Hello, Con. I specifically challenged you to such a debate, as I believe we can learn something from one another about this issue and come to an understanding. You can choose to be against gay marriage after if you want, however I feel I can represent the Pro side a bit better than zolly1988.
I will ask my opponent to please accept.
First round is for acceptance only. Second round is for arguments only. Third and fourth rounds are for rebuttals only.
Meaning of gay: Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Meaning of marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.
I, Pro, will be arguing for gay marriage being legalized in all fifty states of the United States of America, while Con will be arguing against such a proposal.
If you are going to comment saying this is overdone, or anything along those lines, save yourself the effort and don't comment at all. I need to get this irritation out of my system.
No religious arguments shall partake in any part of this debate.
No personal insults or attacks. No sarcasm or rudeness.
A calm, intelligent, thought-provoking debate.
Forfeits shall result in a 7-point loss to the offender.
Burden of proof is shared.
Maximum character limit. Three days to respond.
In advance I will thank Cooldudebro for what will hopefully be a well-done, intelligent debate.
1. Civil unions
Here is what civil unions mean. "Civil union, also referred to as civil partnership or registered partnership, is a legally recognized form of partnership similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in several mostly developed countries in order to provide legal recognition of relationships formed by unmarried same-sex couples and to afford them rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to those of legally married couples. In some jurisdictions of Brazil, New Zealand, Uruguay, Ecuador, France and the U.S. states of Colorado, Hawaii and Illinois, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples"
(1) Again, similar to marriage, they are viewed as partners. Why would they need marriage? They got civil unions which is similar to marriage.
2. No natural reproduction.
They do not further the species in anyway. They choose to be gay or lesbian, but many want children. They want to feel like a normal, straight, red blooded American. So they decide to adopt or go into vitro. They then have a child in the home.
3. Having gay or lesbian parents are really bad for kids!
Don't believe it? Here is the proof. (1) it says they are more likely to have depression, anxiety, and mental and social problems. They are also a lot more likely to rely on welfare. Another study says that kids raised by homosexual couples are 4 times more likely to have sex against their will! (2) children are also more likely to be homosexuals whether from influence or being forced to be homosexual!
4. Marriage is sacred to straight people
Straight people have been going through this ceremony for thousands of years. In fact, we gave them civil unions to keep them from interfering with marriage! Here's my next point!
5. What's next?
This is not rhetorical. We are giving him the sacred ceremony of marriage! What is next? We all have to become homosexuals? Let me remind you they are only 1% of the population. Does that mean we are going to change everything for one percent of the world's population. I watched and the and played on, and I found out in the 90's all they wanted was acceptance that they are human. Now they want marriage!
Overall, gays and lesbians should be happy with all the rights we give them now, and stop pushing the line! There are just some things homosexuals can not have!
Before I start my own arguments, I will have to point out that Con has failed to even read my rules for this debate.
He started his arguments in round one, when I clearly stated that round one was for acceptance only. Failure to follow my rules again will result in a full 7-point loss.
Furthermore I will have to edit my format:
Round 1: Pro rules, Con argues.
Round 2: Pro argues, Con writes “no arguments and rebuttals as agreed upon.”
Round 3: Pro rebuts, Con rebuts.
Round 4: Pro rebuts, Con rebuts.
I will not rebut in this round. I will save that for round three. Thank you.
This way we both get one round for arguments and two rounds for rebuttals. I guarantee this will now be fair.
Please read guidelines. ;_;
One more thing: I thank Con for being polite as most people I have debated have shown poor conduct earlier in the debate. I will not cut you down in any way, either. Now let's get down to business:
I will start this off by saying that I believe that it is morally wrong to forbid an entire group of people from marrying who they want. This contradicts the common American dream of equality, freedom, justice, and liberty. As a free country people should be able to make their own decisions unless it infringes upon others. Overall, the biggest key to my argument is the key term that is equality. Because of equality being the biggest belief on why I think same-sex marriages should be legalized, the common argument that all marriages, straight or gay, should be civil unions, is irrelevant. I believe as long as straights can be married, so should gays. If straights were restricted to civil unions, then so should gays. As the Declaration of Independence states every person deserves and should have the right for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
I think we can all agree that this country (the United States of America) was founded on freedom, equality, and justice. I will, in this argument, add that the fact that gay marriage isn't allowed contradicts these terms. Not allowing an entire group of people to marry is a violation of humans rights. This encourages major discrimination in its own right. As a country founded on these characteristics I suggest we bring justice to the LGBT community by allowing them the freedom of marriage which will result in marriage equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.
Studies and research suggest that sexuality is determined at a very young age, possibly even at conception. Regardless, all of these studies suggest that everyone's sexuality is beyond their control. The fact that they can't marry someone that they love because of something that is determined at birth and is beyond their control, shows striking similarities to back when blacks were considered slaves to white masters in the 1800s, as well as back when women were seen as a lesser person than men some decades ago. Just as one cannot decide their ethnicity and gender, one cannot decide their sexuality. Gays and lesbians are simply the biggest group being discriminated against currently just as blacks and women used to be. Allowing them to have all of the same rights as straight people will bring justice and equality among all people no matter who they are.
Proof that being gay isn't a choice: The brains of gay men are more similar to straight women than they are to straight men.
Also, lesbians sex hormones react differently to straight women as do gay men to straight men. Again, this validly shows that our sexuality is not a choice.
First and foremost, civil unions don't even bear the same name as marriage itself. This alone will give the LGBT community the feeling of being outsiders. This shows inequality. Civil unions are not the same as marriage in the other following reasons:
: Civil unions are not officially recognized, therefore the rights granted by the union will not travel from state to state, in contrast to actual marriage. This is a grave injustice that should be prevented.
: Civil unions are not recognized by 14% of employers. Therefore, 14% of employers will deny their LGB employees full, legally guaranteed marriage benefits. Again this is legally discrimination. Bearing the name 'marriage' will prevent this injustice from happening. (Figures come from New Jersey).
As a straight person, how would the legalization of gay marriage affect you?
It wouldn't. Opposing gay marriage is simply encouraging discrimination and denying an entire group of human beings basic civil rights A.K.A marriage.
Gay marriage benefits LGB people. It doesn't harm nor benefit straight people. Therefore it harms no one.
People have the right to choose what they want to do unless it harms or infringes others. This fits that description.
Homosexuals and bisexuals make fine parents, contrary to popular belief. Plenty of people claim that a child needs a mother and father figure. I will explain why that counter argument is false.
Research has repeatedly shown that same-sex parents are able to parent children just as fine as their heterosexual counterparts. They even have a few advantages. : Studies spread over an entire decade, included 260 children that had both heterosexual mothers or lesbian mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, socialization skills, parental stress, etc., in fact, parts of the studies suggest that in a few places, children of heterosexual parents show more problems. Children who have parents of the same sex did better in the following areas: discipline, self-esteem, less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school. : Another study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and the same number of heterosexual mothers found no difference in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships.
Similar to my parenting argument. Statistically speaking, gays have equally successful marriages to straights. It would be selfish and homophobic (akin to racism and sexism) not to allow successful, loving marriages.
Same-sex couples are estimated to spend around 685 million dollars on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services in only three years – so long as voters don't put a halt to gay marriage, according to a study conducted by the Williams Institute at University of California, School of Law.
Not only would they spend around 658 million dollars, but the marriage spree will create about 2,200 jobs.
64 million dollars in additional tax revenue plus 9 million dollars in marriage-license fees for counties.
I feel it worthy to add that many orphans and children in foster care would likely get adopted by gay and lesbian couples. Imagine the how positively it would affect all those children.
A bit more than half of the American population are in favor of gay marriage, so allowing gay marriage will represent the voice of the majority of the people.
1. It's a violation of humans rights. It is also discrimination to not allow one the basic civil right of marriage.
2. Anybody's sexual orientation is not a choice and is beyond their control, gay or straight.
3. Civil unions are not the same as marriage. Marriage can never be replaced.
4. It is not only none of a straight person's business, but it does not harm anyone in any way, but rather benefits homosexuals.
5. Repeated research has shown that gays make equally good parents, sometimes even better.
6. Gay people that are already married are doing as well as any straight person.
7. It would be great for the economy.
8. Many children in need would be adopted into loving families.
9. The majority of people are for it anyway.
Thank you to the readers/voters and my opponent for their time.
Being LGB isn't a choice:
Civil unions compared to marriage:
Marriage success for same-sex couples:
Most people are in favor of same-sex marriage:
People are not born gay! It is like saying I am born straight. I could choose to be gay at any time. This research proves my theory. (1)
I would like to post instead of an argument a rebuttal.
Here, you basically say homosexuals make great parents. However, I believe my sources are the most valid. CBS has been known for many years. It shows that it does have an effect on the children. I believe my source is the most valid, so I ask you to reconsider your argument. Also, you say it is a human right to marry, well, it is a human right to let your kids choose to be hetero or homo sexual. However, many gays and lesbians force their kids to become gay or lesbian. Isn't that against human rights? Also, I know what you are going to say. "what does this have to do with this debate" I will tell you. The main reason gays and lesbians want marriage, is to be like a normal heterosexual couple. That also includes children!
I seem to be sensing some hostility from Con. I'm trying my best to have good conduct and to be fair...
Some workplaces don't even recognize civil unions. Civil unions don't travel to many states in contrast to actual marriage. This means that when employers fail to recognize them, or when the couple travels out of state, they are not guaranteed full marriage rights.
You also say 'similar' instead of the 'same,' so, in short, Con concedes this contention by admitting it is not the same.
I also find it interesting that my opponent uses Wikipedia as a source.
I go more into detail on this in round two, so read that if this fails to convince you.
If a straight couple had the husband or wife unable to have children for whatever reason, should they be denied marriage because they are not going to have children? What if they simply don't want kids?
Oh my God! Gays must be stopped! They're adopting children in need! May the Lord have mercy on our souls!
And so what if they go virto and choose to have a surrogate parent? It's a sperm and egg coming together and in one way or another is carried by a pregnant mother. Technically it's natural, so this contention is also negated.
Homosexuality in general should be considered natural. Gay animals are found all over the animal kingdom. They do not consciously choose to be gay. They do not say 'Ooh, being gay is cool.' It is simply in their sexual desires to be with the same sex.
So should we be stuck in the 90s or actually continue to progress?
And no. There will never be such a ridiculous proposal as that. (Making us all gay).
I guess Con is in favor of one percent of people being denied basic human rights. We are not changing 'everything' for them. It is simply benefiting an entire group of people. How does it affect you? Half of marriages end in divorce anyway. What's so sacred about that? Gays are not mentally ill as they are born that way, so they should have the same rights as straights.
If a gay couple is capable of being in a loving, committed relationship, they should have the legal protection that marriage offers.
Why should your mom be able to visit your dad in the hospital but the gay couple who have been together for 40 years not have that right?
Why should a "family plan"health insurance' protect my parents but a gay couple can't have the same protection?
Allowing gay marriage is justice.
Gay people are not born gay!
No, you cannot choose to be gay. Some people are simply born gay as confirmed in my argument in round two. You can say your gay, for example, but it doesn't mean you are. However, it is almost always true that they are, indeed, gay.
Who would choose to be gay in a world of anti homosexual bigots?
I used more sources than you using other news networks that have been known for years. In fact, I have more, so this argument swings in my favor. Just because you used one news network that has been known for years doesn't make it true.
My opponent claims that the majority (I'm assuming he means most considering how much he mentions it) of gay parents force their children to be gay without any relatively credible backup... ignorance at its best.
I refuted the normalcy argument earlier in the debate.
Civil unions could be just as important as marriage. You can push for more rights. However, you are going to get A LOT more opposition from interfering with marriage. Technically, marriage is not a human right. It is food, water, clothes, and a roof over your head. I don't think that a homeless man who is not married is goanna give a crap if he is not married! He would much rather have a home. It is not a human right! You will argue that any human can marry even if poor. Lets take a look at marriage shall we? Marriage is nothing but a title. (1) They could easily be just going out or getting a civil union, and be figuratively the same thing except, the government gives you benefits. However, the partner can easily get a job and get the same benefits as his partner! So as your "rights" topic is concerned, they can easily get the same benefits as a married couple if they were in a civil union. Also, they could move to a state that supports civil unions. (2) Some states allow them the same rights as marriage.
Here is proof people are not born gay.
Read it. It is very interesting to say the least. My links shows there are no "gay" chromosomes or DNA. that is is not genetic link at all.
First off, they can still have a child that is biologically theirs! Vitro allows that to happen! However, with gays an lesbians, no child can have the DNA code as their mom/dad's partner. You can not combine sperm and sperm, or egg and egg. You fail to see that with a married straight couple, they can go into vitro and have a kid biologically theirs. However, gays and lesbians can not. I am not one of those people who are like that. I think that gays are morally wrong. Not because of the bible. Not because of God, but because of me. Thanks for insulting my religion. You fail to see that those animals are bisexuals. They also mate with the opposite gender to reproduce. No animal is entirely gay.
You know what is funny? That you used my source because you thought it helped you, but when I showed you it helped me, all of a sudden it is not credible. If it is not credible, why would you use it for your own argument?
Remember, no religious based arguments in this debate! You are breaking your own rules. You also fail to see that nearly 50% of the world believes in god. You are basing that argument on nothing. Big difference. They were straight, gays and lesbians are not. Many Christians view homosexuality a sin, and that the bible said nothing against interracial marriages. However, this is not about religion. This is about the main source of people's view. Again, 50% Christians. They view marriage as sacred. Therefore, I view my argument as valid. Many people share the same view. Don't even try to use the pro or con big issue on debate.org If you would, you'd forget not nearly all of the earth's population is on this site.
It was rhetorical. There is no way that everyone would be gay, but my argument is valid. I asked what is next after this. Divorce does not mean they do not view it as sacred. Many people are emotionally scarred, and some never fully recover from a divorce. Gays are not born that way! Refer to my previous rebuttals.
Again, some states make civil unions have the same rights as marriage. This is also my response for your next two arguments.
You know what isn't justice? One percent of the world's population commanding at least 45% of the world's population. If you view that as justice, you have a pretty weird mind.
Again, refer to my previous arguments. You would choose to be gay out of rebellion, statement, and wanting to be a woman.
Again, if my source is not valid, then why did you try to use one of mine to use for your argument? That removes one of your sources, and CBS is one of the first three T.V stations and you are telling me that this is invalid. I sense that there is something wrong here.
Not the majority, but there are still some that do. Think, you are gay, if your child wants to be straight. Are you going to think nothing of it, or do something? Again, some children become gay because of their guardians influence saying that gay is good.
Now I will refute my opponent's argument.
I already dealt with is.
Already dealt with this too.
My economy and beliefs. I will explain later in my rebuttals.
Dealt with this, but I will deal with this again. Her FCR link is my link. She used it because she thought it would help her arguments. When I told her it wouldn't, she called it invalid. Here, I will disprove your statements. Your own link that you got from me states many dis advantages for being raised by a homosexual. :) Thank you for proving my arguments. I literally thank you.
I can not refute this. But just like regular marriages, some are having problems.
This was your strongest argument. It took me a while to find out how to refute this, but I know how. it says lesbians are 69% more likely for welfare, and gays are 57% more likely. (1) So, lets calculate. America population is 5% gay, (2) America's population is 313.9 million. (3) If you calculate, it goes to 9 million gays on welfare in the USA. This basically allows them to go on food stamps, and a lot of times get their house payment drastically lowered or payed. Lets just say, the average gay family of 2 consumes about 4,000$ a month. The government will probably pay 3,000$ of that. So, let multiply, 9 million gays, times 3000. It would equal about 26,838,450,000$ billion dollars monthly. In annual tax revenue, they would make 64,000,000$ in tax revenue. How could this possibly cover it? Each case is different. Even at 2000$, it would cost 17,000,000,000$. So, my opponent's argument is invalid. Don't believe me? Try it for your self! First go 313,900,000 minus 95 percent. Then, go minus 43 percent. Then multiply by 3,000, and that is how much it will cost for all gay families. Leave out about a few billion for gays who do not want to get married. Before pro tries to refute this, remember, a lot of gays have adopted children. This is about how much it will cost our government.
3. https://www.google.com... population
It would no effect them positively. Check my previous arguments and rebuttals.
However, the voice of the people isn't always the wise choice.
EVERYTHING WAS EDITED FOR CHARACTERS.
A. Despite civil unions being given all of the rights of marriage, their rights don't travel from state to state... this is very preventable and unjust. What if the couple decides to move? This happens commonly. Why should gays have to worry about this and deal with it, but straights don't?
B. A significant percentage of employers fail to recognize civil unions. This denies gay couples in civil unions guaranteed marriage benefits. You should not have to change your job just to get recognized as a couple who wants to share their lives together. Do you not understand how hard it is to just 'get another job'? Some people have been trying to get another job (or a job at all) for years, but they are stuck at where they were. Most of the 14% are stuck as not being in a legal partnership as far as their employers are concerned. Again, why should straights not have to worry about this, but gays do? This is inequality.
C. It doesn't even bear the same name as marriage. Imagine being called an 'ape' but getting all the rights of humans (except 14 percent of people don't recognize you as a human and your human rights don't travel from state to state).
Again: Marriage is a basic human right. Marriage is supposed to be based around the characteristics of love, passion, companionship, spiritual, etc. If one person is more than anything else in the world to you, you love them, and you have a spiritual, passionate, relationship, then I would reckon it is a human right to be with that person and have specific human rights that are given to this spiritual companionship. Obviously we can both agree that straights should be able to get married, but again, we can both admit that *some* straights are taking marriage for granted! Fifty percent divorce rate. This is far from being sacred.
This is equally invalid as your last link. It was written by five or six men and it was based off of their findings and no one else's. Your assertion that gays choose to be gay is still unproven on your part.
I found this on the homepage of the website you used: Materials presented on these pages reflect solely the opinions of the individuals, and do not necessarily reflect those of Northern Arizona University. Interesting.
OR: They can adopt a child in need that wouldn't get love otherwise.
The fact that they can't have biological children is completely irrelevant to the argument in the first place so I have no idea why I have put my time and effort into rebutting this claim.
Both options sound fine to me regardless.
And some animals are entirely gay!
Many animals have homosexual tendencies (not bisexual). Some are monogamous, too. Such as two female Swans, Romeo and Juliet. (They were named before they found both were female). They cannot make a conscious decision and are merely reacting to their homosexual urges. These two did not procreate with the male gender either.
I can give you other examples:
Blacks used to be slaves to whites in the early days of America.
Women weren't allowed to vote.
Only white males have ever been president before 2008. Seemed a bit limited, doesn't it? I'm going under the assumption that my opponent believes that a non white male can run the country as good as a white male. Why is it different for gays?
Have you ever heard of separation of Church and state? Religious marriage is a subset of marriage. Gays can get married by the state, not the Church. We are in the US where religion can't play a part in passing laws such as these regardless. Therefore plenty of marriage is non religious, so your argument is invalid and greatly misinformed.
My point is, there are many points in history where there are gross injustices toward a certain group of people simply because they are different and people (such as yourself) are afraid of acceptance and change. (Gay marriage wouldn't significantly change anything anyway but only gives a basic right to a group of people). Whenever we give basic rights to that group it only benefits and furthers society.
Think of all the people married for less than a single year. Sacred?.Yet a gay couple who have been facing prejudice for the last 40 years, have stuck together, and love each other, but can't get married. Marriage is no longer sacred. If that gay couple were to get married, giving them the basic human right they deserved in the first place, justice would be served.
Keep in mind being gay is not a mental illness! So your argument of 'what's next' is invalid. They are just as likely to be fully functioning, successful members of society as straights.
I stated why it wasn't sacred earlier in this round and in round three, too.
Which I've now refuted three times while you fail to give a competent response.
This argument doesn't even make sense. This is for the United States only. I stated this in the first round. How are gays commanding 45% of the world's population? That doesn't even make any sense! As I explained before they deserve to be in a legal relationship. Earlier in this debate I explained why allowing gay marriage is, indeed, justice. Again religious marriage is a subsetof marriage. Considering more than half of Americans are for gay marriage and most Americans are Christian, that means that plenty of Christians are for gay marriage or they don't care! Therefore your argument is, once again, invalid.
Once again, no credible sources and is simply based off of homophobic prejudice.
Read rebuttal four for me using the link.
And you even got one from a website no one's ever heard of! Wow thanks for enlightening me. It's also based around a Republican family council! There must be no bias on that website at all!
I guess I'll start believing anything I hear from a popular network!
I sense that there is something that is screwing up my opponent’s logic.
What proof do you have that gay parents would want their children to be gay? More prejudice from you. Tisk, tisk. The only support you have are from links that are not credible from earlier.
Original argument rebuttals:
Dealt with. (Civil unions).
Hmm... Um... you do realize that I won't be able to respond to that rebuttal after this round since it is my last round of responding, right? You're openly claiming that you'll only post your argument after I am unable to refute shows desperation in winning and cowardice on your part.
Read rebuttal four.
All of your information on this relies on one link that is invalid.
He also used the same link that is useless and has been used by him multiple times and the link to google.com that simply says 'American'. The other link is moot as it merely states the gay population for a cause I refuted earlier in this round.
It would affect them positively. Check my previous arguments and rebuttals.
My opponent basically concedes this part. I gave proof that most Americans are Pro gay marriage and he simply refuted it without any logic and proof because he could not come up with a better rebuttal.
If gays really want their rights, they should stay where it is allowed. They could expand civil union rights a lot more. Yet, they choose to interfere with marriage. You can easily expand civil unions, yet you choose not to!
Again, expand civil union rights. That way, employers will recognize that. Also, the gay partner can get a job, and earn the same benefits. Even a part time job will get you a lot of benefits!
Again, marriage is just a title. This is based on personal interpretation. What about the straights that don't want gays in their ceremony of matrimony. Which in many religions, is the MOST IMPORTANT DAY OF THEIR LIFE!
Again, pro forgets about the 50% of straights that view marriage as sacred. Even divorced people have emotionally scarred when they get a divorce.
You still could not refute my other 2 links. So, I think I have proved my point.
Gays make bad parents. I see no need to refute that.
You see. They are animals and have primitive minds. They just want to quench their sexual desire. That is why we are different compared to animals. We can make rational, contious, decisions! Again, animals can not be entirely gay. If they were, their species would die off.
I would accept this as a mistake, but you centered your argument on it. If you didn't mean to post, then you would not have centered a whole argument on it! Do not lie.
The difference is gay marriage will have a negative effect on the economy. (check my previous arguments) to many people, it is morally wrong, and they could easily expand the rights of civil unions! Those groups deserved the freedom. This will do everybody but gays bad.
If it is for the USA, 5% is commanding the 45% of people who oppose it. You forget, you said 55% of the population wants gay marriage. 5% of those are gay. So technically, 50% of straights don't want gay marriage. You forget, there are a lot of atheist and other religions in the USA that don't care. So, the majority of the people supporting it are probably not Christian.
Then where are your sources refuting my previous statement. Common sense and previous arguments of mine states these are the reasons. I have proved this statement correct.
If my stations aren't credible, how are yours. I have not heard of half of your sources. How do I know your sources are valid? They have solid proof. Your only source is saying only that two parents are better than one. That is so invalid it makes my head spin! I would also like to see where you found it to be with republicans. That statement is invalid.
Again, where is your proof that they would not want the kids to be gay or lesbian. Before you attack my statements, provide a link. Common sense dictates that they would want their child to be gay or lesbian.
I dealt with this. My links confirm being gay is a choice.
Dealt with this too.
Of course. Call me a coward because you can not refute it. Please. If you are going to go to insults, change your username to insulting mind.
No need to rebut.
I did not concede! Again, another lie.
Exactly! We are talking about America. At least, that is what you said in your previous argument. I have proved you lied and meant to post your link.
I meant would not effect them positively.
Again, you fail to refute this. I dealt with this in the previous arguments.
Ladies and gentleman,
I have proved:
Gay marriage would have a negative effect on the economy
Civil unions can and are just as powerful as marriage
They would not have a positive impact!
Thank you all for reading! Vote con!