The Instigator
AmazingRenegade
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nathaniel2840
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Same-sex marriage ought to be equally recognized just as much as heterosexual marriage

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 1 vote the winner is...
Nathaniel2840
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 53447
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

AmazingRenegade

Pro

Observation 1: Since there is a limitation on the amount of characters within the resolution, we are assuming that equal recognition means to be entitled to the equal marital rights for members of both sexual orientations. Those entitled rights are to be recognized by a federal government.

Observation 2: For some inexplicable reason, a common misconception is that this resolution does not apply to transexuals, agender, bigender, gender fluid, so on and so forth. The resolution is ambiguous so it can apply to all gender identifications and nations.

Observation 3: The debate is only about the right to marry someone of the same sex though I personally entertain the expansion of more rights for LGBT citizens.

Contention: The opposition establishes unjust societal superiority. There is no real way of not suggesting that entitling some people with rights and excluding the same right to others in an unjust manner is anything short of discrimination. The opposition to the resolution has to prove that there is a significantly just reason as to why heterosexuals are entitled to superior marital rights. I will also have the burden to prove that the repercussions of same-sex marriage are equivocal to heterosexual marriage thus making both sexualities entitled to the same rights and to the same extent of those rights.
Nathaniel2840

Con

I look forward to a great debate. To start off, I would like to say that because the resolution uses the term same-sex marriage, that is what I will be focusing on, not transgenderality or other forms of marriage. I will also be debating this round like a regular Lincoln Douglas Debate round.

That being said, I would like to start off my case with a value, something that should be paramount in today's round. This value will be domestic security, which we will see proves the resolution to be false.

Next, let's go ahead and dive into some resolutional analysis. The first word I would like to look at is the word "ought," which is defined as "An indication of duty or correctness." -Oxford American Dictionary. Seeing how we most likely can both agree that this is not a duty, we need to be looking at whether or not it is "correct" to be recognizing gay marriage as much as traditional marriage. That leads me on to my second R.A. point, which is that of "equal recognition." That is the wording in the resolution, but what exactly does that mean? Seeing how Pro failed to define the term, I'll just follow common sense and say it means to "accept willingly as a legitimate and pragmatic cause, action, entity, etc." This definition is because if we recognize gay marriage in the same way we recognize traditional marriage, we are accepting it as normal and good. Now on to a contention.

Ct.1 Gay marriage violates domestic security
Now I don't wish to offend anyone in this debate round, so please do not let this get personal, but statistics prove that gay marriage actually is increasing domestic violence. According to the family research institute, Homosexual marriage has the highest rate of domestic violence. For confirmation, the link will be at the end of my case. The statistics that the family research institute found is this: 48% of lesbians and 39% of gays have been violent or are still violent in the state of Georgia. If Georgia is this bad, we can only imagine how other states that have higher crime and violence rates are affecting are safety. Aren't convinced? The facts don't stop here. According to Washington Post, 44% of kids that have gay or lesbian parents commit a serious act of violence once in their life. As you can see, the more Gays and Lesbians there are, the more our safety will be at risk. Furthermore, studies show that around 40% of children with gay or lesbian parents have sex with their parents once in their life. Half of those kids are forced to do so. This is absolutely horrible, not to mention against the law. So should we really recognize Gay marriage if it is causing more violations of the law? But it doesn't stop in one generation. More studies show that kids with gay or lesbian parents are significantly more likely to be gay themselves, resulting in a long never ending stream of increased violence and rape. To add the icing on the cake, the following passage is a paragraph straight from an article by Family Research institute:

"Homosexual marriage is a bad idea. While traditional marriage delivers benefits to its participants as well as to society, "gay marriage" harms everyone it touches " especially children. Not only does it place homosexuals at increased risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, but it also subjects them to an increased threat of domestic violence. Homosexual marriage is nothing like traditional marriage. Homosexual unions are not built around lifetime commitments, nor are they good environments in which to raise children. Those who support legalizing homosexual marriage include the same "compassionate" people who championed the right of singles to become parents. We know the results of that campaign: a third of the nation"s children do not have a father. We also know that children without fathers much more often do poorly in school, get in trouble with the law, and become dysfunctional parents themselves. It would be foolish to tamper with something as vital to personal and social health as traditional marriage in order the placate the same troubled souls that pushed for our current cultural mess."

I believe this couldn't be more true, and so for the above reasons, please vote con.

--------------------------
http://www.familyresearchinst.org...

Gardner R (1988) Method of conflict resolution and correlates of physical aggression and victimization in heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male couples. Unpub Doctoral Dissertation, U Georgia.

Lesbian/Gay Violence in 1995 (1995) Horizons Community Services, self-published. V17;
Debate Round No. 1
AmazingRenegade

Pro

First off, I'd like to mention that the con has not taken the observations into consideration. I already implicated that the limitation of the characters within the resolution does not allow for specificity. "Equally recognized" means to have equal marital rights on a federal level. I mentioned this in my first observation for the clarification of semantics.

Furthermore, since the value of the con is domestic security the pro is burdened with the task of either demonstrating how the status quo and con does not achieve that value or that the pro's proposition does not violate the opposing proposition.Thus making the repercussions of the resolved equivocal or better in comparison to heterosexuals which grants the alleviation of special entitlement. I would like to mention that I concede to the definition of "ought" that the con has provided. The reasoning for such concession is because a government has an obligation to protect the rights of its citizens and make them equal for all of their citizens unless the absence of equality is proved to be justified.

The con has indicated that the Washington Post reports that "44% of kids that have gay or lesbian parents commit a serious act of violence once in their life." I personally could not find that individual article so if the con would link me to it I'd greatly appreciate it. If not, that "evidence" holds no weight in the debate. As far as the Family Research Institute (FRI) it never says that those lesbians and gays are STILL in a domestically violent relationship. It states "In 1987 in Georgia,25 48% of 43 lesbian couples, and 39% of 39 gay couples reported domestic violence." The flaw in the research is that the statistic don't take into consideration the differences between "being in a relationship" and "being married." Being married allots for better financial security. Better financial security typically brings about a more peaceful relationship.

So how can the con support domestic security but not support what brings a more sustainable domestic environment. This demonstrate that the con's efforts to achieve its goal is actually detrimental to itself. The flaw of the status quo is why there is an issue with domestic tranquility so it would be contradictory to uphold domestic security when the status quo obstructs that. Another flaw in the studies is that they are not cases that have been investigated. They are reports from one member of the relationship. Ever here of the Battered Women testimony? To garner sympathy, alleviate responsibility, and to look like the good guy, anyone who was in a failed relationship would testify something like that even if it were not true.

" Furthermore, studies show that around 40% of children with gay or lesbian parents have sex with their parents once in their life. Half of those kids are forced to do so." What study? Cite the study so I can see how it was carried out and see if it is legitimate because the FRI never cited that number so I'm guessing it's from a different a different study. It seems rather arbitrary. There needs to be an explicit rational warrant to suggest that heterosexual parents will not molest their children to the same or greater extent if the evidence is legitimate. If it's from Paul Cameron (Chairman of FRI) I can almost guarantee you that it's false. Speaking of which, you also vaguely mentioned that some studies have suggested that children raised by gay parents will become gay. I'm guessing you are referring to the case Out of The Ordinary which is nothing more but a mere collection of essays from adults with non-straight parents, not empirical statistics from incomplete "research."

Your case is also predicated on an anatomical possibility of children which is nonsense. Marriage does not have to revolve around children. A requisite for a couples marital licence is not whether they will have children nor are married couples punished for not having children. We don't revoke the marital licence of infertile married couples. Marriage is simply a contract in which two people engage in for there own reasons. One of which may not concern children at all. The anatomical possibility of children does not justify the inequality.

I have proven why the value of societal security is contradictory to the contention of the con for it rather maintain the status quo that is supposively causing the issue with homosexuals and domestic violence. The con also has faulty sources for their claim for time and time again Paul Cameron has been proven to have faulty evidence and condones faulty research for FRI. My opponent has also not given specific citations for said claims. Finally, my opponent has overall made the false assumption of the anatomical possibility of children being the warrant for marriage. Due to shaky evidence and false assumptions the con has failed to justify inequality thus the proposition of the pro stands which is why I advocate for a vote in affirmation of the resolution.

Paul Cameron and his research is not reliable as according to these following sources:
http://www.splcenter.org...

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...

http://interstateq.com...

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...

http://www.lgbtqnation.com...

http://www.livescience.com...

http://www.splcenter.org...
Nathaniel2840

Con

Nathaniel2840 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AmazingRenegade

Pro

AmazingRenegade forfeited this round.
Nathaniel2840

Con

Nathaniel2840 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AmazingRenegade

Pro

AmazingRenegade forfeited this round.
Nathaniel2840

Con

No refutations offered
Debate Round No. 4
AmazingRenegade

Pro

AmazingRenegade forfeited this round.
Nathaniel2840

Con

Nathaniel2840 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
If you find a limit for the resolution, you can make the title "Same Sex Marriage" then just put at the top of your opening round "Full Resolution: ..."

We recognize that that is what the debate will be measured against.
Posted by AmazingRenegade 3 years ago
AmazingRenegade
1) The libertarian argument can be argued for it still fits this resolution.
2) I've modified the resolution and the observations within my opening argument so that the issue of concern is if a federal government recognizes heterosexual marriage and entitle it to rights, those same rights and recognition ought to be extended to homosexual marriages.
Posted by Christian_Debater 3 years ago
Christian_Debater
You can claim that it should be recognized positively at the federal level, which is what I think you mean.

You can claim it should be recognized as bad at the federal level.

You didn't say which side it should be recognized as.
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
FYI, you have this left open for Con to take that government should not recognize any marriage, and since this is a very libertarian leaning site, there are a number of people (like myself) that would take that argument.

If you are looking for the classic "gay marriage" debate, perhaps doing "resolved: same-sex marriage ought to be viewed no differently than opposite-sex marriage by the federal government." or something of the like.
Posted by AmazingRenegade 3 years ago
AmazingRenegade
What seems so ambiguous about it? Is it because I'm not specifying a specific nation? Never mind, I'll present the an opening case even though I constructed the debate.
Posted by Christian_Debater 3 years ago
Christian_Debater
You need to outline your position first. This debate is very ambiguous.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Taylor-Magnuson 3 years ago
Taylor-Magnuson
AmazingRenegadeNathaniel2840Tied
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: Con did a better job.