The Instigator
cameronl35
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Andromeda_Z
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Same-sex Marriage should be legalized everywhere

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 2 votes the winner is...
cameronl35
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,895 times Debate No: 19227
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

cameronl35

Con

I debated this topic before, however my opponent disregarded most of my contentions. I do not feel that the debate was adequate enough and would like to debate it again.

I argue that gay marriage should not be legalized in every country.

For clarity I will provide several definitions:

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

legalized-to give legal validity or sanction to

First round is acceptance. Thanks and I await my opponent's acceptance!

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Andromeda_Z

Pro

Hopefully the second try works out better for you. Your definitions are fine with me, and I have none of my own to provide. I accept, and look forward to the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
cameronl35

Con

I would like to first thank Andromeda_Z for accepting the debate. I am delighted to be debating a formidable opponent.

Now, onto the contentions.

C1: Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values related to procreation.
To truly understand what marriage is, we have to consider the state's interest for it is the most potent factor when we determine if same-sex marriage should be legalized or not. Marriage is not a recognition of love and compassion. Marriage entails love and compassion however the underlying principle of marriage is procreation. If marriage was simply a recognition of love and compassion why would the state have any reason to recognise marriage? The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation.[1] To allow same-sex marriage, or SSM as we will refer to it throughout this debate will defeat the very purpose of marriage, to recognize procreation. As I stated earlier the purpose is to maintain the sanctity of society. That is, marriage is fundamentally about children and the civilization of society both now and for the future. My opponent must provide a sufficient reason for the state to recognize SSM. Just because the homosexual population may be relatively large in the U.S., doesn't meant that the state should recognize marriage. This means that the state should grant rights to the relationship between two homosexuals, not grant marriage. In other words, I am advocating for "separate, but equal". This can be practiced through civil unions. Thus the state's interest in marriage is for procreation and the state has no apparent reason to grant marriage, to homosexual couples.

C2: Due to the fact that this debate about all countries, the governments of countries have no reason to grant marriage to such a minority. My opponent must provide a compelling reason for granting SSM in EVERY country, as I clearly stated in the first round. That means, that if I can find one country that shouldn't recognize SSM, I have won the debate. Many countries do not have large homosexual population. For instance a survey in the United Kingdom found that only 1% of Britons were gay or lesbian. [2] Also, in a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had a homosexual experience sometime in their life. [3] The point is, many countries are at an extreme deprivation when it comes to homosexual populations. Thus they have no reason to recognize marriage for them. There is no evidence in many countries that homosexual marriage is wanted. In fact some countries consider homosexuality an abomination, such as Angola, Ethiopia, Iran Tunisia, and Trinidad and Tobago. [4] The reason for this differs from religious beliefs to pure bias. I am not advocating that this is correct by any means, but that certain countries have no obligation whatsoever to grant marriage due to lack of population and lack of aspiration. Thus there are several countries that have no reason to recognise marriage, and my opponent must provide reasons as to why they should.

C3: There are apparent health risks that come with homosexual behavior. This doesn't mean necessarily that homosexuality is bad, but that for a government to encourage homosexual behavior would hurt the sanctity of a society. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. [5] In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25. [6] One might argue that these statistics are outdated, however as of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men. [7] As we can see there are several potent health risks that come with homosexual behavior. The reason for this is promiscuity. If my opponent would like I can provide more, but for the sake I debate I will end the statistics here. The point is, if every country recognizes gay marriage, these numbers most likely will go up due to the fact that homosexuality is illegal in countries. To argue that the number will not go up is fallacious. When one advocates the practice of something, especially globally, certainly numbers will go up. Thus, countries who encourage homosexual practice will cause an increase in health risks and will negatively impact humanity.

Conclusion:
The state's interest in recognizing marriage is procreation. To allow SSM would destroy the purpose of marriage. Marriage would no longer be solely based on procreation, but rather love and compassion. If marriage based off of love and compassion, what interest does the state have? Also, many countries have an minuscule homosexual population. In many countries homosexuality is an abomination and is illegal. There is no apparent reason for every country to recognize SSM. Finally, there are several potent health risks that come with homosexuality, which SSM encourages. For these reasons the resolution has been negated and I wait to hear my opponent's rebuttal. Thanks.
Sources:
1. http://www.avemarialaw.edu...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. Sundet, J.M., et al. Prevalence of risk-prone sexual behaviour in the general population of Norway. In: Global Impact of AIDS, edited by Alan F. Fleming et al. (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1988), 53–60
4. http://www.publicagenda.org...
5. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.
6. "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999).
7.
"Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm. (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS.)

Andromeda_Z

Pro

Andromeda_Z forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
cameronl35

Con

I'm pretty sure this debate is going to be restarted..but if not..arguments extended. Perhaps I will repost my arguments in a different font.
C1: Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values related to procreation.
To truly understand what marriage is, we have to consider the state's interest for it is the most potent factor when we determine if same-sex marriage should be legalized or not. Marriage is not a recognition of love and compassion. Marriage entails love and compassion however the underlying principle of marriage is procreation. If marriage was simply a recognition of love and compassion why would the state have any reason to recognise marriage? The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation.[1] To allow same-sex marriage, or SSM as we will refer to it throughout this debate will defeat the very purpose of marriage, to recognize procreation. As I stated earlier the purpose is to maintain the sanctity of society. That is, marriage is fundamentally about children and the civilization of society both now and for the future. My opponent must provide a sufficient reason for the state to recognize SSM. Just because the homosexual population may be relatively large in the U.S., doesn't meant that the state should recognize marriage. This means that the state should grant rights to the relationship between two homosexuals, not grant marriage. In other words, I am advocating for "separate, but equal". This can be practiced through civil unions. Thus the state's interest in marriage is for procreation and the state has no apparent reason to grant marriage, to homosexual couples.

C2: Due to the fact that this debate about all countries, the governments of countries have no reason to grant marriage to such a minority. My opponent must provide a compelling reason for granting SSM in EVERY country, as I clearly stated in the first round. That means, that if I can find one country that shouldn't recognize SSM, I have won the debate. Many countries do not have large homosexual population. For instance a survey in the United Kingdom found that only 1% of Britons were gay or lesbian. [2] Also, in a random survey of 6,300 Norwegians, 3.5% of the men and 3% of the women reported that they had a homosexual experience sometime in their life. [3] The point is, many countries are at an extreme deprivation when it comes to homosexual populations. Thus they have no reason to recognize marriage for them. There is no evidence in many countries that homosexual marriage is wanted. In fact some countries consider homosexuality an abomination, such as Angola, Ethiopia, Iran Tunisia, and Trinidad and Tobago. [4] The reason for this differs from religious beliefs to pure bias. I am not advocating that this is correct by any means, but that certain countries have no obligation whatsoever to grant marriage due to lack of population and lack of aspiration. Thus there are several countries that have no reason to recognise marriage, and my opponent must provide reasons as to why they should.

C3: There are apparent health risks that come with homosexual behavior. This doesn't mean necessarily that homosexuality is bad, but that for a government to encourage homosexual behavior would hurt the sanctity of a society. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. [5] In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25. [6] One might argue that these statistics are outdated, however as of June 2001, nearly 64 percent of men with AIDS were men who have had sex with men. [7] As we can see there are several potent health risks that come with homosexual behavior. The reason for this is promiscuity. If my opponent would like I can provide more, but for the sake I debate I will end the statistics here. The point is, if every country recognizes gay marriage, these numbers most likely will go up due to the fact that homosexuality is illegal in countries. To argue that the number will not go up is fallacious. When one advocates the practice of something, especially globally, certainly numbers will go up. Thus, countries who encourage homosexual practice will cause an increase in health risks and will negatively impact humanity.

Conclusion:
The state's interest in recognizing marriage is procreation. To allow SSM would destroy the purpose of marriage. Marriage would no longer be solely based on procreation, but rather love and compassion. If marriage based off of love and compassion, what interest does the state have? Also, many countries have an minuscule homosexual population. In many countries homosexuality is an abomination and is illegal. There is no apparent reason for every country to recognize SSM. Finally, there are several potent health risks that come with homosexuality, which SSM encourages. For these reasons the resolution has been negated and I wait to hear my opponent's rebuttal. Thanks.
Sources:
1. http://www.avemarialaw.edu......
2. http://en.wikipedia.org......
3. Sundet, J.M., et al. Prevalence of risk-prone sexual behaviour in the general population of Norway. In: Global Impact of AIDS, edited by Alan F. Fleming et al. (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1988), 53–60
4. http://www.publicagenda.org......
5. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.
6. "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men — San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48(03): 45-48, p. 45 (January 29, 1999).
7.
"Basic Statistics," CDC — Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, June 2001, www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm. (Nearly 8% (50,066) of men with AIDS had sex with men and used intravenous drugs. These men are included in the 64% figure (411,933) of 649,186 men who have been diagnosed with AIDS.)
Andromeda_Z

Pro

Andromeda_Z forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
cameronl35

Con

Arguments extended. I don't think my opponent has any intention of debating anymore.
Andromeda_Z

Pro

Andromeda_Z forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Andromeda_Z 5 years ago
Andromeda_Z
It's not in Greek. Would you like me to c/p it into the comments so you can read it? I swear this is in English, I have no idea what's going on.
Posted by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
Greek words? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
How come they show up in english for me...well if pro would like I can repost my case in the next round..:/
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I'm glad i know a few greek letters, only got about 10 words. :P
Posted by cameronl35 5 years ago
cameronl35
they are...?
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Why are all your arguments showing up in Greek?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
darn we agree, hope you get a bette opponent this time, and wish you luck, I will try to be back when it is voting time to see how this plays out.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
cameronl35Andromeda_ZTied
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: This had all the makings of a good debate; pity the other side never showed. Points to Con due to forfeit.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
cameronl35Andromeda_ZTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I don't usually find con gay marriage arguments very convincing (except for personal religious ones), cameronl did a good job and I would have liked to see how pro would have responded. So forfeit is a shame.