The Instigator
CraigConnery
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheTraditionalist
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Same-sex marriage is wrong.

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 4 votes the winner is...
TheTraditionalist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,636 times Debate No: 28578
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

CraigConnery

Pro

1. Marriage has never been about individual rights, but rather about a man and woman giving up their individual rights for the greater good of their family and society. By getting married the man and the woman agree to always stay faithful to each other, giving up their right to have sexual relations with other people. Thousands of years of tradition exist to show marriage as an alliance between two families. The individual desires of the groom and bride-to-be were always subjugated for everyone's greater good. The husband and wife lost their rights to sleep around and have fun, but all of society benefited from the stable family structure they enabled. Gay activists redefine marriage as simply a contract between two people who love each other, which is a revisionist definition of marriage that is runs contrary to its true purpose. Homosexuals wanting to get married cry foul about their individual rights as a couple being violated, but are ignoring the effect it would have on the rest of society.

2. Same sex marriage is harmful to children when gay couples choose to adopt. Gay couples who adopt children greatly harm them by depriving them of a mother or father. Studies done by the American Psychological Association (APA) that showed that children of same-sex couples turned out no worse off than their counterparts raised by opposite-sex parents were found to have numerous flaws. A study was done recently by Mark Regnerus, a UT Austin sociology professor that showed that children of same-sex couples were worse off. Another study was conducted by Loren Marks, PhD at Louisiana State University, finding the same flaws in the APA's studies.

Sources:

Mark Regnerus's study:
http://www.frc.org...

Article by Regnerus himself about his study:
http://www.slate.com...

The APA's response:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Loren Marks's study:
http://familyscholars.org...

Gay rights groups love to state that there is no difference in the psychological and mental well-being of children raised by gay couples, but the evidence from a rational, objective study clearly shows otherwise.

3. Marriage is not and has NEVER been a civil right because it has NEVER been extended to everyone. For example, it is illegal for adults to marry children. Also, adults cannot marry pets, animals, or anything else just because they are attached to it. Although child marriage is still practiced in a few countries today, this does not mean marriage rights should be extended to those people. Therefore it is wrong for gay marriage advocates to claim that marriage is a civil right. Just because you love something or someone doesn"t mean you should be allowed to marry it/him/her.

4. Marriage is about procreation and the propagation of society. Men and women got married so that they could reproduce and provide a safe, stable environment to raise their children, as well as continuing society. The foundation of this is having the mother and father raise the child. Throughout history the vast majority of children were raised by their married biological parents. By design gay couples obviously cannot procreate, therefore they are not the same as straight couples and do not deserved to be accorded the same status. Therefore, if everybody were gay then society would eventually die off as no one would be able to reproduce.

Pro is in agreement that same-sex marriage is wrong. Con is in favor of same-sex marriage. I cordially invite anyone to debate me on this subject.
TheTraditionalist

Con

Hi all, let's skip the introductions and just go balls deep into this one.

Counter-arguments:

1. Marriage has never been about individual rights, but rather about a man and woman giving up their individual rights for the greater good of their family and society. By getting married the man and the woman agree to always stay faithful to each other, giving up their right to have sexual relations with other people. Thousands of years of tradition exist to show marriage as an alliance between two families. The individual desires of the groom and bride-to-be were always subjugated for everyone's greater good. The husband and wife lost their rights to sleep around and have fun, but all of society benefited from the stable family structure they enabled. Gay activists redefine marriage as simply a contract between two people who love each other, which is a revisionist definition of marriage that is runs contrary to its true purpose. Homosexuals wanting to get married cry foul about their individual rights as a couple being violated, but are ignoring the effect it would have on the rest of society."
  • Even if I accepted the premise of this argument as true, which by the way I do not, it would do little to prove your point that same-sex marriage is wrong; it is just a blatant appeal to tradition. Know your logical fallacies my friend; on this site you’ll need knowledge of them. Just because something was done in the past, that is not justification for how they SHOULD be done NOW.

2. Same sex marriage is harmful to children when gay couples choose to adopt. Gay couples who adopt children greatly harm them by depriving them of a mother or father. Studies done by the American Psychological Association (APA) that showed that children of same-sex couples turned out no worse off than their counterparts raised by opposite-sex parents were found to have numerous flaws. A study was done recently by Mark Regnerus, a UT Austin sociology professor that showed that children of same-sex couples were worse off. Another study was conducted by Loren Marks, PhD at Louisiana State University, finding the same flaws in the APA's studies....

Gay rights groups love to state that there is no difference in the psychological and mental well-being of children raised by gay couples, but the evidence from a rational, objective study clearly shows otherwise.

  • Apparently opponents of gay rights love to use studies that have severely flawed methodologies to try and bolster their claims about homosexual parents being harmful to society. Loren Mark;s study, which you use to support your claims, has very flawed methodology that was pointed out by an internal audit of the academic journal where Mark Regnerus' article was initiall published.[1] Mark Regnerus’ suffers similar problems, and was withdrawn from the academic journal it was initall published in [1]. The video that I have attached to this debate highlights this. Next.

3. Marriage is not and has NEVER been a civil right because it has NEVER been extended to everyone. For example, it is illegal for adults to marry children. Also, adults cannot marry pets, animals, or anything else just because they are attached to it. Although child marriage is still practiced in a few countries today, this does not mean marriage rights should be extended to those people. Therefore it is wrong for gay marriage advocates to claim that marriage is a civil right. Just because you love something or someone doesn"t mean you should be allowed to marry it/him/her.

  • Again this is nothing more than a blatant appeal to tradition, but even as an appeal to tradition it fails; you could use this very argument to posit that voting is not a civil right. Needless to say, I’m expecting you to abstain from voting on this debate because you posited this argument.

4. Marriage is about procreation and the propagation of society. Men and women got married so that they could reproduce and provide a safe, stable environment to raise their children, as well as continuing society. The foundation of this is having the mother and father raise the child. Throughout history the vast majority of children were raised by their married biological parents. By design gay couples obviously cannot procreate, therefore they are not the same as straight couples and do not deserved to be accorded the same status.

  • So far this argument is a lethal cross between an appeal to tradition and an appeal to nature.


Therefore, if everybody were gay then society would eventually die off as no one would be able to reproduce.


  • Even if everyone were gay they could still reproduce, they just wouldn’t get to do it with the person that they want to. How exactly does this make gay marriage wrong again?


Pro is in agreement that same-sex marriage is wrong. Con is in favor of same-sex marriage. I cordially invite anyone to debate me on this subject.

Not quite. You are the one making the affirmative statement, and thus you are the one who has the burden of proving your assertions correct. All that I have to do as con is present counter-arguments which prevent you from doing so.

Sources:
[1] http://chronicle.com...

Debate Round No. 1
CraigConnery

Pro

"Marriage has never been about individual rights, but rather about a man and woman giving up their individual rights for the greater good of their family and society. By getting married the man and the woman agree to always stay faithful to each other, giving up their right to have sexual relations with other people. Thousands of years of tradition exist to show marriage as an alliance between two families. The individual desires of the groom and bride-to-be were always subjugated for everyone's greater good. The husband and wife lost their rights to sleep around and have fun, but all of society benefited from the stable family structure they enabled. Gay activists redefine marriage as simply a contract between two people who love each other, which is a revisionist definition of marriage that is runs contrary to its true purpose. Homosexuals wanting to get married cry foul about their individual rights as a couple being violated, but are ignoring the effect it would have on the rest of society."

"Even if I accepted the premise of this argument as true, which by the way I do not, it would do little to prove your point that same-sex marriage is wrong; it is just a blatant appeal to tradition. Know your logical fallacies my friend; on this site you"ll need knowledge of them. Just because something was done in the past, that is not justification for how they SHOULD be done NOW."

First I will address the semantics of my argument. I am not arguing against same-sex marriage simply because straight marriage is tradition, but because there is ample evidence that it provides the best family structure for children, thereby benefitting the next generation. I admit that I may not have made this entirely clear with my wording, since I used the word "tradition" but historical evidence is what I was basing my argument on. True, the tradition in and of itself does not justify gay marriage being wrong, rather there is a tradition of evidence that two biological commited parents is the best structure for a child. I probably should have said "Thousands of years of EVIDENCE exist to show marriage as an alliance between two families" that show marriage as a permament monogamous relationship between a man and a woman for the benefit of society. I was really arguing more about the definition of the term marriage; how marriage has historically been defined vs gay marriage proponents" attempt to redefine the term. I will break down this argument in terms of reason and common sense first, and any relevant studies as a secondary backup.

I posit that a child being raised by gay parents is like a person trying to survive while missing body parts. Children are created by a man and a woman, so the parents are in a way a "part" of that child. A person needs all their body parts to function properly, i.e. function in the BEST way possible because the human body was DESIGNED to function that way. Now if a person is missing a limb or an internal organ, it is certainly POSSIBLE for them to live, however this would not be the IDEAL way to live. Even if that person might feel fine without their body part, they will still not be able to fully function and it could lead to problems down the road. Likewise, it is certainly POSSIBLE for two men or two women to raise a child, loving him, providing for him, and even disciplining him, but that child will still need a mother and a father because that is their design. So even if the parents and the child FEEL fine about their situation, the child can still experience problems as a result of his upbringing because of his missing mother or father. Sure, a few children might turn out ok, but as a general rule they could experience problems. Gay parents might not be the worst situation for a child, but it certainly is not the best, so why mess with what already works?

"Apparently opponents of gay rights love to use studies that have severely flawed methodologies to try and bolster their claims about homosexual parents being harmful to society. Loren Mark's study, which you use to support your claims, has very flawed methodology that was pointed out by an internal audit of the academic journal where Mark Regnerus' article was initiall published.[1] Mark Regnerus" suffers similar problems, and was withdrawn from the academic journal it was initall published in [1]. The video that I have attached to this debate highlights this. Next."

Apparently pro gay-marriage people love to ignore common sense and use flawed studies to promote their flawed agenda, as well as steamrolling people who dare to disagree with them. You"re engaging in a blatant authority fallacy here. Your main defense of your position is "because the most popular guys in white lab coats said it, it must be true, and anybody who says they are wrong is an idiot", as well as stating that Loren et al. have an anti-gay marriage agenda. Everybody has an agenda, the only question is whether it is good or bad. The question is whether the agenda is motivated by critical thinking and rational examination or what will get daytime TV ratings. You"re kidding yourself if you don"t think that the APA and these academic journals had a pro gay-marriage bias to begin with.

The APA clearly wanted to conclude that there is no difference in children raised by same-sex parents before they even started, and these academic journals clearly were on the same page. They just happen to agree with YOUR agenda and the popular opinion of the day. Loren in particular pokes holes in the APA's studies point by point. If you read my links (which I"m not sure you did), you"ll see that it is explained why his sample sizes are indeed representative, contrary to accusations.

The APA"s bias was based on errors such as these:

"small, non-representative, convenience samples of fewer than 100 participants,""

"Of the 59 studies relied on by the APA, 26 (or 44 percent) did not include a heterosexual comparison group, which as Marks notes, "In well-conducted science, it is important to have a clearly defined comparison group before drawing conclusions regarding differences or the lack thereof. "

"Of the 33 studies that did include heterosexual comparison groups, at least 13 of them used single-parent families as the heterosexual comparison group. The remaining 20 studies with heterosexual comparison groups are ambiguous about the nature of the comparison group, referring to them only as "mothers" and "couples," without specifying if they were biologically intact families, or stepfamilies, or cohabiting families, etc."

http://familyscholars.org...

It is also explained how Regnerus defends his sample sizes here:

http://www.frc.org...

The two men simply poked holes in studies that were equally biased (and funded with bias) in the opposite direction. But you make it sound like the APA are heroic defenders of the truth who are totally immune to any bias, and Regnerus and Loren self-interested greedy monsters who wish that all homosexuals will burn in hell. The only "mistakes" Loren et al. made were coming to an unpopular conclusion. The truth doesn"t depend on what university you went to or what protest sign you hold up.
TheTraditionalist

Con

Minor Contentions:

..I am not arguing against same-sex marriage simply because straight marriage is tradition, but because there is ample evidence that it provides the best family structure for children, thereby benefitting the next generation... historical evidence is what I was basing my argument on... there is a tradition of evidence that two biological commited parents is the best structure for a child.

Have heterosexual couples been the primary care takers and parents for most of (western) civilization? Yes. Have they been successful at parenting? Probably. However, we should primarily concern ourselves with how RELATIVELY successful they have been. In this regard you cannot really rely on history to provide a clear picture; homosexuals have been a persecuted group for a very long time with some of the earliest written laws against homosexuality being found in Leviticus, Middle Assyrian law codes, and Early Germanic law. [1] And while you can point to periods of tolerance towards homosexuality, they are certainly not the rule. Presently, homosexuality is still a criminal offence in many parts of Asia, and Africa, and the punishment for homosexuality can be as severe as death. While the picture is remarkably different in the West, the West has still been slow to warm to the idea of homosexuality; many western countries chose not to decriminalize homosexuality until the mid twentieth century, and in many of those countries homosexuals are not allowed to marry, and not allowed to adopt children [2]. The result of all of this surmounts to a moot point; you cannot look to recorded history and say it provides evidence of the superiority of heterosexual parentage, when throughout history homosexuals have been persecuted and same-sex couples have been denied the opportunity to adopt, and parent children.


I... should have said "Thousands of years of EVIDENCE exist to show marriage as an alliance between two families" that show marriage as a permament monogamous relationship between a man and a woman for the benefit of society. I was really arguing more about the definition of the term marriage...

This statement is factually incorrect; marriage has not always been defined as a monogamous bond between a man and a woman, even in the past. Assuming my opponent's apparent ethnocentricity, let’s look at Christianity. The Old Testament contains numerous examples of polygamy; one such example is Soloman, who is described as having 700 wives. In addition to just examples of polygamy, the Pentateuch also lists guidelines and rules concerning the taking of multiple wives. [3] This doesn’t even begin to address the radically different conceptualizations of marriage that exist in non-western cultures.


I posit that a child being raised by gay parents is like a person trying to survive while missing body parts. Children are created by a man and a woman, so the parents are in a way a "part" of that child. A person needs all their body parts to function properly, i.e. function in the BEST way possible because the human body was DESIGNED to function that way. Now if a person is missing a limb or an internal organ, it is certainly POSSIBLE for them to live, however this would not be the IDEAL way to live... (This argument is eating up too much of my remaining characters to post in its entirety, use Ctrl + F to view it in its entirety.)

Okay, this argument is very peculiar. This entire argument hinges on the premise that being raised by gay parents is analogous to being without a body part. He justifies his premise by saying that because children are created though men and women having sex, the parents are, in a way, a part of the child. This is a pretty poor justification; with the integrity of this argument resting upon this premise, my opponent does not provide adequate justification for why his premise should be considered justified, and thus this entire argument kind of collapses in on itself.

Apparently pro gay-marriage people love to ignore common sense and use flawed studies to promote their flawed agenda, as well as steamrolling people who dare to disagree with them. You"re engaging in a blatant authority fallacy here. Your main defense of your position is "because the most popular guys in white lab coats said it, it must be true, and anybody who says they are wrong is an idiot", as well as stating that Loren et al. have an anti-gay marriage agenda. Everybody has an agenda, the only question is whether it is good or bad. The question is whether the agenda is motivated by critical thinking and rational examination or what will get daytime TV ratings. You"re kidding yourself if you don"t think that the APA and these academic journals had a pro gay-marriage bias to begin with.

Okay, let’s get a couple of things straight here:

Firstly, the point that I was trying to make in the prior round was that the studies you have cited to justify your claims are flawed in nature. I then linked to a video and an article which discuss why the methodology is flawed, and why other researchers took exception to the methodology employed in the two studies that you referenced. In the article that you linked to about Regnerus, it discusses the very problems that I brought up:

“The definition of what it means to have a homosexual parent is also a loose one in this study--by necessity, in order to maximize the sample size of homosexual parents. Not all of those who reported that a parent was in a same-sex relationship even lived with that parent during the relationship; many who did, did not live with the partner as well. Only 23% of those with a lesbian mother, and only 2% of those with a homosexual father, had spent as long as three years living in a household with the homosexual parent and the parent's partner at the same time.

This was my contention! The study’s methodology is flawed, because the definition of what constitutes same-sex parentage is so broad that it actually tells very little about the effects that having same sex parents actually has on the outcomes and development of children. In fact, this study tells us more about what effect broken heterosexual homes have on children, rather than what effect same-sex parents have on children. I never said they were wrong because they have any kind of agenda; please refrain from committing libel, thanks.

Secondly, I never once used the APA to justify any of my arguments and it is for this reason, in combination with the fact that I do not want to fall victim to the ‘Gish Gallop,’ that I am going to refrain from addressing any of the attacks that you have made against them.

Major Contention:

Even if I were to accept all of the arguments that you have made in the prior rounds as valid and true, they would do very little to butress the argument that you are supposed to be putting forward. You are supposed to be arguing that "Same-sex marriage is wrong," yet all of your arguments have been against allowing same-sex couples to raise children. Nothing in the definition of marriage that you have provided in the first round suggests that the rearing and raising of children is inseperable from marriage. The only argument that you have offered up that links the two together is that "Marriage is about procreation and the propagation of society. Men and women got married so that they could reproduce and provide a safe, stable environment to raise their children, as well as continuing society...Therefore, if everybody were gay then society would eventually die off as no one would be able to reproduce." That was not an argument against same-sex marriage, that was an argument against everyone being homosexual, and it used a fallacous appeal to tradition and nature to support its premise. This is in addition to its flawed conclusion, as was addressed in R1.

Thank You.

Sources:
[1]http://tinyurl.com...
[2]http://tinyurl.com...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
CraigConnery

Pro

CraigConnery forfeited this round.
TheTraditionalist

Con

I extend my prior arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
CraigConnery

Pro

CraigConnery forfeited this round.
TheTraditionalist

Con

I, once again, extend my prior contentions and arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
CraigConnery

Pro

CraigConnery forfeited this round.
TheTraditionalist

Con

I once again extend all arguments, and urge a CON vote on this one. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by UltimateSkeptic 4 years ago
UltimateSkeptic
"let's skip the introductions and just go balls deep into this one." lol I like that one!
Posted by CraigConnery 4 years ago
CraigConnery
Actually someone has already accepted. Why do you want only three rounds?
Posted by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
If you change it to three rounds instead of 5 I'll accept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
CraigConneryTheTraditionalistTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeited. Damn
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
CraigConneryTheTraditionalistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued against same-sex partners as parents, but that fails to address the many people who marry and are either uncapable or unwilling to have children. Given this wide gap in his argument which Con did point out, and Pro's own forfeit, a detailed look at the rest of his case is unwarranted.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
CraigConneryTheTraditionalistTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
CraigConneryTheTraditionalistTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.