Michael P. Marshal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center revealed that LGBT teens are 190 percent more likely to use drugs and alcohol than are heterosexual teens, and that the usage rate is even higher among certain subgroups...
Marshal, whose team analyzed data that had been collected during 18 studies between 1994 and 2006, attributed the spike in drug and alcohol use among LGBT teens to the considerable societal pressures faced by the members of this demographic group. “Homophobia, discrimination and victimization are largely what are responsible for these substance use disparities in young gay people,” Marshal said in a March 25, 2008 press release that was posted on the Addiction website. “History shows that when marginalized groups are oppressed and do not have equal opportunities and equal rights, they suffer. Our results show that gay youth are clearly no exception.”"
Sub 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage is economically beneficial
Alongside the betterment of the homosexual counterpart of society is the betterment of the economic status of the society as a whole, meaning that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be beneficial to the community as a whole.
"The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget"-- Sears and Badgett, 2008--University of California(http://www3.law.ucla.edu......)
"This analysis estimates the impact of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision to extend marriage to same-sex couples on state and local government revenues in California. Using the best data available, we estimate that allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in approximately $63.8 million in revenue over the next three years."
"The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in Vermont."--Ramos, Badgett, and Sears, 2009--University of California (http://www3.law.ucla.edu......)
Contention 2: Legalization of SSM is moral because it provides justice and community benefit
As I have explained in my previous contention, we must also benefit the community in a moral fashion, and morality must be judged as well in order to show the correctness in the government legalizing it as such. In this contention, I will prove that the legalization of same-sex marriage is moral. The main source of the morality for same-sex marriage lies in the fact that not only does it benefit the community, but also provides justice.
Sub 2a: Legalization is better than civil unions
Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals in the American society 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.
Sub 2b: Supreme Courts have ruled that SSM denial is unconstitutional
Supreme Courts across the country have made evaluations over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage and the denial thereof, and the most recent rulings show that Supreme Courts rule that the denial of SSM is unconstitutional, and thus, the establishment of SSM would uphold constitutionality. Court rulings upholding SSM are the following:
Perry v. Schwarzenneger (California 2008)
Baehr v. Miike (Hawaii 1993)
Varnum v. Brien (Iowa 2009)
Contention 3: Majority opinion now supports SSM.
In addition to the obligation to uphold the country, we must uphold the governmental style of the United States: a democracy dedicated to the people. A democracy must uphold what is both moral/practical and most supported by people in order to be valid to be upheld by the government. The following recent polls show that the new majority of people support SSM.
The resolution goes as follows, "Resolved: Same-Sex Marriage ought be legalized in the United States."
As my judges will see, my opponent has done a pretty poor job of addressing my case, and instead of actually attacking my evidence, he just fills up the rebuttal with some points additional to the ones that he posted at the bottom that argue against my points, but don't disprove them in any way, shape, or form.
My opponent makes a reiteration of my argument when he tries to talk about the negative statistics in the homosexual population. As I stated in my case, the pro affirms the negative conditions of drug and alcohol abuse, high HIV transmission rates, high promiscuity, high suicide rates, and the list just goes on and on. I think that my opponent and I agree that we cannot allow these rates to get any higher because that would be a negative impact on the society. Well good! My opponent recognizes the clear morality and practicality of doing such a thing in order to reduce those rates. However, when it comes to the action for the actual reduction of those rates, that's where our disagreement begins and our agreement ends. What you will notice about my opponent's rebuttal is that it's more of a haphazard leap than a slippery slope in contrast to my argument, which has supplemental information, including a study from Emory University as I cited in my subpoint 1a. What I've argued was that the acceptance of same-sex marriage would actually drive these statistics down, and this is because marriage in general promotes stability, and when we provide this to homosexual couples and not just heterosexual ones, this would drive down the stats. But don't take my word for it; take the word of Francis and Mialon, the two Emory University economists who made the study provided who argue that based on their study, it showed that regions that banned same-sex marriage raised the HIV transmission cases in homosexuals 4 in 100,000 cases whereas tolerance alone drove down the transmission rate by 1 in 100,000 cases. Take the word of Eugene Volokhov, professor of Constitutional Law II in the UCLA School of Law, who argues the following in his report about slippery-slope arguments regarding homosexual marriage and polygamy: " There are some instrumental reasons to prefer heterosexual relationships at least to male homosexual relationships—male homosexual conduct is, at least today, much more medically dangerous than heterosexual conduct. But I suspect any public-health benefit of slight shifts away from male homosexuality would likely be exceeded by the public-health benefits of shifting more male homosexuals into stabler and more monogamous relationships." I've shown you, the judges, my evidence regarding my argument that same-sex marriage can better society, but when we look at my opponent's rebuttal against my own, you notice that his logic has no evidence to supplement it. We cannot support the homosexual lifestyle (even though, we're not. We're promoting homosexuality and the marriage thereof, not a homosexual's individual lifestyle other than the fact that we're bettering it) because it's filled with all of this bad stuff, but as I've shown you with my evidence, the same-sex marriage acceptance does anything BUT promote the lifestyle he talks about. So, when he says that we can't promote this lifestyle, he's actually supplementing my contention. Not to mention his argument about tradition, but there are some considerations in that as well: why should we advocate for tradition? We have advocated for tradition before, yet we still have this 50% divorce rate as my opponent presents to us. We go against tradition, I guess, but how is that bad for society? Is tradition always good? Let's look at some other things that were tradition: sexism, racism, advocacy for the depletion of other religions, and the list just goes on and on about how tradition has been bad. Why should we always uphold tradition then? Why should we uphold the tradition of marriage, but not these other things?
Moving on to my subpoint 1b, he does have evidence for this rebuttal, but when we look at his evidence in contrast to the one that I have for my subpoint, you will see, first of all, my evidence outweighs his. My study was done from somebody in a more related field of work: the two sets of research I've shown in my arguments were conducted mainly by Professors Brad Sears (Professor of Law) and MV Badgett (Professor of Economics), whereas his evidence was made by a writer who has no credentials for economics or law as far as we're concerned. Then, second, even if he does have credentials, his evidence talks about the fragmentation of families, not anything about homosexuality or the couples. My opponent will not only have to provide a credited definition as to what the fragmentation of the family is in the context of his evidence, but also prove that same-sex marriage fragments families AND counter the evidence provided in my case.
Before moving on to the contention 2 rebuttal, we should look at the contention 3 rebuttal real quick. My opponent states that if the majority of the country really does support same-sex marriage, then why don't we put the whole thing on referrendum? The answer is that elections can go either way. The perfect example is Prop 8, where California is one of the most liberal states in the country and very supportive of same-sex marriage in the long run when it comes to the population there, but Prop 8 was still passed. This was because only 27% of the overall population actually voted in the referrendum and the ones supportive of it won by a narrow majority. There's so much more that goes into elections than just the amount of supporters...there's also the amount of people who will vote, the amount pressure, the availability of election sites, and the list goes on and on as well. This, however, doesn't diminish the fact that the recent polls show us that the majority of the country supports SSM, and my opponent doesn't argue against that at all. He missed the point entirely, so you can extend my C3 across the flow.
As for my contention 2 and the rebuttal thereof, I can argue that even though civil unions are an alternative, they're not an equal alternative because they do not have equal recognition under the law and neither do they provide the equal benefits of marriage. My opponent does not argue against that at all, and at the point where we provide an alternative, but it's not as good as a marriage, that's not equality in any way, shape, or form. It's not about how many couples choose civil unions over marriage or about the fact that we have an alternative at all; it's about how we are providing parity with those alternatives (which we're not). He makes this argument about constitutionality, but considering Supreme Courts are the arbiter of the Constitution, their decision outweighs my opponent's, and my opponent does not address the cases whatsoever, so you can extend sub 2b across the flow as well.
Now, for a cross-examination of my opponent's case:
1. You state that SSM will lead to these effects. What is the probability of that? Where has that happened?
2. You argue that the rejection of the opposite sex for members of the same sex is sexist, but what does that have anything to do with the marriage of the people of the same-sex if it's the homosexuality that's sexist? Also, what distinguishes sexism? What is your definition of sexism? And how could we really call it prejudice if it's hard-wired?
As you stated,
"What I've argued was that the acceptance of same-sex marriage would actually drive these statistics down..." By arguing what I did, I was trying to prove a point, and show impact of this as compared to yours. YES. You are promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and even if you weren't...you didn't make that clear.
Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.
Now to answer a question of yours that you had, 'why follow traditions?'As mentioned in firstcase, SSM would break institution of marriage...or in this case, deplete or even completely abolish our whole idea and institution of MARRIAGE. My opponent then went on too ask why this tradition is good, but what she failed to do is explain why? Why wouldn't it be good? Why is it bad? You listed all of these totally irrelevant traditions we have followed in the past, but later broke away from them...but why marriage? The institution of marriage has been around for a long time, and I don't beleieve anyone plans on breaking it anytime soon. Marriage itself isn't bad, but allowing for SSM isn't necessarily good. It isn't a case of marriage, it's a case of allowing for SSM which too some, may be better... And just so you know, even gay marriage advocated are afaraid of allowing for SSM because they fear the insitution of marriage would crumble. In fact, almost 70% of them do, and almost 50% of all homsexual couples would just be fine with being together instead of going through the process of marriage----->
First off, Prop 8 is totally irrelevant in this case, primarily because of the fact that THIS decision (SSM) is being dealt with something that coupld possibly jeopardize our society as we know . By voting on SSM the outcome wouldn't be very pretty. As explained in my last case...RI speaker Gordon Fox explains that a March 17th article by Warwick Beacon "Marriage Bill in Limbo" that "only two courses are now under consideration: substitute a civil unions bill, or put the issue before the voters on the 2012 ballot. However gay marriage advocates "oppose those measures because they say same-sex couples should have the full rights of marriage and they fear a referendum could result in defeat." If even gay marriage advocates dissaprove voting on the issue, then why would you even argue the fact that this would turn out any different? Arguing it will get you nowhere, and it's true.
And about Civil Unions, once more, you have rearranged the question for what it is not. As provided by the Con, allowing for SSM couples isn't an option, primarily because of the fact that it would jeopardize the institution of marriage as we know it. This isn't right, and should not be done. In response to your disapproval of Civil Unions (an alternative to SSM couples), I ask what then can we do? The fact that you dissaprove Civil Unions (an alternative to same sex couple bondage) leaves you with nothing in the long run, and therefore nothing to excpet. Plain and simple, SSM should not be allowed because of no way for bonding the two couples.
Last, but not least, answers to your 'cross examination' of my points.
2. Questions you asked in regard to my contention don't make sense. Everything you asked was pretty much explained. As said, Homosexuality is a genetic, preconceived preference for one's own gender above the other. Thus, same sex marriage is inherently sexist. Homosexuals always reject the opposite sex without regard to individual merit. To discriminate is to show preference on the basis of class -- sex, race, color, religion, degree of ability, etc. -- not by individual merit. Prejudice is a preconceived preference. That simple. And how would I define this? Well it is, technically. Based on those preferances, sexism wold arise from the very roots of homsexuality. SEXISM: the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas... sexism is most often used in relation with discrimination against women, thus homosexuality is sexism.
By promoting same-sex marriage, we would be promoting the innate condition of being homosexual and having the rights as a heterosexual counterpart as such, but I fail to see how exactly a marriage or union between two men or women would be a promotion of negative statistics in the homosexual population when not only does the evidence clearly point otherwise because it shows a form of acceptance of the homosexual community, which actually prompts for the reduction of rates, but because marriage is a promotion of stability, loyalty, and settling down. My opponent harps on this idea that the sky is going to start falling if we show any kind of kindness or acceptance of the gay community even though it's the pressure of not being able to fit in and be accepted by the community that prompts suicide, promiscuity, drug use, alcohol use, and other negative things among them. Not to mention that my opponent really doesn't provide any evidence of his own to support his claim except maybe for his reference to Jonathan Goodwin and Mary Sury, which in itself is a vague piece of evidence if I may say so myself considering it doesn't provide any specific numbers or details explaining the occurrence, which not only shows that his evidence is short-sighted but also may have a correlation without a causation. If my opponent could show us the exact numbers of the report made or give me a link in a message or something about the report, I'll be happy to rebut it as such.
From there, we can move on to the points I've made about following tradition. When you make an analysis on what my opponent is saying about tradition, you notice that there are two main flaws in his logic: He stated that " You listed all of these totally irrelevant traditions we have followed in the past, but later broke away from them...but why marriage? The institution of marriage has been around for a long time, and I don't beleieve anyone plans on breaking it anytime soon." In other words, my opponent is saying that because this function of marriage has existed for the longest time, that implicitly means we shouldn't break it. Under my opponent's logic, we could argue that sexism and racism are foundations to the society that shouldn't be broken either considering they've been around for the longest time. After hundreds of years of subordination of black people, it was after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that things kind of started to look up for African Americans as equal Americans, after a tradition that stated that African Americans were simply not equals. It took the longest time for women to be able to acquire their equal rights as well with their movements stretching into the 1980s. In fact, women are still subordinated in our country in many ways if you were to look at their experiences as well as their portrayals and expectations. Racism and sexism have been around for the longest time, so why don't we support that as well? The second main problem is the logic that he uses in order to make his point about "breaking the institution of marriage." The only argument that he offers to my question as to why we can't make this change to marriage is because it would change marriage's institution. Essentially from what I get from his argument, it's saying that breaking a tradition is bad because it's bad to break a tradition (the tradition in question being the institution of marriage), which is nothing more than circular reasoning...a logical fallacy. For the record, I may add, the reason why I added information about other traditions we've broken was to show the absurdity in my opponent's case to say that we have to uphold tradition just for the sake of it when we've broken traditions before and it's actually improved our country and the people therein significantly.
My opponent had no further arguments against the question of the economics portion supporting gay marriage, so the judges can promptly extend that across the flow.
I don't think that Prop 8 is irrelevant at all because it shows us a perfect example of how votes can go either way depending on many variables. California had many gay rights advocates in 2008, but the vote still ended up having Prop 8 go forward. One of the main things that was really interesting about the referrendum was that only 27% of the state voted in the actual election. Take another example: in the 2004 elections, many polls said that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was going to win and that the majority of America supported him, but the outcome of the actual election was that George W. Bush won. When it comes to putting the actual public opinion to a vote, there's so much that goes into elections: the eligibility, the ages of the people voting, the amount of people voting, and the list goes on and on. Placing the opinion to a vote is a very risky move, and to say that gay marriage advocates don't want to put it on a poll is rather irrelevant, to be quite honest, because it doesn't change what the majority of scientific polls analyzing the American community say. They don't want to put it on elections. That's very sad. 53% of America still supports same-sex marriage according to the Gallup poll. It doesn't change anything, so my judges should completely disregard my opponent's rebuttal to Contention 3.
I guess that leaves my opponent's argument against my Subpoint 1a. The argument for this subpoint is pretty much the same one that he presents for my argument about tradition, which I have proven to you is nothing more than circular reasoning and faulty logic. I do not disapprove of civil unions (and for him to say so is a strawman), but I don't think that they're the optimal choice for the country because it doesn't provide equality. He also doesn't argue the real meat of my subpoint: that civil unions do not provide the equality that marriage does. My opponent really didn't argue anything as far as my subpoint 1a is concerned, so you can extend that across the flow, and because he doesn't really argue the entirety of my second contention, extend the whole thing as well.
Now, we move on to my opponent's case. Judges, you will notice that if you compare the questions in my cross-examination and his answers, you will realize that he just went around my questions and didn't really answer anything. First, he doesn't give us a probability of polygamy or all of the other things he claimed in his slippery slope becoming legal if SSM becomes legal and doesn't give us an empirical example of when that has happened. Second, you will notice that his evidence does not trump mine because it doesn't have enough ethos in comparison to a university-level analysis from the University of California about this same matter. He has a social commentator and a member of Canadian Parliament, which don't really have ethos to make such an analysis, so at this point, disregard his first point.
That leaves his second point where he argues that same-sex marriage is sexist. First, he doesn't argue the marriage itself, but argues that homosexuality is sexist because it doesn't consider the individual merits of the woman, and if that's the case, under the same argument, it could mean that heterosexuality is just as sexist because it doesn't consider the individual merits of the man, so his logic is really self-defeating, let alone irrelevant. And in addition to that, is it not sexist to exclude a man from the position of the bride simply because tradition dictates that a woman is supposed to be there without considering the ideals of the other man or the individual merits of the "bride" in question? My opponent really misses logic here in his second point, so you might as well just defeat that point in your considerations for who won this debate.
Thank you, and vote PRO.
"I fail to see how exactly a marriage or union between two men or women would be a promotion of negative statistics in the homosexual population."
I don't know what else to say to my opponent accept read over my contnetions and evidence very clearly ONCE MORE. Judges, if you will notice, my opponent has stated the above (although in a different manner) seveal times, asking it again, and again, and again.
Con, my whole argument that I am trying to get through in response to what you FIRST stated..."The rates of HIV and AIDS as well as alcohol and drug abuse in the gay community have been known to have been larger than the amount in the heterosexual counterpart of the society. By reducing these numbers, we would be in a way benefitting the community, and thus showing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be correct." is simply rebutting that point and saying...NO...THIS WILLNOT HAPPEN.
I have provided efficient and stable proof in respone to your argument which is the fact that by allowing for SSM, the stats you stated specifically MAY go down, but by allowing for SSM (which is promoting an un-healthy lifestlye, and driving it further) you will increase the statistics of more unhealthy rates, such as HIV or AIDS. Not to mention, violence (as stated in my other case) is also a factor. SSM marriage coups tend to have more violent relationships as compared to heterosexual relationship couples. The impacts on SSM couples are not only physcially disasterous, but mentally as well. And as stated, by promoting or allowing (in this case legalizing) SSM you are ALLOWING for this too happen, and driving these rates up. You haven't answered this at all in any efficient manner. I have provided more impact as well. You said drug abuse and other bad factors existed in homosexual parts of society, but you never stated how bad it really was. You said the stats would go down, and that was it. But how bad is it? Is it that urgent? In a sense, yes, but you, and the judges, must realize what I brought up...which is the fact that by allowing it...your only makng mattes worse...
Now onto the tradition aspect of debate: "When you make an analysis on what my opponent is saying about tradition, you notice that there are two main flaws in his logic: He stated that " You listed all of these totally irrelevant traditions we have followed in the past, but later broke away from them...but why marriage? The institution of marriage has been around for a long time, and I don't beleieve anyone plans on breaking it anytime soon." In other words, my opponent is saying that because this function of marriage has existed for the longest time, that implicitly means we shouldn't break it." Not true one bit.What should be perceived by my understanding and knowledge of it...is the fact that I was saying "why" marriage? You actually never responded with any REASONING (or impact...once more). In fact, if you want to talk about flaw, then look at what you have said.Consistently throughout the debate, I have stated why allowing for SAME SEX MARRIAGE COUPLES (under the instiution of MARRIAGE) should not be wed...or in this case legalized. Note, you are arguing it SHOULD be legalized. The other alternative to same sex-bondage is civil unions which you say doesn't offer the same benefits as marriage. Then you go onto mention, 'why are traditions good" (in regards to marrge)---WAIT ONE SECOND---aren't you arguing they should be wed under the bondage of marriage...after all, it is SAME SEX MARRIAGE, correct? You have contradicted yourself under those several staements, and aided me in my reasning in several aspects. So then, what else is there for homosexual couples if they cannot be wed under marriage, since that is what you were implying in your previous case. You logic is swaying back and forth, from side to side, tryng to find it's true roots...whcih only support my case. And arriage has been around for a long time, and just because it has doesn't mean it's good. That's true. But in marriages case...it is. Breaking a sacred and stabel instituion for homosexual couples (which acording to your contradiction, wouldn't help them) is completely absurd and comical. There are no other alternatives. It may be sad, but it is the truth. Because of that...once more, homosexual couples cannot be wed nder the institution of marriage---also according to your contradiction.
Economis portion of debate: Actually, in regards to the economic aspect...if you look back at my point made earlier, it made complete sense. That question you had given me MADE NO SENSE. But if that wasn't enough, here is a little more reasoning and impact over what you said...One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men valued sexual fidelity. Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.
And onto the voting portion of SSM, even if people agree with homosexual bonding, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are willing to gve up everything and jeopardize their society as they know it. Like mentioned several times (and disregarded by you much more), people like the idea of change, but not everyone is willng to actually change. The evidence I gave you stating that even GAY MARRIAGE ADVOCATES (people who support gay marriage) don't want to put it on ballots for voting, or get the idea 'mainstream' for change, is because of the fact that they don't necessarily disagree with gay marriage, but because of the fact that it most likely won't pass in the long run because of the impacts it could have on our society.
As Jennifer Roback explains in a speech at Wheaton College (obatined from National Organizaion of Marriage---http://www.nomblog.com...), "It is not the question of whether we do or don't accpet homosexuals as equal, but the question of what must be (if anything can) done in order to make legalizing SSM a non-hazard to our youth, our elders, our businessess, and society as whole. Voting and legislation to the issue won't do anything at this point, nor will it do anything in the future. It is primarily up to the people, and even though several agree, they nderstand the slippery-slopes, the hazardous headings, and much, much more evil impacts of legalizing SSM."
And about me not 'getting to the meat' of your subpoint, you may want to look at your contradiction against civil unions and marrige itself before writing anymore.
Judges, disregard what he has said about my points, and look at his faults. Constantly throughout this debate, he has created mis-understanding, brought up false arguments, and even contradicted himself in several areas, aiding me in winning this debate. I do include more than enough ETHOS (or ethic) in this ebate, same with providing enough pathos (passion) and logos (logic) to my cases and rebutting your own. And besides, even if you have enough evidence (on your points---whcih I totaly agree that you do) you don't us it correctly and disreagrd completely everything I bring up. You never provided enough impact, reasoning, no solid claims, and many more flaws have ensued.
Thank you Vote PRO
Alright ladies and gentlemen, it's pretty much time to wrap the debate up and tell you why you should vote for me rather than my opponent and affirm the resolution that same-sex marriage ought be legalized in the United States.
Not once in the course of this entire debate did my opponent rebut anything said about my subpoint 2b other than where he said that he could argue that the denial of same-sex marriage could be constitutional, which doesn't really hold much ground based on its reasoning, as I've explained earlier, so you can extend my subpoint 2b across the flow. Not once, also, did my opponent make an argument against my rebuttal of his case except where he tells the judges to just disregard the flaws in his case. He doesn't make an argument against anything I said, really, so extend my argument across the flow.
The main point that you should also extend across the flow in this debate is Subpoint 1a. My opponent has made no real rebuttals against this point. I've shown you that the spread of acceptance and tolerance, or what my opponent would call "promoting the gay lifestyle," actually reduces these negative statistics in their community. Acceptance provides morale and self-esteem for homosexuals, moving them away from a life of promiscuity, drug and alcohol use, STDs, and other negative things that only debilitate them more. Of course, don't take my word for it. Take the word of the three respective pieces of evidence, including the study from Emory University referenced and explained, that tell you the exact same thing I'm arguing right now. What's my opponent's only response to this contention? Just a simple denial of my evidence's argument along with an obscure, almost phantom study on homosexual domestic violence where my opponent doesn't tell us the exact amount of homosexual domestic violence rates, how much they will go up by, and when trying to find the study, it doesn't show up anywhere. I asked my opponent to explain the evidence he had because I didn't have any luck finding it, and surprisingly enough, he doesn't post anything that will be of aid. At that point, my Subpoint 1a still stands, thus Contention 1 still stands because my opponent didn't knock down its entirety.
That means that my Contention 2 stands as well because I argued that same-sex marriage is moral because it betters society and provides equality, so extend that across the flow as well. As for my point about civil unions, he didn't argue my defense of my point about marriage being better than civil unions. As I said, I do affirm of civil unions and states moving in that direction to have them legalized, but civil unions are more of a first step than a permanent solution. I'm arguing here that marriage provides more equality and that it should be considered over civil unions. Civil unions are good, but marriage is better. Even if my case seems a bit contradictory that I affirm civil unions but affirm more of same-sex marriage, my opponent did the same thing that he did last time: he failed to get to the meat of the argument. He failed to show that civil unions are indeed to the same level of equality than marriage and that my subpoint is wrong. My personal beliefs are one thing, but when we analyze civil unions in entirety, we will realize it is not a permanent solution. I will admit, civil unions are good first step, but it's not marriage. My opponent failed to address that.
Then we move on to the argument about tradition. My opponent makes this argument about a so-called contradiction that I keep making, which is an argument that really doesn't make sense at all. In fact, I would even go all the way to say that this is nothing but a strawman argument because nowhere in my argument did I even imply that homosexuals cannot be wed under marrige. He goes on to explain that I am supporting the legalization, supporting the marriage of homosexuals over civil unions as an alternative, and made an explanation as to why tradition really doesn't have to be followed and when deviated from actually has bettered the society. I said nothing about the actual practice (institution) of marriage other than we're changing the rules of it, hence me saying that it changes the institution, but my opponent makes this big leap to saying that I'm saying that gays cannot wed under the institution of marriage. It's an argument that doesn't really link, and my opponent fails to show that link in his argument against the entirety of my case. So, at the point where my opponent makes this big leap, that's nothing more than a strawman. Also, my opponent really doesn't argue against my rebuttal against his own where I clearly pointed out the logic to you, the only logic that he procided. He also doesn't argue against my argument about his circular reasoning, so extend those arguments across the flow.
The only thing that he states against the economics argument for subpoint 1b is: it doesn't make sense. No explanations except a totally irrelevant study on same-sex civil unions in the state of Vermont. Before making my argument against his evidence, please note the difference between my studies on the economics of same-sex marriage and his study on the civil unions of Vermont: Because we live in a capitalist society functioning under the same capitalist rules, we can take a study sample from a state about the economics and apply it to the whole of the United States because it's all the same function under the same system with the same conditions. Not to mention, it's been duplicated with consideration of the multiple states that have allowed for same-sex marriage, so we know that same-sex marriage increases revenue. My opponent's study, on the other hand, cannot be applied to all of the population because not all of the population is the same in every state considering the different idealisms across the country. Same-sex marriage increases revenue, but I won't say that the revenue from California will the same as the revenue in Kansas. What point am I trying to get to here? My opponent is taking this isolated survey in Vermont (which is irrelevant anyway because it talks about during the civil unions and not after the marriage) about the idealisms of the gay community and trying to apply these results to all of the country implicitly from the argument that he's making about the gay population in general. That's flawed.
And at the end in Contention 3, we can see that my opponent is making a totally irrelevant case. What I was arguing is that because we live in a democracy where the government works mainly for the people as is dictated in the doctrine thereof, we must consider what the population believes with regard to it, and as my evidence suggests, the majority of America is supportive of same-sex marriage, so it would be upholding the obligation to an indirect democracy to uphold those mainline beliefs. However, my opponent just keeps talking about placing it on a ballot and the chances of the outcomes when no one is talking about placing it on a ballot. No one even has to place it on a ballot. It's all about upholding the majority (when upholding the majority is correct in a case), and by legalizing same-sex marriage, that is what you are doing. My opponent hasn't really argued anything against Contention 3.
So the final question here is: why will the judges vote for me? Judges, you will vote for me because I addressed every single attack against my case and fully sustained it. You will vote for me because my opponent's attacks against my case are either fallacious, ungrounded, or both. You will vote for me because my opponent just tells us to disregard my arguments with no real points of his own and doesn't defend his case AT ALL against my attacks, so he implicitly concurs. You will vote for me because my points stand over his.
Judges, marriage is a beautiful thing, and it's unfair and impratical to keep it only between men and women. So, my opponent couldn't have said better: Vote PRO.
Thank you to anyone who participates in this debate. Special thanks to my opponent, ScarletGhost, for being a worthy adversary.
But judges, as with all debates, a time comes when both opposing sides must make their closing case. Before I get to the specifics of why you should (and most likely will) vote CON I must make one statement in regards to why SSM SHOULD NOT BE LGALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES. Judges, oponent, and everyone else looking over this debate...let me put forth two paths you are being given at the moment. One path, the pro's, which creates a society where the institution that we have built on for so long, and charished forever is crumbling apart and breaking from under our own feet, a world in which our society has no meaning, no cause, and no justificaion, or path two...your second option,the CON'S option. A world in which we cherish sacred traditions and institutions FOR WHAT THEY ARE, a world in which people love and respct each other for who they are, not who they aren't (even if it means giving up, in order to be there, and be happy), a world where everyone actively paticipates and acknowledges issues at hand...and overall, a world where everyone is happy and together as one. When the choice comes Only CON proides what you want, and what you need.
Now on to answering your irrational and shrewd questions/answers.
"The main point that you should also extend across the flow in this debate is Subpoint 1a. My opponent has made no real rebuttals against this point."
Judges, what I have been offered from time to time from my opponent, is the question of how my impact on homosexuals will increase due to allowing SSM. He explains (finally) in his previous case that the rates of HIV, AIDS, and so forth would actually decrease by allowing for SSM. The fact is, that is not true. Perhaps the other factors like drug abuse would decreae, but this is only a small percentage of people. By allowing for SSM, you would be working as an incentive for the rates of HIV and AIDS to increase, a huge factor as compared to drug abse. Almost 15.9 million people die of AIDS each year. You are only makng matters worse by trying to so called, "leaglize SSM." Not to mention, you never regarded my point about INCREASE IN VIOLENCE IN SSM RELATIONSHIPS, so that point most definately stands strong and prominent. And besides, you never addressed specifics of abuse in homosexual areas either, or how it really has an impact as compared to what I have said, so your point about my domestic violence is laziness on your part. All in all, I have completely abolished your contention one and its sub points in regards to the 'bad rates' of SSM decreasing.
About Contention Two, what you failed to address, and still haven't is why allowing for SSM will benefit everyone... You never compared it too what you are proposing. But I have mentioned the fact that you would completely abolish our society as you know it by doing this, and you seem not too care one bit. BUT, you did answer this in a contradiction by asking, why are traditions so good? so my point still stands strong, and your contradition works against you. In your closing case, you stated that it wasn't a contradiction on your part...instead it's more of a fixing of marriage, thus, you technically are working against it, and trying to jeopardize the institution as we know it, and completely corrupte our society as whole. And as for civil unions...the fact that you even brought it up (before I even adressed it) still must brought up. As you stated, "I will admit, civil unions are good first step, but it's not marriage. My opponent failed to address that." So, you are disregarding Civil Unions anyways, correct? Because it isn't marriage, which gives the homosexual couples more rights? But if the institution doesn't allow it, and I provided more reasoning and evidence (along with rebuttals to your points) as too why it should not be allowed, and you almost completely disregarded all of these points, including how it WILL ABOLISH OUR SOCIETY, then what are you still trying to propose? It doesn't make sense, it will hurt us in the long run, and you have contradicted yourself one too many times. And besides, one more point in reagrds to civil unions (and what I brought up in earlier cases about ALTERNAITVES---but for some reason, you also disrgarded this) why not fix civil unions? Why not build upon them, and allow for them to gain the accpetance necessary to allow for homosexual couples to have the same rights under bondage? Why interject into the institution of marriage when a problem and solution is in front of you
About economics portion of debate: First off, I did not respond to your subpoint 1b 'This doesn't make sense," that was actually in response to your absurd rebuttal which was toally irrelevant, and comical. And besides, if you look at my cases, of the course of this debate, I have provided MORE than enough evidence, all very valid. In the economin portion of this debate specficically, I have actually brought UP TWO different claims and reasons as too why legalizing SSM will hurt our economy, both with certified sources such as National Organizaion of Marriage and Vermont Department of Psychology. My opponent then goes on too explain that this isn't efficient evidence because it doesn't apply to the whole population specifically in my previous case. He fails to realize though that this piece of evidence does not just apply to an isolated section, in his case, Vermont, but it applies everywhere else as well. It was an in general claim and piece of evidence, therfore it still stand strong and ranking in the fact that Only about 50 percent of gay men valued sexual fidelity, a big factor in deciding who outwieghs the others piece of evidence on the economic standpoint of this debate which is pretty obvious. The CON does. Not to mention, you never throughly adressed my earlier point about the economics of SSM, so that point stand strong and prominent.
Last but not least inregards to Contention Three...but it still deosn't make a differecne while looking at how this idea is too get across. I never really specifically mentioned voting, I just said that it wouldn't turn out to be the outcome many might expect when voting on legalizing SSM. Finally, you mentioned in your latest case that it simply would happen because of that fact that the majority of Americans agree with it, and our government works on tending to the needs of the citizens. Once more, voting or no voting, even if a majority of people AGREE with SSM, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are willing to change certain traditions, institutions, beliefs, and much more, in order to fix something that would jeopardize our society as whole...FOR EVERYNE. And you still haven't addressed this AT ALL, so this point stand very prominent and strong. Like the quote says (as mentioned in my previous case about SSM)---"It is not the question of whether we do or don't accpet homosexuals as equal, but the question of what must be (if anything can) done in order to make legalizing SSM a non-hazard to our youth, our elders, our businessess, and society as whole."
Judges, throughout this debate, pro has made numerous mistakes and faults. He has disregarded what has been said, what has been done, and what possible impacts could result of his bloviated statements. I have constantely asked him questions, from round to round and he has answered them with no meaning, no reason, and most importantly, no cause. He has brought forth issues, only failing to explain why? Why is it important? What is it? How does it effect all of us in the long run? CON has made cases, USED effective evidence, and made strong, efficient, and beneficial claims, arguments and alternatives, and much, much more. In simple, CON has made more impact, provided more logic, and all ther necessary elements in order to win a debate, as compared to pro, who finds himself jumbled in his own mess.
Thank you, and vote Con.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|