The Instigator
Edwar3je
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Same-sex Marriage Should be Legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,105 times Debate No: 66849
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

Edwar3je

Pro

Just to make this clear, the main point of this debate will be to evaluate the merit of both sides' arguments. This debate isn't concerned with if the government can legalize same-sex marriage, it's only focused on the reasons for both the affirmative and negative sides of this debate. With that being said, the first round will be for acceptance, the second round will be for presenting arguments, and the final round will be for rebuttal. This debate will also use the following terms as guiding points for the debate.

Marriage:the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. (Merriam Webster)

Same-sex marriage: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
dsjpk5

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. This is the first time I've ever debated this issue in this type of forum, so it should be interesting. Good luck to you, Pro! I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Edwar3je

Pro

To start off, I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate since it's my first debate both with this topic and my first debate on this site.

To show why we should legalize same-sex marriage, I will describe two ways in which same-sex marriage is beneficial, along with rebuttals to two common arguments against same-sex marriage.

Benefits

1.) If same-sex marriage is legalized, it can allow same-sex couples to adopt children

One of the main benefits of marriage is that it entails certain legal benefits towards married couples. These benefits include: being able to file a joint tax return, social security and medicaid, hospital visitation rights for spouses, receiving military and veteran benefits for spouses, having the ability to file for joint adoption, etc. [1] However, when marriage isn't an option for same-sex couples, they can't receive these benefits, and as a result, many of them have a hard time trying to adopt a child.

A question could be posed asking if same-sex couples should have the right to adopt or if they're good parents, and according to current scientific literature, the answer is "Yes." The American Academy of Pediatrics conducted a review on three decades worth of scientific literature on the behavioral and mental well being of children raised in same-sex households just last year, and the study 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] Of course, the review also notes that some of the studies that were conducted showed less-positive outcomes for children raised by same-sex households. For example, one small study from Australia found that " children with gay or lesbian parents were rated as performing less well in language and math but better in social studies and as having a better attitude toward learning, compared with the children being raised by cohabiting or married heterosexual parents." However, any learning deficits that were observed were due to factors such as a lack of acceptance for gay and lesbian parents as well as any divorces that might resulted from a parent's previous marriage. In essence, these deficits had nothing to do with the parent's gender or sexual orientation, and the study's author actually notes in the end that ""married couples seem to offer the best environmentfor a child"s social and educational development." [2]

If same-sex couples have been shown to be just as good parents as heterosexual couples, and that marriage both allows them to adopt children and reduces the amount of behavioral or learning deficits within children raised by same-sex couples, it looks like legalizing same-sex marriage would be the best option for ensuring the healthy development of children.

2.) Same-sex couples have been shown to have less stress when they're in a legally recognized relationship

One recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health has found that "Same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship; married heterosexuals were significantly less distressed than non-married heterosexuals." [3]The study also notes that "In adjusted pairwise comparisons, married heterosexuals had the lowest psychological distress, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were not in legalized relationships had the highest psychological distress." [3] If legalizing same-sex marriage can prove beneficial for same-sex couples in reducing stress, then it looks like same-sex marriage can prove beneficial towards ensuring healthy relationships.

Against same-sex marriage (with rebuttals)

1.) Homosexuality is considered immoral by almost every major religion, thus same-sex marriage shouldn't be legalized

For the purpose of this argument, and due to the relatively large population of Christians within the U.S., I will try to address what Christianity states about homosexuality in my argument. It's true that almost every major religion has an unfavorable view towards homosexuality, but morality is, for the most part, subjective. In this sense, to state that a person can't get married to a person of the same sex, because of another person's beliefs about morality, would almost be the same as saying "I can't have a cookie because you are on a diet."

Moving this argument aside, the Bible certainly has an unfavorable view towards homosexuality. For example, Leviticus 18:22 states " "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." [4] Even though the bible does consider homosexuality to be immoral, and assuming that we should strive to make our laws based off of the bible's morality, there are many things today that have been legalized which would be considered immoral by the bible. For example, the bible states in Leviticus 11:10 states that eating shellfish is "detestable" ("But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you." [5]) and Leviticus 19:19 even claims that we shouldn't wear clothing made of two different fabrics ("nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material." [6]). If we're to ban things such as same-sex marriage based off of the bible's moral standards alone we can't simply ignore these, otherwise that would be cherry-picking.

To be fair, there are some clear cut cases of immorality such as murder and stealing, but even those can be defended from a secular viewpoint since they both involve harming someone, but to say that homosexual acts between two consenting adults is immoral requires more justification.

2.) Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, thus we can't redefine marriage

Actually, our concept of monogamy is quite new. Harvard historian Nancy Cott has stated that until two centuries ago, "'monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion' of the world population, found in 'just Western Europe and little settlements in North America.'"[7] In fact, throughout most of human history, polygamy has been practiced by men from China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century." [7] The original concept of marriage was also much different today and it was mostly used as " as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs." [7] or as a means of transferring property between families. The concept of marrying for love didn"t even enter the picture until the 17th and 18th century during the time of Enlightenment, when "when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness." [7] This only improved during the women"s rights movements when "wives slowly began to insist on being regarded as their husbands' equals, rather than their property." [7] In fact, thanks to gender-neutral roles, and a redefinition of the purpose of marriage "Marriage [has] become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness." [7] What all of this suggests is that marriage has been redefined before and for the better, thus we can't simply state that same-sex marriage is bad if it redefines marriage.

Sources:
[1] http://www.nolo.com...
[2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
[3] http://ajph.aphapublications.org...
[4] http://www.openbible.info...
[5] http://www.openbible.info...
[6] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[7] http://theweek.com...
dsjpk5

Con

MY OPPONENT ADMITS TO BREAKING THE RULES OF THIS DEBATE

From the debate comments:

"I'm sorry if I broke the rules. Looking back in hindsight I probably should have restructured my arguments to where I didn't have to provide a rebuttal, but instead list my arguments for same-sex marriage. If you would like please feel free to use round two for rebuttal as well as arguments, and for any voters please feel free to deduct points for my poor conduct."

I, on the other hand, won't offer any rebuttals until the third round (as agreed).

Now on to my arguments:
"The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one"s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse"s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse"s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. 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.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian"s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe"s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child"s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state"s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos." [1]

Sources:

1.http://tech.mit.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Edwar3je

Pro

I would like to point out that I'm disappointed that my opponent chose to present his arguments by just copy and pasting an entire article. However, I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, since this could be his own work. Nonetheless, I will rebut what I believe to be my opponent's three main contentions against same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriages don't meet the state interest of procreation or childrearing.
My opponent's article starts by stating that the reason why traditional marriage is recognized by the state is "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." [1] Since homosexual couples can't procreate it can't meet the state's interest thus it shouldn"t be legalized. However, the article also states that these restrictions aren"t absolute since infertile couples, elderly couples, and couples who don"t intend to have kids are still given the right to marry. The main reasoning that my opponent uses behind this is because these couples tend be in the minority thus excluding them wouldn't be costly. However, if what my opponent is saying is true then it seems like even if the majority of couples intend to have children, we still have a few exceptions for the minority of couples who choose not to and/or can't procreate, thus the purpose of marriage can't simply be procreation. Perhaps a more important factor is child rearing, but even then my opponent would also have to note that we still allow couples who don"t intend to have kids to get married. Granted, these couples are in the minority, but so are same-sex couples, so my opponent would need to explain why we can exclude them from marriage.
My opponent also notes that same-sex marriage doesn't meet the state interest of procreation and that the burden of proof is on me to prove otherwise. However, there are methods where same-sex couples can procreate, such as artificial insemination, and in vitro fertilization. My opponent anticipates this and claims that although there are ways in which same-sex couples can procreate "children need both a male and female parent for proper development." The evidence my opponent cites for his claim is evidence from the book "Life Without Father", but my opponent fails to cite any actual evidence from the book and seems to leave us off with only assumptions. Once again, the burden of proof is on me to show how same-sex parents can accomplish the state interest of child rearing.
As I noted before, the American Academy of Pediatrics conducted a review on 3 decades worth of scientific literature concerning the "well-being of children raised in same-sex households" and found that the sex and sexual orientation of the parents didn't affect the well-being of the children. Of course, my opponent points out that "small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting" [1] but the AAP also states that "despite these imperfections, it is likely that the extensive research efforts that have been carried out would have documented serious and significant damages if they existed." [2] Cecilia Ridgeway, president of the American Sociological Association, stated in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in 2013 that "There is no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed, the greater stability offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents may be an asset for child well-being." [3] Indeed, it seems like not only do same-sex couples meet both state-interests, but that legalizing same-sex marriage would allow same-sex couples to adopt and would also allow them to raise their kids in an appropriate environment. Now the burden of proof is on my opponent to show otherwise.

Same-sex couples can get the same benefits as married heterosexual couples.
My opponent states that "Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir." [1] Same-sex couples can get just about the same rights as married heterosexual couples, although they have to pass through a few more legal hurdles since they don"t serve either of the state's interests. However, same-sex couples do meet both of the state's interests, so my opponent would have to show why same-sex couples shouldn't be entitled to these benefits and also why heterosexual couples shouldn't have to go through with these legal hurdles if they don't serve any of the interests.

Same-sex marriage would redefine marriage to where sexual love is the sole criterion for marriage, thus paving the way for the legalization of polygamous and incestuous marriages.
Even if the sole criterion becomes sexual love, there are still good reasons for why polygamous and incestuous marriages should be banned. For example, polygamous marriages don't meet the state's interest in childrearing since men in polygamous marriages have been shown to neglect their kids. As Dr. Joseph Heinrich, an evolutionary psychologist who testified before the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2011, noted that "One study found that amongst the Dogon of Mali, even though per capita resources were equivalent between monogamous and polygamous households, children under age 10 in polygynous households were 7 to 11 times more likely to die." [4] This isn't to say that America is equivalent to Mali, but the evidence shows that men in polygamous marriages are more likely to neglect their kids, thus polygamous marriages can"t meet the state interest in childrearing.
As for incestuous marriages, the main reason it can be banned is because it would lead to procreation between incest couples which would result in children with genetic birth-defects. The problem for my claim arises when we deny marriage to incestuous couples who are infertile since the harm principle doesn't apply. However, even if we don"t legalize same-sex marriage the arguments for marriage between incest couples still applies since they could serve the state"s interest in childrearing, though studies haven"t shown if incest couples can provide adequate care. Since there are no studies showing how incestuous marriages meet the interest of childrearing we can"t legalize it regardless of whether we legalize same-sex marriage or not.
I would like to note that this argument assumes that if we allow this form of marriage then states would have to accept the other forms of marriage, but this argument is suspect for one reason. In none of the 18 countries or 35 states that have legalized gay marriage has polygamy or incestuous marriages been legalized or considered as a result of legalizing gay marriage. This should give opponents of gay marriage a pause, since this would mean that the whole argument boils down to a hypothetical worst case-scenario.

Conclusion
In conclusion my opponent has decided not to debate with me but rather copy and paste an article that states his arguments. I've also rebutted each of his arguments by noting three errors:
1.)Same-sex couples can meet both the state"s interests in procreation and child-rearing
2.)If same-sex couples serve both of these interests, then why should they go through more legal hurdles in order to gain the same benefits.
3.)Even if the sole criterion of marriage becomes sexual love, it wouldn't entail that we recognize polygamous or incestuous marriages.
In closing, vote pro.
Sources
[1] http://tech.mit.edu...
[2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
[3] http://www.asanet.org...
[4] http://huntergatherer.com...
dsjpk5

Con

I want to thank my opponent for what has been an interesting and fun
debate.

As the rules both of us agreed upon state, this round is for rebuttals.

IRRELEVANT ARGUMENTS

In my opponent's round two arguments, he made several irrelevant
arguments.

1. Adoption

The first one was to claim that homosexuals could possibly make good
adoptive parents. I agree, but that's no valid reason to legalize gay
marriage. No one needs to be married in older to adopt someone. Any
single person can adopt. And once you adopt a child, you are free to
decide via living will who would have custody of your child if
something would happen to you.

2. Social Security benefits

You don't have to be married to receive Social Security benefits. You
can designate anyone you want to be your beneficiary. No marriage
needed. The same can be said for Verterans and Military benefit
recipients. You decide who gets them.

3. Hospital visitation

You don't have to be married to visit someone in hospital. The patient
can have whomever they desire.

ANY ARGUMENT THAT ALSO CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM IS AN INVALID ARGUMENT

My opponent also has provided an argument that could be used to support a kind of marriage he rejected in the last round (group marriage).
Here it is:

Gay couples may experience less distress if their relationship were
legally recognized as a marriage. Well, the same could be said for
group marriages, but my opponent rejects the idea that they should be
legalized, so this argument is therefore invalid.

CONCLUSION

Most of my opponent's arguments for gay marriage have been shown to be irrelevant. Any gay person can receive the benefits mentioned without being married to their partner. Therefore, the government has no reason to create a new right/law.

Secondly, the only other argument made by my opponent has been shown to be invalid since it could be used against his case.

With all my opponent's arguments refuted, the resolution is negated.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate this highly controversial topic. I think we both did so in a civil manner that should be a model of how to discuss this issue.
Posted by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
RFD:
Although Pro admitted to breaking the no rebuttal until the 3rd round rule, some of Con's 2nd round were essentially rebuttals.

Take this quote from Con for example: "Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today."

This is a rebuttal to the claim "homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships."

Since both sides broke the same rule, I won't award conduct just because one rule break was more obvious than the other.

Con was lacking in sources, which hurt him, especially in the last round where is arguments were basically just assertions. Pro on the other hand gave plenty of sources. Although some of the sources were not that good, theweek.com source gave a 404 error and at least one source only provided an abstract so I couldn't view the main article to fact check. But there were a couple good sources especially the nolo.com source. And so I give sources to Pro.

And arguments were about equal on both sides, so it is tied.

One final note, it wasn"t specified in the resolution in which country(s) you are arguing should legalize gay marriage or not. This makes a different when using current laws in your arguments.
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
I'm sorry if I broke the rules. Looking back in hindsight I probably should have restructured my arguments to where I didn't have to provide a rebuttal, but instead list my arguments for same-sex marriage. If you would like please feel free to use round two for rebuttal as well as arguments, and for any voters please feel free to deduct points for my poor conduct.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Of course you realize you broke one of the.rules of this debate. Round three was for rebuttals, not round two. You specifically say in round two that you are offering rebuttals. Round two is for arguments only.
Posted by Asburnu 1 year ago
Asburnu
I would very much like to see this play out, regardless of who debates or who wins.
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
It's no big deal, and I hope that we can debate about something else another time.
Posted by Apokiliptik 1 year ago
Apokiliptik
Sorry Edward, I screwed up and got bogged down with crap.
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
It's perfectly fine, in fact it's a sign of a good debater if they can debate for a side they stand against.
Posted by rikomalpense 1 year ago
rikomalpense
Is it alright if I accept the debate even if I don't believe in my side? I just think it might be interesting to try to see the other side.
Posted by Edwar3je 1 year ago
Edwar3je
Theoretically any law can be altered if there is a sufficient justification for why it should be altered. This post could extend into a debate on how laws should be made, but I believe that we're going a little off topic here. Concerning justifications, a law might be altered if it's shown to be cruel, if it discriminates against a group of people for arbitrary reasons, or if it's shown to bring a significant amount of harm towards someone. These are just a few reasons for why a law might be altered and I'm aware that this could extend into a debate on how laws should be made, but for the purpose of this debate we need to assume that there's ample justification for either side on why we should or shouldn't change the current laws concerning marriage. It's common knowledge that justification is required for any major change, and that our laws aren't always going to be set in stone due to our shifting beliefs, so for the purpose of this debate, each side has to show a form of justification for their position and then why it's the right form of justification. This should be common knowledge to any debater, and I'm sorry if I offend or confuse anyone with these posts. Anyways, I look forward to a good debate with whomever is my opponent.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by michaellofton 1 year ago
michaellofton
Edwar3jedsjpk5Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro admittedly broke the rules. Pro had weak arguments especially on morality and the Bible which are easily refutable. They did not serve his position well.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
Edwar3jedsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by 1Credo 1 year ago
1Credo
Edwar3jedsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Sources and S&G are tied. Conduct goes to Con as Pro admitted to breaking the rules of the debate. Arguments also go to Con as he was able to refute the arguments presented by Pro, thus negating the debate resolution.
Vote Placed by Adam2isback 1 year ago
Adam2isback
Edwar3jedsjpk5Tied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Edwar3je presented a stronger argument. I'm not saying I agree with him, but he used sources and back them up. Since pro conceded, conduct points go to con.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
Edwar3jedsjpk5Tied
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: Conduct: pro broke the rules. Arguments: PRO made many decent points against CON's "best interest" contention. However, CON Noted how most of them were either irrelevant or not necessary. PRO has the BOP and must prove *why* homosexuals deserve equal marriage rights. CON shot down every reason, demonstrated a strong states interest as to *why* it should not be state-sanctioned, and then defended his premise. CON wins, and PRO failed to uphold his BOP.