The Instigator
WLCJWC
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
jonathon.rockman345
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Same Sex Marriage Is Destructive To Society

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 5 votes the winner is...
WLCJWC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,590 times Debate No: 58636
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

WLCJWC

Pro

Round 1. Accept

Round 2. Opening. No Rebuttals.

Round 3. Rebuttals and further points.

Round 4. Rebuttals only.

Round 5. Conclusion.

Questions in the comment section, thanks.
jonathon.rockman345

Con

I accept.
Good Luck!

I'm a Skeleton profile ;)
Debate Round No. 1
WLCJWC

Pro

Same-sex marriage (hereinafter "SSM") is destructive to society. Throughout this debate I will be referring to opposite-sex marriage as "natural marriage" or "NM." First, this debate is NOT about: equality or equal rights, denying homosexuals the ability to commit to one another, privacy, intolerance, bigotry or homophobia, being born a certain way, civil rights, interracial marriage, or separation of Church and State. In fact, even for most homosexuals, the debate is not about marriage. As data from countries with SSM show, approximately 96% of homosexuals don't get married when given the opportunity. In the Netherlands, which has had SSM since 2001, only between 2 and 6 percent of homosexuals have married. Such low numbers are consistent in other areas as well (See Gallagher, Maggie and Baker, Joshua "Demand for Same-Sex Marriage: Evidence from the United States, Canada, and Europe," Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, 4/26/06.)

What IS the debate about, you ask? Simply, it's about government endorsing the proposition that homosexual behavior is no different from heterosexual behavior, so the gender of married partners is inconsequential. This proposition is destructive to society for four (4) reasons, and I will NOT be arguing from a religious standpoint.

1. NM is the foundation of a civilized society.

NM is by nature procreative. That's why the government gives special prerogatives to married couples; it naturally produces offspring in the best possible setting. While it's true that some NM couples cannot have children, this is the exception to the rule. All books are designed for reading, even if some are never read. The NM is ideal because it gives children a male and female role model that bring something unique to the family. SSM always denies a child a mother or father. Yes, there are loving single parent homes, but studies have shown advantages for children raised by loving NM. (See, e.g. Dobson, James "Marriage Under Fire", Sisters, Oregon, Multnomah, 2004, pg 54) Homosexual activists, and other supporters of SSM, would like you to believe that the roles of men and women are interchangeable--that two men or two women can do just as good a job in parenting as a man and a woman because men and women offer nothing unique to children. If true, can't you just marry someone of the opposite sex? When it comes to sexual desires, the roles are important to them, but not for raising a child. Ask yourself, is sexuality the only difference between genders? Doesn't even pop culture recognize "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus?"

2. Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive.

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), homosexual practice results in numerous health problems, including increases in AIDS, other STDs, colon/rectal cancer, and hepatitis. More than 82% of all sexually transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male to male sexual contact. Gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 % of all syphilis cases. (See "Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2006 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report", Volume 17, April 2008).

Homosexual activity shortens the life expectancy of homosexuals approximately 8 to 20 years. (See John R. Diggs, M.D., "The Health Risks of Gay Sex," Corporate Research Council, 2002). Moreover, homosexuality can lead to innocent people, like Ryan White, contracting the ill effects of such behaviors through blood transfusions. Allowing SSM would give government sanction to the inherently destructive, disease-prone homosexual practice.

3. The law is a great teacher to encourage or discourage behavior. The government has a duty to discourage SSM.

Many people believe that which is legal is moral, and that which is illegal is immoral. Homosexual author Andrew Sullivan writes, " If nothing else were done at all, and gay marriage was legalized, 90% of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian equality will have been achieved. It's ultimately the only reform that matters." (See Andrew Sullivan, "Virtually Normal," USA, Vintage Books, 1996, pg. 185). The goal isn't civil rights, it's civil acceptance for what I've already argued is a destructive behavior. The law can change minds. Two examples: slavery and abortion. In the 1850s many people didn't think slavery was wrong. In 2014, nearly everyone denounces it as evil. What changed? It wasn't more people going to Church, it was the 13th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. By making slavery illegal, the law "taught" people it was wrong. Similarly, in the 1960s, nearly all 50 states banned abortion completely (or in most cases). 41 years after Roe v. Wade, most Americans favor letting a woman choose to have an abortion, at least up to a certain gestation point. SSM will teach that the destructive behavior of homosexuality is acceptable and equal to heterosexuality.

4. SSM will hurt each and every American.

Here are the ways SSM will negatively impact YOU:

(a) Increases in taxes for the benefits bestowed on SSM, which are not naturally procreative and are detrimental to the raising of children.

(b) Social Security taxes will need to be increased (or benefits decreased) for survivor benefits given to SSM widows and widowers.

(c) Medical premiums could see an increase due to the health risks inherent in homosexual behavior and if health insurance companies are forced to provide fertility treatments to lesbian couples (I'm sure there's a judge just waiting to order that!)

(d) Children will be indoctrinated against the moral and/or religious objection of parents that SSM and it's inherent homosexual behaviors are the equivalent of NM. Books such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate"have been introduced into classrooms across the US. In California, a transgender kid can use the bathroom in school with which he/she feels more comfortable! This means a biological male can use the girl's bathroom with your daughter, and a biological female can use the boy's bathroom with your son.

(e) You will be indoctrinated in your workplace to accept SSM, and disagreement could result in "sensitivity training." After that, you could wind up losing your job, if you express disagreement.

(f) Freedom of Speech and the Free Exercise of Religion will be curtailed. In Canada and Sweden, speaking against homosexuality is considered "hate speech." With SSM, the government may try to enforce acceptance through hate speech legislation. The Supreme Court may uphold such legislation, and people who disagree on moral or religious grounds must keep silent or face fines and/or imprisonment. Clergy will not be permitted to preach against homosexual acts and religious institutions with adoption charities may be forced to allow SSM couples to adopt or be shut down.

For all the foregoing reasons, SSM is destructive to society. Therefore, the government has a duty to ban it
jonathon.rockman345

Con

I agree with a lot of stuff your saying. . . like 2. though 'Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive' is a bit harsh because pornography is way worse at destruction: kid-naps, murders, rape cases, pedophiles, stalkers, et cetera.

Innocent people getting AIDs or other diseases through blood transfusion is possible but most smart people test donated blood.

The government has no duty whatsoever to discourage or encourage SSM because the government represents the people and when the people argue the government divides as well. If the government did choose one side from the other, you would probably see something close to the Abortion debate where many extremeists pop up.

The 13th and 14th amendmants didn't 'teach' the public anything down south it made them more divided more.
The whites in the south still didn't allow blacks to vote for like another 40 or so years, The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow, website. So those amendments caused little freedom for southern blacks until now though there is still problems. This proves the government can't control the people by making laws.

The ways on how SSM impacts me has no sources and hasn't happened so why do you think they will happen?

(a) They will increase regardless of how SSM will turn out because of debt, town levis, and state governments want to add cops or fix buildings and roads.

(b) I heard that social secruity is going out the window because 1. The Baby Boomers are using it and 2. the government can't support it and unemployment checks.

(c) I agree but Medical Insurance would increase anyways because people want money

(d) You can't throw SSM and NM in two different pots saying one's better than the other, really men do know eachother better so they probably wouldn't argue as much as NM couples and that goes with lezbians too. We all agree that two people arguing with eachother every day is tragic for their kds.
I agree, its a better way for pedophiles and perverts to get in 'closed doors', I mean I heard that some girl got fired for kicking out a man from the changing rooms in a Macy's because he was 'gay'.

(e) Work shouldn't be a place for that kind of stuff anyways like school, it takes away work hours and it divides people which causes them to finish projects since they don't like eachother.

(f) Freedom of Speech? We might have that but of course the only way to get real voices in the governments is either your party or a petition. I mean do you think the government actually cares what's in this website if two people argue?

The government can't ban SSM when it has so many strong supporters from both SSM and NM.
Debate Round No. 2
WLCJWC

Pro

I thank my opponent for the debate. However, please be advised that the stated rules said that the second round was for opening statements, no rebuttals. My opponent has not made a case that SSM is NOT destructive to society. He has simply attempted to rebut my arguments. Nevertheless, I will now make some further points, and respond to my opponent's counter-arguments.

1. NM is conducive to raising healthy children.
Well-adjusted children is a priority for society. As I stated in the last round, SSM always deprives a child of a male or female role model, and I know of no published study that concludes that an aunt or uncle (or some other relative/friend) could fill that unique role; especially when in most instances, the aunt/uncle does not live with the child 24/7. Moreover, SSM can lead to children being confused regarding their sexuality and experimenting with destructive homosexual behavior. Imagine a girl being raised by two lesbians. She will grow up with them sleeping together, and when she reaches puberty, she might feel there's something wrong with being sexually attracted to boys. Indeed, trying to emulate her "two mommies" she might engage in homosexual experimentation. As I've already argued, homosexual behavior is inherently destructive.

British anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied eighty-six (86) civilized and uncivilized cultures, spanning five thousand (5,000) years and found that the most prosperous cultures were those that maintained a strong NM ethic. Every civilization that abandoned this ethic, including the Roman, Babylonian, and Sumerian empires, experienced demise soon after liberalizing their sexual practices. A civilized society will not long endure if its adults abandon their children and one another to pursue sexual desires outside of NM. (See J.D. Unwin, "Sex and Culture," London, Oxford University Press, 1934).

2. The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at the least, refrain from endorsing) behaviors that are destructive.
SSM advocates want to define marriage as a commitment between two loving individuals. They think it unfair that NM is state recognized and SSM is not. This is a huge misunderstanding of why the state is involved. The state recognizes NM because it benefits the public welfare by bringing up children in the best possible circumstances and through natural procreation. The state does not recognize it because of some dubious notion of "love." After all, if marriage is a private affair between loving couples, why get the State involved at all? Homosexuals can publicly commit to one another in religious and/or secular ceremonies without needing government sanction. The most basic duty of government is to protect its citizens, not to validate people's feelings or desires.

Since homosexual behavior is destructive, government has the duty to prohibit SSM. Despite what my opponent thinks,just because some other destructive behaviors are not prohibited (smoking, pornography), is not a reason to refrain from prohibiting this destructive behavior. Moreover, unlike smoking, pornography, etc, SSM strikes at the very core of our society--the family unit upon which it is upheld.

Finally, I ask my opponent: if benefit to society is not the reason to endorse NM by the state, why not recognize loving relationships between more than two people, like the formerly polygamous Mormons? After all if it "takes a village" to raise a child, why can't the villagers all marry one another as long as they are loving and consenting adults?

As to my opponent's counter-arguments:
Opponent:"The government has no duty whatsoever to discourage or encourage SSM because the government represents the people and when the people argue the government divides as well. If the government did choose one side from the other, you would probably see something close to the Abortion debate where many extremeists (sic) pop up."

Response: It is precisely because the government represents the people that it must protect them from the harm that SSM would cause. Stopping slavery caused the rise of racist extremists like the KKK, but does my opponent really want to argue that the government was wrong to outlaw slavery?

Opponent: The 13th and 14th amendmants (sic) didn't 'teach' the public anything down south it made them more divided more (sic)"

Response: The law is a great teacher, but the lessons are not learned immediately. Even under Jim Crow laws, no one seriously thought SLAVERY was OK. It took more time and the 1964 Civil Rights Act (a law!) to further "educate" the people on racial equity.

On the impact of SSM on YOU:
(a) Increases in taxes by other means does not imply we should shoulder the extra burden of SSM

(b) Social Security will go bankrupt even sooner with SSM

(c) Once again, the unhealthy behaviors of SSM will increase medical insurance way above what it would be without that burden.

(d) His counter-argument failed to address indoctrination.

(e) The workplace is already filled with political-correctness. Speaking against homosexuality can trigger sensitivity training and loss of work. If SSM is allowed, then you can't speak against it either, even if opposed on moral or religious grounds.

(f) If "hate speech" legislation ever gets off the ground, Big Brother could be around the corner. Clergy in Canada have been fined for preaching against homosexual practices.

I once more conclude that SSM is detrimental to society, and should be prohibited. My opponent has failed to make a positive case for SSM, and has not refuted my claims.
jonathon.rockman345

Con

*Sick* not 'sic' people online cannot spell. . . Gosh it's infuriating.

Here's something about gays talking about themselves and god. Though the bible states you should stone gays and lezbians.

https://www.gaychristian.net...

The problem about the south back then is that they had 100 years of traditions regarding how the races divided and you failed to realize even if the South lost and had to take in those amendments; you couldn't just completely act like those traditions were breaths of air.

Just because you have two men or two women parenting a kid and that the kid 'doesn't have anyone from the opposite gender' have you ever heard of family? Like Aunts, Uncles, Grandma, Grandpa, et cetera. Did you ever take into effect that children with single parents don't have someone from the opposite gender, too?

Throwing all Gays and Lezbians in a pot and saying they are irresponsible is the same as throwing the American Japanese in camps because of the war between the U.S. and Japan.

And for the rest I use my older argument:

(a) They will increase regardless of how SSM will turn out because of debt, town levis, and state governments want to add cops or fix buildings and roads.

(b) I heard that social secruity is going out the window because 1. The Baby Boomers are using it and 2. the government can't support it and unemployment checks.

(c) I agree but Medical Insurance would increase anyways because people want money

(d) You can't throw SSM and NM in two different pots saying one's better than the other, really men do know eachother better so they probably wouldn't argue as much as NM couples and that goes with lezbians too. We all agree that two people arguing with eachother every day is tragic for their kds.
I agree, its a better way for pedophiles and perverts to get in 'closed doors', I mean I heard that some girl got fired for kicking out a man from the changing rooms in a Macy's because he was 'gay'.

(e) Work shouldn't be a place for that kind of stuff anyways like school, it takes away work hours and it divides people which causes them to finish projects since they don't like eachother.

(f) Freedom of Speech? We might have that but of course the only way to get real voices in the governments is either your party or a petition. I mean do you think the government actually cares what's in this website if two people argue?

Hate Speech Laws? Is it really that wrong? Have you ever heard of Anti-Bullying organizations? And anyways didn't your mom say to be polite? And that God said "Love your Enemies as you love your Neighbors?" Or is this place an anarchy with no rules what so ever?
Debate Round No. 3
WLCJWC

Pro

This is the rebuttal only round. I would like to begin by informing my opponent that "sic" comes from the Latin meaning "so" or "thus." It is used after a printed word or passage to indicate said passage/word was printed exactly as written along with the grammatical and spelling errors. Check out where I put "sic" and you will see that it was you who misspelled. I was not trying to type the word "sick" which makes no sense.

Opponent: "Here's something about gays talking about themselves and god. Though the bible states you should stone gays and lezbians." (sic--It's "lesbians").

Response: What does the Bible have to do with SSM not being destructive to society? I never made any theological or religious arguments, and I actually stated that I wouldn't do so. This is a secular case against SSM, and your citation to "gays and God" is totally irrelevant.

Opponent: "Just because you have two men or two women parenting a kid and that the kid 'doesn't have anyone from the opposite gender' have you ever heard of family? Like Aunts, Uncles, Grandma, Grandpa, et cetera. Did you ever take into effect that children with single parents don't have someone from the opposite gender, too?"

Response: I've already dealt with the aunt/uncle/friend argument. I am not aware of any research in any peer-reviewed journal which states that relatives and friends can be as good role models as those given in stable NM. I will cite to a study that shows definite benefits of NM--Paul R. Amato and Fernando Rivera, " Parental Involvement and Children's Behavior Problems," Journal of Marriage and Family 61(1999): 375-384.

Opponent: "Throwing all Gays and Lezbians (sic) in a pot and saying they are irresponsible is the same as throwing the American Japanese in camps because of the war between the U.S. and Japan."

Response: I never argued that homosexuals are irresponsible. Their behaviors are inherently destructive, and despite their best attempts to raise a child, they can never give them the ideal setting for optimal growth into well-adjusted adults. Your analogy to the Japanese is therefore inapposite.

My opponent then rehashes his old arguments without even attempting to counter my rebuttals of same.

My opponent's final comment: "Hate Speech Laws? Is it really that wrong? Have you ever heard of Anti-Bullying organizations? And anyways didn't your mom say to be polite? And that God said "Love your Enemies as you love your Neighbors?" Or is this place an anarchy with no rules what so ever?"

Response: Yes, Hate Speech laws place an undue burden on freedom of speech and have a chilling effect on those who wish to express their ideas. Making a religious argument that SSM is wrong and you disagree with it, is in no way akin to calling an African-American the "N-word." I would hardly consider reasoned discourse "hate speech." Yet, this has happened to some clergy in Canada, where hate speech trumps free speech as well as the free exercise of religion. Even when actual hate speech is employed, I don't believe it should be banned, no matter how odious we all believe it to be. Rather, in the words of Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, I agree that, "The cure for speech with which we disagree is more speech, not enforced silence."
jonathon.rockman345

Con

Here a topic in Debate.org that you would love to go on:
http://www.debate.org...

Another showing that gays can adopt and should:
http://www.adoptivefamilies.com...

Text is taken straight out of article:
Though I will be belittled of it, I just wanted to show that there is evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Research May Reinforce the Trend

The sad fact is, the barriers remain even though research shows that sexual orientation does not impact one"s ability to be a good parent. Research findings provide favorable evidence to encourage the continued increase in adoptions by same-sex couples.

In one recent study, psychologist Rachel Farr, from the University of Virginia, and her colleagues examined child development and parenting in over 100 families with adopted children, including 29 gay couples, 27 lesbian couples, and 59 heterosexual couples. The study found that children from all three groups were functioning well and had relatively few behavior problems, as reported by their parents and teachers. Family type was not a significant predictor of school outcomes.

Krivickas and Lofquist's study of families consisting of unmarried couples and stepchildren or adopted children (the sampling was too small to draw conclusions in terms of either subgroup of children) found that the same-sex couples had higher education levels and greater economic status than the opposite-sex couples and that both partners in the same-sex couples were more likely to be employed.

While it cannot be discerned from available data whether the increase in adoptions by gay and lesbian families is due primarily to private adoptions or to adoptions from foster care, researchers at the University of Maryland have found that in states with anti-gay policies, significantly fewer children were adopted from foster care. Same-sex couples may be more likely to adopt than heterosexual couples and more open to welcoming a "hard to place" child into their homes.

Currently there are 107,011 children in the U.S. foster care system waiting for families. Total foster adoption numbers had been on the rise each year until 2010, when fewer than expected took place. But as the number of adoptions by gay and lesbian couples grows, there may be new hope for many of our nation"s waiting kids.

Elisa Rosman, Ph.D., is a consultant on early childhood and adoption issues. She is a mother of four, including three children from China.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling black people the 'N' word is not just "Hate speach" it is also frowned down upon by most of the society.
How does it destroy the rights of believeing in a religion anyways? Yes, religious folks can't complain about gays but that's the same case as abortion. What I say is to teach your kids not to do that kind of stuff and be done with it.
Debate Round No. 4
WLCJWC

Pro

Summary and Conclusion

I have argued that SSM is destructive to society due to four (4) major reasons.

1. NM is the foundation of a civilized society.

-Over 10,000 studies referenced in "Marriage Under Fire" demonstrate that children are best raised in loving NM families. They are naturally procreative and give the best role models of each gender for the child. The study cited by my opponent in the last round is one of FEW, and let's not forget that homosexual behavior and experimentation is NOT considered deviant by the APA since 1973, despite the shortened life spans and disease-prone aspects of the lifestyle. Hence, children confused about their sexuality or experimenting with homosexuality by being raised in SSM will be considered "normal and healthy."

-It has been shown that societies that abandon NM soon experience demise

2. Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive.

-According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), homosexual practice results in numerous health problems, including increases in AIDS, other STDs, colon/rectal cancer, and hepatitis. More than 82% of all sexually transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male to male sexual contact. Gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 % of all syphilis cases. (See "Cases of HIV infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2006 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report", Volume 17, April 2008).

-Homosexual activity shortens the life expectancy of homosexuals approximately 8 to 20 years. (See John R. Diggs, M.D., "The Health Risks of Gay Sex," Corporate Research Council, 2002). Moreover, homosexuality can lead to innocent people, like Ryan White, contracting the ill effects of such behaviors through blood transfusions. Allowing SSM would give government sanction to the inherently destructive, disease-prone homosexual practice.

3. The law is a great teacher and needs to discourage (or not encourage) the destructive behavior associated with SSM

-The law can change minds. Two examples: slavery and abortion. In the 1850s many people didn't think slavery was wrong. In 2014, nearly everyone denounces it as evil. What changed? It wasn't more people going to Church, it was the 13th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. By making slavery illegal, the law "taught" people it was wrong. Similarly, in the 1960s, nearly all 50 states banned abortion completely (or in most cases). 41 years after Roe v. Wade, most Americans favor letting a woman choose to have an abortion, at least up to a certain gestation point. SSM will teach that the destructive behavior of homosexuality is acceptable and equal to heterosexuality.

--Many people believe that which is legal is moral, and that which is illegal is immoral. Homosexual author Andrew Sullivan writes, " If nothing else were done at all, and gay marriage was legalized, 90% of the political work necessary to achieve gay and lesbian equality will have been achieved. It's ultimately the only reform that matters." (See Andrew Sullivan, "Virtually Normal," USA, Vintage Books, 1996, pg. 185). The goal isn't civil rights, it's civil acceptance for what I've already argued is a destructive behavior.

4. SSM will negatively impact YOU by:
--Increase in taxes
--increase in Social security taxes or decrease in benefits
--Rise in medical premiums
--Indoctrination of children in public schools against the objections of parents
--Workplace indoctrination
--restrictions placed on Freedom of Speech and the Free Exercise of Religion

Furthermore, SSM has nothing to do with societal benefit, but a warped idea that government should validate people's feelings of "love" and sexual attraction. There is no logical reason to prohibit "group marriages" of consenting, loving adults if "love" is the reason for state sanctioned SSM.

My opponent has failed to (a) put forth a positive case for SSM, and (b) failed to refute my arguments that SSM is destructive to society.

In closing, here is how SSM is destructive to society:

(a) The law is a great teacher that affects attitudes and behaviors. SSM will provide government-sanctioned endorsement of unhealthy behavior that reduces life-spans. It will make homosexual behavior validated and held up as normal in society.

(b) Endorsement will encourage and lead to more homosexual behavior, resulting in higher medical and insurance costs, as well as restrictions upon free speech and the free exercise of religion (as evidenced in such places as Canada).

(c) SSM will change the institution of marriage by making it the legal and cultural equivalent of NM

(d) With SSM and NM equated, marriage will not be about societal advantages, but merely about "coupling." The procreation and raising of children in ideal circumstances will be seen as unnecessary.

(e) The degradation of NM will lead to more children being raised by SSM, cohabiting people, and willfully single parents, resulting in a generation of children who are not well-adjusted taking over the reigns of government with incalculable disastrous effects.

SSM is destructive to society. Vote pro.
jonathon.rockman345

Con

The only people that say an entire community in itself will always be destructive because of some statistics is the same as saying that all men are rapists because of the Middle East.

I don't need to state why gays are good. Yes they have problems in the medical field, but they are good people like you and me. Just because of their choice of sexuality doesn't turn them into animals. It is just a slight difference in opnion.

You make many assumptions on how society will try to support and "encourage" homosexuality though, you never took the fact that gays and lezbians (sic, whatever) are just trying to be the same as straight people and want to be looked at as real human beings. They aren't trying to claim control and become the 'majority'. Other than a few crazy people wanting to try to get more rights then straights but it's the same as the problem between many Men supporters and Feminists.

I'm sorry, but have you ever seen a full-grown adult raised by Gays, or ever met a Gay couple with a kid? Or are you just using 'facts' from the internet? Yes there is some good facts out there but of course, to get the full truth you need to not only look at multiple sources but look at both sides. It's the same as Theism and Atheism. . . You need to look at both sides (with a same amount) to become well-rounded and to produce a better product.

I'm sorry for not producing a good debate on if gay couples can or can't effectively support their adopted children because:

1. I am not gay myself.
2. I never had any children
3. I can't represent a perfect NM or SSM
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jonathon.rockman345 2 years ago
jonathon.rockman345
hmmmmmm
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
Decent debate guys. I enjoyed reading it.
Posted by WLCJWC 2 years ago
WLCJWC
Agreed. I did apologize for being harsh. I'm just making the point that I'm not seeking "validation." I just want what's fair.
Posted by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
And, as I explained, I intended to give you the point. I just joined this site, and made a mistake, and instead of politely asking me to reconsider, you automatically went on the offensive. You were rude. You are a grown man and I think it is fair and just of me to request you act like it.
Posted by WLCJWC 2 years ago
WLCJWC
I do not seek validation Lord English. I seek that which is fair and just. Objectively, no matter how bad you think my arguments were, or how repugnant you find my point of view, I made NO spelling or grammatical mistakes, and my opponent made many mistakes. Honesty and fairness dictate that I should win that point. Anyone who thinks honesty and fairness are inconsequential matters has a problem. You have shown yourself as someone who believes in being fair and honest. For that you are to be commended.
Posted by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
Thank you for your apology. I know you just want to win, but you are a grown man. If you need validation from young strangers on the internet, there's something wrong.
Posted by WLCJWC 2 years ago
WLCJWC
Thank you to LordEnglish for giving the point to me for spelling and grammar. You are a person of integrity. I apologize for my earlier comment which was harsh and sounded rude.
Posted by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
LordEnglish actually gave you the point for spelling an grammar, and is not exactly sure what happened. I'm very sorry that this has angered you, and if there is a way to fix it I would be happy to. There's no need to be rude.
Posted by WLCJWC 2 years ago
WLCJWC
It's sad that some people who vote can't be objective. Lord English gave a tie for spelling and grammar when I made no mistakes and my opponent made numerous mistakes--really?
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
Following...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
WLCJWCjonathon.rockman345Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The question is: same sex marriage is destructive to society. Pro lId out 4 points. I'll discuss them in reverse order of importance and effectiveness. 3. Law should promote good not evil. While this is true, it is fully dependent on other arguments to be valid. If those arguments are valid, this one is not necessary. 4. Yes providing tax breaks etc, places additions strain on an already strained system. Con I think rightly argued that the effect of this will be nominal and thus this argument can be discarded. Given that pro began his argument stating that only 4% of homosexuals get married reinforces Con's argument. However I believe that pro showed that it will have detrimental effects in freedoms. 2. Homosexuality is personally destructive. Con more or less let this argument stand. 1. The debate for the most part revolves around who wins this argument as this is really "the societal issue". Here pro was more convincing on the study of the most prosperous civilizations.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
WLCJWCjonathon.rockman345Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar to Pro due to Con's spelling mistake. Pro wins arguments and Con never really drew out his own contentions and instead resorted to refuting Pro's. Pro brought up some valid points , but his free speach point holds no water as the US Supreme Court upheld the Phelps hate speeches to be protected by the Constitution so SSM would not change this ruling. Con also dropped a few contentions towards the end of the debate definately ensuring that Pro get's this point. Pro also gets sources here as he comes out of the gate and starts sourcing scholarly articles and books. It wasn't later until Con began sourcing. Then it was a matter of to little too late.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
WLCJWCjonathon.rockman345Tied
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: Pro didn't prove that homosexuality is destructive to society and their points were refuted by Con in the second round. Pro has showed poor conduct in the comments--using mafia-like tactics to get points.
Vote Placed by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
WLCJWCjonathon.rockman345Tied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: I am changing my vote for conduct because or Pro's rude behavior
Vote Placed by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
WLCJWCjonathon.rockman345Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe in a mixture of both because I both support homosexuality (somewhat) and I am religious. Spelling and grammar to Pro since he used more bigger, useful words. Pro used more reliable sources.