The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Purlstone
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Same Sex Marrige should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,084 times Debate No: 23322
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

16kadams

Con

I am sorry DDO for debating this again :P

Rules/definitions: In this debate marriage is a secular (governmental) union. It is a man and a woman, but my opponent argues to let homosexuals in too.

1st round acceptance. No trolling. Yeah that is all.
Purlstone

Pro

Well lets let this homosexuals into this deal
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

Procreation, Marriage, and the connection to child rearing

Heterosexual unions' actions generally involve procreation, in which lead to the existence of man kind itself. The procreation given to us by heterosexual unions lay the foundation of what we know today as society. Without heterosexuals, there is none. Hence heterosexuals are special in their contribution to society. A heterosexuals union hold the natural ability to procreate, something homosexuals cannot naturally do. Society can exist without homosexuals, even though they may be productive human beings they cannot procreate, but society would fail without heterosexuals procreating. Marriage is an institution, in my opinion, that creates an environment to promote procreation and therefore is a natural institution. Now I will dig a little in to secular stuff here. With this, we can see heterosexuals are indispensable, hence it is a government interest to treat them with some higher respect, and now have interests in regulating this practice. They have no interest in allowing homosexual unions, however, as society can exist without these unions. Hence this is the legal reason and function of marriage, quite simple, regardless if you get married for other reasons.

Now the BOP unbeknown to homosexual advocates is they have the burden of proof, they must prove homosexual unions should be treated the same as heterosexual ones. It is logically impossible to prove that homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same, hence it is illogical to claim they should have the same "rights". [1] Now, this leads to a problem of pro gay, if I may call it that, supporters. As if they seriously claim this, they then have to prove that naturally homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, as this is impossible under the legal purpose of marriage. So homosexuals are saying we fit in with society and we deserve equal rights. That is their weak argument. This isn't a sound argument, it is a appeal to the majority or to try to gain major empathic waves of people to support them. This argument fails, as it fails to prove in society or in any legal situation that they are in fact equal, which is impossible to prove. Now, they are struggling to prove they can fulfill the reasons for marital status, as well as try to fill the shoes of heterosexual people. The simple thing is: Gays and heterosexuals differ, one is essential the other is not, hence gays arguments fail to prove anything nor fulfill the reason for marriage; procreation.

My arguments show a few things. The argument presented shows the natural meaning of marriage, which gays cannot fulfill. The value of marriage in a social value, described in procreation as well. Motivations of the government, will explain in more detail soon, etc.

Now I move onto the reasons why government should recognize SSM, or not, and then show the secular case against SSM. So now we must ask what marriage is, again, and what sexual practices have to do with natural marriage. The biological unity of a man and a woman usually mean they much of the time once married, meat to have procreative sex and view the idea of having children a cherry on top. So the point is marriage and procreation are intrinsically linked. [2] With that out of the way, we must ask why does the state regulate marriage and for what purpose should people get married? Liberals attempt to red herring on the idea of liberty, yet fail to define liberty in its terms, hence the BOP is here even, and there is no liberty being deprived as they fail to define their terms. So promoting liberty is not taken out of the equation, and if you look at all the options the most logical answer to the question is blatantly obvious: Procreation, and furthering society.

Most states (~50%) prohibit first cousins from marriage, using liberal/pro-gay logic it should be legal for them to do so. But the reason they are not allowed to marry in those half of the states is because the kids they may bring are deformed, and or more likely to be deformed. As we know there are many upon many benefits to marriage, generally the reason gays want marriage. But the overlooked fact is also needing to be addressed: Why do gays deserve marriage? As stated, heterosexuals are blatantly essential to society as we know it, without them society is non existent. Gays however are in fact dispensable to society, hence heterosexuals are as we can say more important. For this we should think governments ought to cherish heterosexuals over homosexuals. So with this, I will provide a quote that sums up the majority of my argument[s]:

"In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. " [3]

Now a common argument to refute this is that it is irrelevant, let popular will control the states. This argument fails under the argument I am providing. Before you do X or Y, or redefine X to Z, we must have a reason, under the argument I have provided there is no societal or legal reason to allow SSM. Henceforth my opponent now must either refute this as false, or find a counter reason that supersedes this one.

Now lets talk about child rearing, studies show children do better with a mother AND a father, and even better if they are biologically conected. [4] My opponent will likely arge gays can raise children too, yes they can, but I argue they dont do it as well. I will argue with him if he argues that.

CONCLUSION:

Vote CON, because I said so :D Here is my conclusion in quote form:

"After all, the more effectively the law teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to enter into marriage and abide by its norms. And the more people form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is
that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents." [4]



[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...
[3] http://tech.mit.edu...
[4] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)
Purlstone

Pro

Homosexuals are all around us. In fact, for those with anti-gay beliefs, think of it this way: Heterosexuals produce homosexuals.
The Con is valuing procreation for his case, and is on the premise that marriage equals procreation yet this is simply not true, according to the 2008 US Census only 44% of married couples have children, the number of those children that were conceived sexually is only bound to be less. In order to keep our cases equal and to value the same idea in which has already been stated I believe that a world of homosexuals would still be able to produce.
Lesbian couples and Gay men couples can reproduce quite easily with today's in vitro fertilization. A gay couple simply has to offer their sperm to a lesbian couple. This is already starting to begin with organizations like Pride Angel (http://www.prideangel.com...)
Now isn't the true value of marriage love? Or do people just bind themselves to each other for life to have kids?
The con brought up gay parenting, yet according to many sources (the huffington post in this case) same sex couples raise better children.
"But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn't back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.
Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."
And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table.)"
Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

Defending my case:

My opponent first cites the artificial ways gays can create children. And how only 44% of married couples have children. I will refute that first, and it is a misrepresentation of my argument. The amount of couples that have kids DOES NOT refute my point. People not having kids is a heterosexual choice, but this does not have an effect on what the structure of marriage is, hence the argument fails.

My opponent then cites vitro fertilization, again this is a false premise. My argument is on natural procreation, and the state of a "real marriage". A real marriage is a union that binds through procreation on a NATURAL scale. [1] Homosexuals cannot procreate in principle. Why? Because a man and a woman are complimentary in procreative acts, homosexuals are not, hence it is not real procreation. Given that circumstance, their vitro fertilization does not have any intrinsic value to the union.

My opponent then cites a study claiming gays can raise children better. It is a common misconception that it does not matter if the kid is devoid of a mother/father, its ok with two mothers or two fathers. What do these studies say? Nothing, yes you heard. The source I am using examined the studies, inch by inch, found nothing. [2] All social science studies like the one you cited need certain steps, failure or deviation from these steps result in a flawed study. [2]

"All good studies begin with careful definitions of key concepts and careful delineation of the relationship between these concepts... Only two studies among the 49 studies we examined actually contain an explicit positive hypothesis statement of this sort, (Pagelow, 1980 and Miller, 1979). [Note this study only found old studies that where accurate on the hypothesis stage, hence most studies need to be crossed out, like the one you cited]... A majority of the studies we examined (29 of them or 59 percent) failed to produce a testable hypothesis. [lol] The remaining 18 studies explicitly seek to find no differences between heterosexual and homosexual parents in child outcomes and to make this formulation a kind of hypothesis statement. While this procedure is superior in some way to those used in the other
studies, it is also highly problematic because of the difficulties associated with testing hypotheses purporting to affirm the null hypothesis." [2]

So really, only two really really old studies actually have any water, and their age destroys them, hence my opponents "they raise kids" argument fails.

CONCLUSION:

I defended my arguments, my opponent has not even made any in favor of legalizing SSM, therefore vote CON.
 


[1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)
[2] Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D., "No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting", Marriage Law Project
Purlstone

Pro

The only argument the con has going right now is the fact marriage is for natural procreation. What does he have to justify that? Nothing but his word. As an audience and a human, do you date and love for procreation? I think not. The premise of this Debate has still not been realized as love is what Ssm is for. And that is a big enough difference between hetro and homo is procreation and my opponent said that is what is stopping him from believing in Ssm. Therefore he agrees with my arguments.
Con: there isn't enough separation between hetro and homo marriage
Pro: one can procreate and one cannot
Therefore the separation between the two is in fact procreation and homo marriage will be less than that of hetro. Yet it is still GOVERMENT reconized love.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

My opponent claims I have not justified my argument, yet forgets my quotes of the government itself saying marriage and procreation are linked, and the government regulates marriage to ensure safe and effective marital sex. (wait, I never quoted.... I will now :D )[1]

“The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”[1] (aka Singer v. Hara)

Or

“[sates marriage law is]to promote and protect propagation.”[1] (aka Baehr v. Lewin)

And maybe

“furthering the link between procreation and child rearing.”[1] (aka Baker v. Vermont)

“Recognizing that procreation is marriage’s central purpose, it is rational for the Legislature to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples who, theoretically, are capable of procreation.”[1] (aka Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health)

My opponent claim on "take his word?" Is false as I was offering empirical data before, and again here.

My opponent then states: "do you date and love for procreation?". As stated, personal choice has NOTHING to do with the institution of marriage or the states interests, hence the argument is invalid. Also, the answer to that question (for most men) is sadly yes anyway :P.

My opponent THEN CONCEDES "one can procreate and one cannot". he concedes my case. If the states interests are in procreation, then there is no reason to allow SSM, my opponent has no reasons on why to allow SSM, so my argument stands etc. He drops my whole case this round, I call that productive for me...

Then my opponent states: "Yet it is still GOVERNMENT recognized love." [I edited the spelling, I ask for S/G points]

No, marriage is not about love in the governments eyes, if so why not regulate friendships or boyfriend/girl friend relationships? When you look at laws, and states interests, marriage nor personal choice influence the legislators, procreation and states interests do. [1]

-Dropped arguments-

Same Sex Parenting.
Most of my procreation case
Vitro insemination
The personal choice and 44% statistic.

aka most of the debate.

How you should vote:

Sources - Me, I use mainly peer reviewed law reviews
Arguments - Many dropped arguments, poor refutations etc. CON.
Conduct - you decide
S/G - I edited many of his mistakes when I quoted him. SO me.

CONCLUSION:

VOTE CON, and yeah thats about it.



__________________
[1] Duncan, William C, “The State Interests in Marriage” 2004 Ave Maria Law Review.
Purlstone

Pro

I would like to keep this short and simple.
The dropped arguments do no matter as this debate seems to be over a value premise. Same Sex Marriage, as under any ideal, boils down to marriage. Marriage, or holy matrimony, yet I did agree on secular union, is between two people in love. The con is taking it and turning it into saying procreation is the only reason for a union even though A) nothing is wrong with unnatural procreation as it is currently 10% of couples use in vitro (according to eMedicine), B) Not all governments value procreation as the USA has been the only one mentioned, and by far is not the only nation in existence and C) his debate conduct is not very good. And if he knew about the proper ways of debate, he'd realize that contentions do not matter until the premise is resolved and clearly, that is what this debate is on.
By valuing marriage for only natural procreation, that simply means 5% of the USA population is not "married" as they have used in vitro. Homosexual couples tend to produce the same, if not better, offspring than those of the former.
Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
!6kadams right. Just because you dont agree with how well the sources and his argument you have to give him a win as the pro didnt even rebuttal everything
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Zaradi, the procreation argunment is often misinterpreted, he fell into that trap.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
16k, you gotta learn that when someone refutes your case, it isn't automatically not what you're saying. You're either a) just bullsh*tting us all, or b) making yourself a moving target, which is highly abusive and grounds for a loss.

Also, you use the ridiculous procreation argument again, even though it get's sh*t on by anyone with more than two brain cells.

Yeah, this is literally just the same as every other debate he's done on SSM.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Conduct: This point goes to con since pro never really made any big arguments. I am guessing that he did not want to put forth the time and/or effort in this debate. If he actually tried, he can tell me and I will rescend this point.

Spelling and Grammar: This was a tie. Both sides put forth good spelling and grammar.

Convincing Arguments: Con's arguments were three times longer the pro's, but one must not base these points solely on that. If that was so, one could make a big argument full of BS and win. But con did not do this. And on top of this, con negated the resolution with good points that pro never really refuted. In addition, he never really made any of his own arguments.

Sources: Pro only put forth one source, while pro put up six. Not to mention, at least some of con's sources were bipartisan, while pro's only one was biased.

All and all, this was a pretty sad debate because pro really did not put forth the effort. Con wins because he made thorugh arguments and upheld them.
Posted by Purlstone 4 years ago
Purlstone
Well good debate. Could have been better if we settled the premise before worrying about arguments as would happen in a competitive setting.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
WTF, each time I vote seriously my RFD turns into a single letter: S. Wtf is going on?!?!

Anyway, here is my RFD:
S&G for Con using formatting. Arguments- Pro misinterpreted Con's argument of procreation and had poor rebuttals, most of Con's cases were unrefuted.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
That vote made me lol
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
lol
Posted by Purlstone 4 years ago
Purlstone
Oh just let the guy argue.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I tolerate them, but dont see how they need marriage :P
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
16kadamsPurlstoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins, not better conduct; however pro did not aknowledge the stuff said by con.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
16kadamsPurlstoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
16kadamsPurlstoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: People like to vote for who is wrong/right. However this debate is about who had the more convincing arguments. Anyone who read this can see that 16kadams won.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
16kadamsPurlstoneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't put very much effort into his arguments, and had horrible structure as well. Con definitely took the cake in all aspects
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
16kadamsPurlstoneTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used the most obvious arguments there are to a same sex marriage, making this debate almost a waste of time, if not for Con's interesting argumentation. With that said: Args to Pro. Sources to tie. (the vote is on reliable sources, not number of) I didn't pay epic attention to S/G Conduct to Con for format.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
16kadamsPurlstoneTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: rfd in comments because each time I vote my rfd turns into an S
Vote Placed by JacobHession 4 years ago
JacobHession
16kadamsPurlstoneTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: The Con's arguments were rather poor and easily refuted by the pro. Although the pro had weaker presentation, the argumentation was far superior. All the Con arguments were easily refuted and the con attempted to refute both the pro stance and the attacks to his own case by concluding that they weren't important, with out any warrant at all. This is simply poor debating. I will however grant the con the sources point. They were more reliable if poorly used. The winner of this round is Purlstone.