The Instigator
LostintheEcho1498
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Edwar3je
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Same-Sex Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Edwar3je
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 752 times Debate No: 67287
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

LostintheEcho1498

Con

Alrighty, here is the structure:
1. Acceptance
2. Main Argument (no rebuttal)
3. Rebuttal
4. Conclusion (no rebuttal, any last info)

We will be debating on whether or not gay marriage/same-sex marriage should be legal. Trolling is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. These definitions will be the accepted ones:

Marriage: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Gay/homosexual: sexually attracted to people of the same sex
(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Any breakage of any of these standards will result in immediate forfeiture. Regardless, I hope for a good debate :)
Edwar3je

Pro

I accept, but on one small condition. Before we start the debate, we should at least define what same-sex marriage is so that we don't have any confusion on the definition of the term during the debate. With that being said, here's how same-sex marriage is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Same-sex Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. [1]

With the definition out of the way, I look forward to a clean, and rational debate with my opponent.

Citations:

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
LostintheEcho1498

Con

LostintheEcho1498 forfeited this round.
Edwar3je

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate, but since he seems to have forfeited the second round, I will present my opening arguments, and I will also allow him to present his arguments in the third round if he chooses to do so. In order to show why same-sex marriage should be legalized I will present 3 arguments.

1.)Same-sex marriage will allow same-sex couples to provide a caring, nurturing environment for children.

Opponents of same-sex marriage often cite that same-sex marriage should not be legalized because one of the fundamentals of marriage is child rearing, and that same-sex couples can't meet the criteria as opposed to heterosexual couples. This is of course an important consideration to keep in mind because marriage does give couples certain benefits such as the ability to file for a joint adoption, which is connected with child rearing. Child rearing is a major concern for the government since proper child rearing ensures not only the safety of children, but it also ensures that the children are raised to be productive citizens by the time they're independent. If child rearing is an important factor for the government, the question then becomes "Can same-sex couples provide care equivalent to heterosexual couples?" The answer: yes.

Just last year, the American Academy of Pediatrics conducted a three decade review on scientific literature concerning "same-sex parenting". The AAP found in their review that "children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents." [1] Of course, the review did find a few studies that suggested less positive outcomes such as minor learning deficits, but these were attributed to factors that were outside of the parents' sexual orientation, such as a divorce from a previous parents' marriage, or a lack of acceptance of same-sex households. In fact, one of the studies that did find these negative outcomes noted that "married couples seem to offer the best environment for a child"s social and educational development." [1] In short, this review found that same-sex households seemed to be just as capable of raising kids as opposite-sex households and that marriage provides the best environment to raise kids in.

If same-sex couples have proven to be just as capable at parenting as heterosexual couples then it looks like same-sex marriage serves the governments interest in child rearing. Also, if same-sex marriage was legalized it would allow couples to adopt children and raise them in loving nurturing homes.

2.)Legalizing same-sex marriage would bring in more money to the states.

Marriages are pretty expensive, and the most recent report on the cost of marriages has estimated that "Couples typically spend between $18,900 and $31,500 but, most couples spend less than $10,000." [2] Same-sex marriages are, of course, no exception, thus if same-sex marriage was legalized more people would get married, and thus more couples will spend money on these marriages. But just how much money would legalizing same-sex marriage bring to each state? Well, according to a recent study conducted by Sreekar Jashti of "Nerdwallet.com", if same-sex marriage was legalized in all 50 states, over 2.5 billion dollars would be earned. [3] Jashti found this number by taking into account several factors such as the LGBT population in each state, the marriage rate of each state, and the average cost of marriage in each state. Not only did this study find that each state would earn a significant amount of money if same-sex marriage was legalized, but it also took into account the long-term demand for marriage. In short, legalizing same-sex marriage would bring in a significant amount of money to each state even in the long run.

3.)Same-sex marriage doesn"t cause any apparent harm

Out of all the arguments that one could give for legalizing same-sex marriage this seems to be the simplest of arguments. For one, same-sex marriage only involves same-sex couples who want to get married, and it isn't apparent that this causes harm towards anybody. Of course, arguments could be made that state that same-sex marriage would undermine marriage and could lead to legalizing polygamy and incest marriages, but there are clear cut differences between these marriages as opposed to same-sex marriage. For one, polygamy involves having multiple wives thus the relationship between them can"t be equal as opposed to monogamous relationships, also polygamy has been shown to lead to severe gender inequality. Dr. Heinrich, a leading evolutionary psychologist has testified that "Competition drives men to use whatever connections, advantages, and alliances they have in order to obtain wives, including striking financial and reciprocal bargains with the fathers of daughters (this is the very common practice of bride price). Once girls and young women become wives, older husbands (and brothers) will strive to protect their young wives from other males (to guarantee paternity of any offspring), and in the process dampen womens freedoms and exacerbate inequality." [4]

As for incest, its relationship to same-sex marriage is unclear. If we assume that both traditional marriage and same-sex marriage involve whether someone is attracted or in love with another person of a different or same sex then it would seem like the logical conclusion would be to legalize incest. However, I should note that if the same principle applies even when we don't legalize same-sex marriage, it's still apparent that incest would still be legalized because it still involves a relationship between two loving and consenting adults. There are more reasons for why incestuous marriages should be banned (such as the possibility of having a child with genetic birth-defects), but it should be noted that if love is the standard of marriage for traditional marriage then it would seem like incestuous marriages would be allowed even if we don"t legalize same-sex marriage.

On a final note, I would also like to note that it's hard to see how allowing same-sex marriage can undermine the institution of marriage. After all, legalizing it would increase marriage rates, and in principle, same-sex marriage is just the same as any marriage save for the gender of the people involved.

Conclusion

In conclusion, since same-sex marriage does not cause any harm towards anyone as well as the institution of marriage, and since same-sex couples have been shown to be just as good at child rearing as heterosexual couples, it would seem like legalizing same-sex marriage would be the smarter choice.

I now defer to my opponent to provide rebuttals towards my contentions, and to provide his opening arguments if he can.

Sources:
[1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
[2] http://www.costofwedding.com...
[3] http://www.nerdwallet.com...
[4] http://huntergatherer.com...
Debate Round No. 2
LostintheEcho1498

Con

I will make this quick, as I may have little time. I recently(4 to 5 days ago)came down with a nasty case of stomach flu known as viral gastroenteritis. To save details, my bathroom and I became close friends. Anyway, I apologize for missing the first round and concede to my opponent. I have forfeited, whether or not medically unable. I hope we can still debate another time. Maybe in a week or so when I can put two and two together and still get 4. Sorry again. I know people keep bailing on your debates. Good luck anyway :)
Edwar3je

Pro

It's no problem, and i hope that I can debate with you again some other time. I wasn't aware that you were sick, so I hope that you feel better. As for my arguments I extend them, and I will make no further posts to this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
LostintheEcho1498

Con

LostintheEcho1498 forfeited this round.
Edwar3je

Pro

Edwar3je forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
(This is an extension of my last post)

Turing was driven to suicide because of the barbaric and discriminatory laws that he had to face as a result of his sexuality. No one ever considered the fact that he played a vital role in the war by deciphering the Nazi's Enigma code, or that his ideas were paving the way towards modern computer science. Once his sexuality was discovered, all of his accomplishments were just tossed away and he was forever ostracized by society. To say that he had no "redeeming social value" would be to state that people like Turing didn't play a vital role in our history, or that somehow they should be judged by their sexuality rather then their accomplishments to society.

Turing isn't the only one to have contributed to society. There are many other famous people who were gay including: Walt Whitman, Leonardo Da Vinci, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Socrates, Gertrude Stein, and many others. [1] To state that any of these people had no redeeming social value would be a gross (as well as horrendous) understatement (as well as a bigoted statement). This isn't to state that all homosexuals have proven to be good people, but the point is that homosexuals have historically been shown to have as much of a redeeming value towards society as much as heterosexuals do.

Since I don't see that this will change your views on homosexuality (or on same-sex marriage for that matter) I'm going to stop arguing against your claims since I need to get to my debate. If you would like to debate me, I'm fine with having a debate about same-sex marriage, homosexuality, or Scientology, but as of the moment, I see no further need to answer your claims.

Sources:
[1] http://rictornorton.co.uk...
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
I'm not sure if I should try to answer all of your propositions since it seems like nothing will work, but I think that I will address what I believe is a horrible claim against homosexuals.

"Homosexuality is a severe aberration, & Gays have no redeeming social vaIue."

First off, homosexuality isn't necessarily an aberration, in fact, "homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide." [1] It certainly is rare for an animal or person to be a homosexual, but it isn't necessarily unnatural. If it was unnatural and (to quote you) would lead to the extinction of the human race, then natural selection would have not favored it and thus homosexuality wouldn't have been passed on. However, if anything is unnatural, it seems to be homophobia, which is present within only one species: Homo Sapiens (aka humans).

Second, I can't believe someone would go as far as to state that gays have no redeeming social value. A person's sexuality, much like race, is an arbitrary factor that doesn't reflect a person's true character or accomplishments. For example, Alan Turing was a homosexual, but yet, during World War II, he proved to be a "vital role in deciphering the messages encrypted by the German Enigma machine, which provided vital intelligence for the Allies." [2] Without this intelligence, the Allied forces wouldn't have been able to won the war against the Nazis. Along with that, Turing has also been accredited as being the father of computer science, and his famous law, known as Turing's Law, "is still considered a benchmark for charting the progression of A.I..." [3] However, his reputation was tarnished when a police investigation found out Turing's sexuality and as a result he had to be chemically castrated. 2 years later he committed suicide.

Sources:

[1] http://www.yalescientific.org...
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[3] http://www.techradar.com...-
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 1 year ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
I see no reason to claim that marriage is just about procreation.
If people, such as the AAP, believe that homosexuality is perfectly normal,
I'd assume that they'd believe that if Gays bring up children who believe that homosexuality is perfectly normal, that's perfectly normal, which doesn't make sense.
I'd assume that 2 male Gays couldn't use IVF to produce a baby, & how many
2 female couples would want to?
I would like to point out to you that I see no reason to change my mind
about my statement that "Same-sex marriages don't exist. "
To put it bluntly, the "plumbing" doesn't fit together.
Your "studies" seem to assume that 2 members of the same sex can marry (which they can't),
& that if a same-sex couple breaks up that's bad (which it isn't) , & stressful (which it shouldn't be) .

I really do not approve of Lying to & Manipulating & Brainwashing people !!!

Check out the WIKI article on "Scientology & Sexual Orientation" .
In his BASIC 1950 book on Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard apparently stated that homosexuality
is an Illness & a Sexual perversion.
He wrote that homosexuals are quite ill physically, & are far from normal & extremely detrimental to society.
They're on or around the 1.1 level of the Emotional Tone Scale (Covert Hostility).
Homosexuality violates or blocks the Second Dynamic.
Homosexuality is a severe aberration, & Gays have no redeeming social vaIue.
It's quite obvious why same-sex marriages & couples would tend to cause humanity to become extinct.
Gays hate people, & themselves, or they wouldn't BE Gay.

The basis of all of your arguments could all be boiled down to your statement that
"Same-Sex Relationships & Opposite-Sex Relationships are the same. "
Nobody in their right mind would make such a Ridiculous statement !!!
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 1 year ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Interesting Information.
Thank you for providing it to me.
I'll keep it in mind.
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
Sorry, I forgot to post a citation for my last comment, so here it is.

[2] http://americanpregnancy.org...
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
(Note that this is an extension of my last comment)

Even studies that found learning deficits present within children raised by same-sex couples found that these were due to a divorce (a common major stressor in children) from a parent's previous marriage or a lack of acceptance of same-sex couples. In short, the study recommended that "married couples seem to offer the best environment for a child"s social and educational development." [1]

Finally I would like to respond to the claim that "If everybody was Queer, the human race would quickly become extinct ..." It's certainely true that less people would want to procreate via copulation (aka sex) but there other ways in which a same-sex couple can have a kid. For example, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is a common method for same-sex couples which involves the "process of fertilization by manually combining an egg and sperm in a laboratory dish, and then transferring the embryo to the uterus." [2]
Also, your using the word "queer" in an extremely negative connotation without showing why same-sex relationships are detrimental. I've tried to show how same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are the same (with evidence), but I'm not sure if this will change your mind anytime soon. If you'd like, I would be happy to debate you on this subject if you're still not satisfied. : )

Citations:
[1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
I'm not sure if I should respond to all of your claims considering that some of them seem to be going off topic (and also considering the character limit on these comments), but I will respond to one of your claims.

"2 members of the same sex can't produce offspring, so homosexuality is, basically,
Individualistic, & Racial, Suicide."

My guess is that in this proposition you're implying that marriage is strictly about procreation, and that since same-sex couples can't have kids thus they can't get married. It's true that 2 people of the same sex can't produce offspring (at least by themselves), but if we recognize that marriage is strictly mean't only for procreation, we would also have to recognize that infertile heterosexual couples can't get married, as well as heterosexual couples who don't want to have kids. Should their marriages be considered null, because they can't (or won't) procreate? Of course not! Marriage isn't contingent upon whether two people can or will have offspring.

On the other hand, one benefit of marriage is child-rearing, which is defined as "the work of taking care of children until they are old enough to take care of themselves..." [1] If a couple is able to raise a healthy child, then they should have the ability to marry. The question then becomes, "can same-sex couples raise a healthy and fully developed child?" The answer: yes. The American Academy of Pediatrics conducted a review on 3 decades worth of scientific literature on "Same-sex parenting" and how it affects children's health. In short, the AAP found that "children"s well-being is affected much more
by their relationships with their parents, their parents" sense of
competence and security, and the presence of social and economic
support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of
their parents." [2]

Citations:
[1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
[2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 1 year ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
As I stated in my Comment, same-sex marriage doesn't exist.
It doesn't matter if people want it or not, whether it's legal or not, etc.
The point obviously isn't moot, at all.
The fact that many people care about the legality, or non-legality, of same-sex marriage
is perfectly understandable.
The idea that same-sex marriage has to exist because Barack Obama & other Nutcases believe that it does doesn't make sense.
Taxation is just another word for Stealing or Theft.
Thou shalt not steal.
There are no such things as "Stealing laws" , "Theft laws" , "Tax laws" , "Tax crimes" ,
"people owing $ to tax collectors" , etc.
The idea that Queers = Straights & that Queer relationships = Straight relationships don't make sense.
Nor does the idea that Queers should have the same rights as Straights.
2 members of the same sex can't produce offspring, so homosexuality is, basically,
Individualistic, & Racial, Suicide.
If everybody was Queer, the human race would quickly become extinct ...
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
I hope that this isn't at least considered trolling by my opponent, but for prep work I will respond to each of your statements concerning same-sex marriage.

"There is no such things as same-sex or Queer marriage. Period."

I'm not entirely sure on what you're trying to state with this proposition. If you're trying to state that same-sex marriage doesn't fit the criteria required for marriage, then that could be up for debate, but saying it doesn't exist isn't a debatable question. Up to 18 countries along with 35 states in the United States of America (plus the District of Columbia) have legalized same-sex marriage. [1] Saying that same-sex marriage doesn't exist is somewhat of a moot point.

"It doesn't matter if it's legal, or not."

To many same-sex couples who are looking to get married, it does matter. Marriage is determined by the states, and the federal government recognizes those marriages. Along with recognition also comes certain benefits that same-sex couples can't receive if they're denied marriage such as hospital visitation rights, social security and medicaid for spouses, being able to file a joint tax return, being able to adopt, etc. [2] If these marriages were never made legal, or were never recognized by the government, same-sex couples wouldn't be allowed to get the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

"It doesn't matter if a lot of people want it or not."

If a lot of people want something, then perhaps we should look at why they want it. Same-sex couples want the right to marry each other because their relationship is equal to that of a heterosexual couples' relationship and thus they should have the same rights as them.

"Two members of the same-sex can't get married. It just doesn't work like that."

You need more justification for why two people of the same-sex can't get married.

Citations:
[1] http://www.freedomtomarry.org...
[2] http://www.nolo.com...
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 1 year ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
The idea that if Con gives a definition both sides have agreed on it doesn't make sense.

There is no such things as same-sex or Queer marriage.
Period.
It doesn't matter if it's legal, or not.
It doesn't matter if a lot of people want it, or not.
Two members of the same sex can't get married.
It just doesn't work like that.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
LostintheEcho1498Edwar3jeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
LostintheEcho1498Edwar3jeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession from Con. Arguments to Pro. Sources to Pro. No conduct because a concession is good conduct.
Vote Placed by danhep 1 year ago
danhep
LostintheEcho1498Edwar3jeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit