The Instigator
Raxack1234
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PickUp_Artist
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Should Gay Marriage be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
PickUp_Artist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,505 times Debate No: 71806
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (2)

 

Raxack1234

Pro

16/March/15

Good morning fellow Us citizens, my name is Andres Ortiz and I will be debating why gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. To start off I want to define what marriage is to both heterosexual and homosexual legal unions. The legal union of a couple. The basic elements of a marriage as described by law are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law. When you get married you get some rights and benefits such as:
"tax benefits, when you file jointly with your spouse
"estate planning benefits, including inheritance rights
"government benefits, including receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for your spouse
"employment benefits, such as obtaining health insurance through your spouse's employer and the right to take medical leave to care for a spouse who becomes ill
"decision-making benefits, including the right to make medical decisions if your spouse is incapacitated
"financial support, including equitable property division in a divorce
"consumer benefits, such as family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

I inform you of this just so you know that marriage is not only a ceremony but a contract.

Let me start by stating that denying some people the option to marry is discrimination and creates a second class of citizens. As stated by Miami- Dade county circuit court Judge Zabel:(and I quote)" Gay marriage ban is unconstitutional and that the ban only serves to hurt, discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, To label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society is unfair". As our first amendment rights does not support discrimination , discrimination will not be tolerated and it should not be allowed. Gay Marriage is protected by the US constitutions commitment to liberty and equality, shown in The Due Process Clause. The Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Now most advocates would like to object that you cannot procreate in a same sex marriage and that it is a clear reason to ban Gay Marriage. To them I will say marriage is not only for procreation, otherwise infertile couples or fertile couples not wishing to have children would be prevented from marrying. And for those who use religion as reason to support the ban of marriage let me remind you that legal marriage is a secular institution that should not be limited by religions objections to same-sex marriage. That's why the State is separated from the church. Also legalizing gay marriage will not harm the institution of marriage. A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, or the percent of children born out of wedlock. Now that I am done defending my point I would like to talk about the benefits of Gay marriage. Gay marriage can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments and can help boost the economy. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. Witch basically means the more marriages there are the more money that will be contributed to the government. The money the government receives from this will help make the cost of living in the US less. Making Gay marriage legal will provide both physical and psychological health benefits while banning gay marriage will increase rates of psychological disorders. A 2010 analysis published in the American Journal of Public Health found that after their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 48% increase in generalized anxiety disorders. Contrary to popular believe gay couples do make great parents. On June 2014 the University of Melbourne study showed that children raised by same-sex parents score about six percent higher than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion. A study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems. There are 37 states where gay marriage is legal and there's 13 more to go. The latest tracking poll estimated that 63% of the United States population are supporters of the same-sex marriage. Let's make it happen.
PickUp_Artist

Con

Hello Andres Ortiz, nice last name by the way I have the same one and I accept your challenge.

I think marriage exists to bring a man and a women together, to be a husband and wife, to become a mother and a father to any child that their union produces. Same-sex "marriage" should not be legal due the fact that it can be harmful because it will offend people with religious beliefs and it is not natural. People believe that they should defend traditional marriage because that is what their God intended it to be. One man and one women. If it offends their God because homosexuality is a sin in their religion, they obviously must oppose it. I assume that homosexuals wish to be married because they love one another correct? If I am wrong please correct me. The government is not interested in regulating somebody's love life. Marriage is an institution where the mother and the father have the incentive to raise their children by example to commit and raise their own children. The people who promote same-sex "marriage" are trying to make two completely different things mean the same thing.

It is not discriminating anybody. Everyone has the same rights as you and me. They choose to be gay. They are not considered second class citizens. I don't recall there being separate bathrooms or water fountains for homosexuals. All Americans have the right to live and to love as they choose to. We don't need the government redefining marriage for that to become a reality.

Same-sex marriage I suppose can benefit the economy, but for same-sex couples to receive social security, inheritance tax, etc. does not mean we have to redefine marriage. You can simply craft a public policy that treats all Americans fairly without redefining marriage.

Merely a few years of research showing that a same-sex couple can raise a child is not merely close to the thousands of years of proof that a man and a women should raise the child. Men and women are very different. Men are more simple, logical and to the point. Women are more emotional and complicated. Fathers tend to encourage children to take chances and push limits, and mothers tend to be protective and more cautious. A child needs both a mother and the father role model. Both mother and a father are essential for a child's development. A mother and father are balanced to nurture a child, expand his experiences and to give him confidence. You might say one of the couple might be more masculine and the other more feminine, but that does not mean that person will automatically switch brains with a man or a women.

By the way you didn't use any references so I can't really take your word for the facts, you did not give me the opportunity to double check.

http://www.citizenlink.com...
http://www.cfcidaho.org...
http://billmuehlenberg.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Raxack1234

Pro

Thanks for accepting my challenge. I will be posting my sources at a later time. In round 3. But right now I am in a rush so il just defend my point.

Marriage is not only to raise a child otherwise infertile couples or fertile couples not wishing to have children would be prevented of marrying. An just to make it clear gay marriage is already legal in 37 states and there have been no adverse affect on straight people or children for that matter. To say that religious people would be offended is not a valid argument since in the United States we support equality and liberty. Its like me saying that a cultural group should not get married because my religion does not allowed it. Its rather unfair isn't it? For religious people who thing marriage is a secular tradition only for those who believe or follow there God whoever it might be. Take in mind that marrying someone by legal terms is not the same as marrying someone by the church. Most gay people cant get married in any church that I am aware off. Witch I find truly fair. But to not allow gay people to marry by legal means is discrimination and unconstitutional. The pay taxes and all that there is to pay to the government. Why should they be denied a right that they deserve? An I don't think that most of the population disagrees as the latest tracking poll had 63% of the American population vote for Gay marriage.

I will posting the links shortly. Sorry for the grammar im in a rush.
PickUp_Artist

Con

Infertile or fertile couples would not have to be prevented from marrying because procreation is connected to the essence of marriage in the family. Well a man and a women may accidentally not be able to conceive their union is still in accordance with nature. Again the government shouldn't be interested in regulating somebody's love life. Everyone is free to live and to love as they choose. The government should be interested in the marital relationship because the unions of men and women can make kids. What I am trying to say is that some people still don't want the government redefining marriage. There are alternatives for homosexuals to get their "equal rights" without redefining marriage. Not allowing gay people to become married is not discriminating anyone. Again they choose to be gay, we all have equal rights. Everyone has their free will. Just because they choose to be gay and can't get married does not mean they are being discriminating and it's unconstitutional.

Homosexuality just isn't natural. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always.

It's simple. A man can never be a women. Lets say I have an apple, if the apple has a worm inside of it or it's rotten it's still an apple. As for and orange can never be an apple, no matter what you do to it. Same things for homosexuals.

Also legalizing same-sex "marriage" would just promote the homosexual lifestyle. Same-sex "marriage" serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone"s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
Debate Round No. 2
Raxack1234

Pro

Raxack1234 forfeited this round.
PickUp_Artist

Con

I am saddened that my opponent forfeited round 3. I will assume time got away from him.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dekotacat1 1 year ago
dekotacat1
very true
Posted by PickUp_Artist 1 year ago
PickUp_Artist
I know but the point is it still isn't natural. Just because a man turns into a women it doesn't mean he get's the brain of a women just because he has artificial implants.
Posted by dekotacat1 1 year ago
dekotacat1
a man can be a woman it's called a sex change
Posted by dekotacat1 1 year ago
dekotacat1
No I didn't :/
Posted by Raxack1234 1 year ago
Raxack1234
You do know america was basically influenced by europe for most of the past 200 years.
Posted by dekotacat1 1 year ago
dekotacat1
I did mean that I'm not to good with my words but yes I did mean that and really are there ? I didn't know that :)
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
Last time I checked, 200 years has been a very long tradition. You also said that it was only found in "Western Europe and little settlements in North America." Unfortunately for your argument we are in "north america" where it has been traditionally between a man and a women.
Posted by Raxack1234 1 year ago
Raxack1234
The concept of "traditional marriage" has changed over time, and the definition of marriage as always being between one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. Harvard University historian Nancy F. Cott stated that until two centuries ago, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world's population, and were found only in "Western Europe and little settlements in North America." Polygamy has been widespread throughout history, according to Brown University political scientist Rose McDermott, PhD. [110][106] Interracial marriage was once illegal in a majority of US states, and was still banned in half of US states until the 1950s. [108] Official unions between same-sex couples, indistinguishable from marriages except for gender, are believed by some scholars to have been common until the 13th Century in many countries, with the ceremonies performed in churches and the union sealed with a kiss between the two parties. [106]
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
@Dekotacat1

The only problem I have with your comment is that you said leader of the world. I personally don't think any one person should rule the entire world. If the world ever becomes under one rule, it should be under the rule of a council like the UN.

Now if you mean a world leader like a president of a country or a prime minister, then I would like to point that there are already homosexual world leaders.
Posted by PickUp_Artist 1 year ago
PickUp_Artist
Agree
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Raxack1234PickUp_ArtistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by jsgolfer 1 year ago
jsgolfer
Raxack1234PickUp_ArtistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had some good points. Unfortunately, both sides also attempted to pass of completely incorrect statements as facts. Shame. Do better research next time on marriage law and such things. I'm going to have to give points to con for conduct and sources.