The Instigator
gt4o2007
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Should Gay marriage be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 6 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,248 times Debate No: 34804
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

gt4o2007

Pro

In this debate we will be debating the legality of Gay marriage religious ideology cannot be used in this debate for U.S. laws have a separation of church and state.
Pro- will be stating that it should be legal
Con- Will be stating that it should not be legal
Burden of Proof is shared

For con they should use there round 1 to make there case against gay marriage.

Thanks in advance who ever you are.
1Historygenius

Con

My Case

What is Marriage?

In this debate, we must understand what is the role of marriage society and how the government should act when involved in marriage. I am sure that first and foremost, me and my opponent both agree that marriage is a secular institution not a religious one. There is a separation of church and state in the United States, so we must understand that. There is a reason marriage must only be heterosexual and not homosexual. I will explain this reason.

Marriage in Society and Government

The purpose of marriage is to continue the survival of society. With marriage, people create children for society continue. If heterosexual marriage did not exist, then there would be no society as it is a bond that brings a male and female together to create children. Homosexuals cannot create childre. If an entire society was made up of homosexuals then that society would soon not exist. This is why heterosexual marriage is important to society.

The government's role is to keep society intact. Thus, homosexual marriage should not legalized because it does not benefit society. The government must create a procreative society in order to produce more children. Allowing heterosexuals to marry does just that. Because homosexuals do not create children, their marriage has no purpose and that is why it must remain illegal. [1,2,3,4,5]

Parenting

We must also see what is best for children, who will be brought up in a society. Homosexuals can obviously adopt children, but is that a good idea? A study in July 2012 took up that task. What he found is that children with homosexual parents do worse in all catergories compared to their heterosexual counterparts. In addition, my opponent has brought up the question of marriages and relationships into the debate. This is about divorce. Divorce has always been a negative influence on children. What we find is that homosexual relationships break up more than heterosexual relationships. This proves that homosexual marriage has a negative effect on society. [6]

One article also proves that children need mothers and fathers and that families with only just mothers or fathers (homosexual couples) have problems. [7] Another study proves this. In fact it has lead to an increase in violence along with physical and mental damage on children:

"Homosexually-behaving adults inherently suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse; therefore, as a group, households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home environments needed by foster children." [7]

"High rates of violence in lesbian and gay relationships finds significant support in the research. In a study Lockhart (1994) found that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their partners during the 12 months prior to the study. Thirty-one percent reported one or more incidents of physical abuse." [8]

"While it is not intended to detail the medical consequences of homosexual practices, the following diseases have extraordinary frequency among gay men: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isopora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C and syphilis. The transmission of some of these diseases are so rare among heterosexuals as to be virtually unknown. Other diseases, such as syphilis, were found among heterosexuals, but not nearly as prevalent as in the gay population (Diggs. 2003). The CDC (1999) reported that 85% of syphilis cases in King County. Washington were among gay men. Presently, syphilis has reached epidemic in San Francisco (Heredia, 2001). Besides diseases, physical conditions associated with anal intercourse include hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma and retained foreign bodies (Barone, 1983). The list continues with the "gay bowel syndrome" and extremely high rates of parasitic infections (Hastings & Weher. 1994; Kazal. 1976)." [8]

Conclusion

I have proven that gay marriage should not be legal because it does not benefit society. It should also not be legal because it hurts children.

Sources

1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
2. "PROTECTING AMERICA'S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
3. "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
4. "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
5. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)
6. Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)
7. http://catholiceducation.org...
8. http://narth.com...
Debate Round No. 1
gt4o2007

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.
I will first respond to my opponent then state why gay marriage should be legal. As in past debates my opponent has simply copy and pasted his argument continuously http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org....

Now in other debates people against my opponent mention infertile people but I would also like to mention people that have there reproductive organs taken away whether it be from war, the government, or a freak accident. It is safe to say based on my opponent's other debates his response will be.

"Heterosexual marriages in which no children are present still will likely practice safe sex measures. That would mean that are still forming procreative type unions and are benefiting state interests. What the government wants is a climate for procreation and procreative unions so not procreative effect. If gay marriage cannot fulfill procreative type unions then the government has not reason to legalize it. My opponent has not provided the government's look on marriage while I have. I have provided a source proving that it is the government's job is to make laws that benefit society and heterosexuality does. Homosexuality does not. [1]"

I will save my opponent the trouble of copying and pasting his argument again by refuting it, lets dissect this statement. "Heterosexual marriages in which no children are present still will likely practice safe sex measures." This is the same as with homosexual couples practice safe sex measures as well but even if they did not marriage would not change this.

"That would mean that are still forming procreative type unions and are benefiting state interests." This statement does not make sense because you either do or don't reproduce there is not a type of reproductive union an infertile marriage to your comparison serves no benefit to state interests.

" What the government wants is a climate for procreation and procreative unions so not procreative effect. If gay marriage cannot fulfill procreative type unions then the government has not reason to legalize it." I would not argue that the government wants a climate for procreation because if there is none the human race would go extinct but this is not the issue actually. To much procreation is the issue http://www.cnn.com... http://www.smithsonianmag.com... the government does not support over reproduction because it leads to overpopulation like we have now.

My opponent including Gay adoption has nothing to do with this debate because gay couples can adopt already without being married If you want to debate that have a gay adoption debate this is simply about gay marriage. Oh and your sources maybe provide links and not books that can't be looked up or verified.

My argument for Gay marriage.

If gay marriage was to be legalized gay couples could visit each other in the hospital when sick and not be forced to wait for the good or bad news at home or in the waiting room or be arrested for breaking the law
.http://www.huffingtonpost.com... as well as not being able to make the decisions that could be life saving for there desired partners instead of there family like straight couples enjoy.

With gay couples since gay marriage is not legalized when someone dies you are forced to pay an estate tax that heterosexual couple do not have to pay it simply just transfers over. http://www.cnn.com...

Now your argument is gay couples can't have kids therefore it should not be legal for gay marriage to be legal I have already pointed out why this is not true and have already dissected your response to infertile marriage. I have also provided why it should be legal and how kids and gay parents have nothing to do with this debate because it is only about gay marriage and gay couples can have kids already. With gay couples they can have kids as stated in your other debates there is artificial insemination therefore they are in a procreative type union because they can have kids and based on your own argument the government should support it because it adds to the population.

My opponent in other debates has stated that if homosexuals cannot procreate then the government has no reason to legalize it but I have already shown that they can procreate.

With your next round lets not quote books that cannot be looked up on the Internet because then I cannot look at your sources. But most of your sources are only about gay parents which has nothing to do with this debate as stated earlier.
I send this back to Con to make a better argument that is not copied and pasted from his other debates.
1Historygenius

Con

My Case

It seems that my opponent wants to attack my arguments on previous debates. In those debates I did research to a great extent, so I do not understand why my opponent would want to redo a debate I already conducted as it puts him in a vulnerable position.

"This statement does not make sense because you either do or don't reproduce there is not a type of reproductive union an infertile marriage to your comparison serves no benefit to state interests."

Incorrect. They are forming a type of union that supports children in a healthy environment which gay marriages does not. The government wants children to be raised well and marriages between men and women do that. Gay unions do not.

My opponent then discusses that procreative type unions can lead to overpopulation, but this is false because some people can choose not to have kids and still already fulfill the procreative environment.

"My opponent including Gay adoption has nothing to do with this debate because gay couples can adopt already without being married If you want to debate that have a gay adoption debate this is simply about gay marriage. Oh and your sources maybe provide links and not books that can't be looked up or verified."

So why did you bring up gay adoption in this debate in the first place if its is of no concern to you in this debate? You are making rather odd and irrelevant moves. You then complain about my sources, but I have always used the proper format for sourcing. You would be surprised, but simply putting in links has never been considered a proper format when writing serious and persuasive writing.

My Refutations

"If gay marriage was to be legalized gay couples could visit each other in the hospital when sick and not be forced to wait for the good or bad news at home or in the waiting room or be arrested for breaking the law"

"With gay couples since gay marriage is not legalized when someone dies you are forced to pay an estate tax that heterosexual couple do not have to pay it simply just transfers over."

Or we can just abolish the estate tax since it takes money from people. Also, this has little to do with why gays should be married. My opponent talks about a gay couple, but were talking about gay marriage. Remember that we are discussing husband and husband, not boyfriend and boyfriend. Both these arguments are irrelevant since my opponent never talks about a union, just a couple. Perhaps my opponent could clarify.

"Now your argument is gay couples can't have kids therefore it should not be legal for gay marriage to be legal I have already pointed out why this is not true and have already dissected your response to infertile marriage. I have also provided why it should be legal and how kids and gay parents have nothing to do with this debate because it is only about gay marriage and gay couples can have kids already. With gay couples they can have kids as stated in your other debates there is artificial insemination therefore they are in a procreative type union because they can have kids and based on your own argument the government should support it because it adds to the population."

The government wants children to be brought up in a healthy procreative environment, my studies conducted on gay parenting shows that gays are bad parents. You also say that kids and gay parents had nothing to do with this debate, but in fact it does. Since the government want children to be raised in a family with a healthy relationship, they would ban gay marriage because of its negative effects on children.

With your next round lets not quote books that cannot be looked up on the Internet because then I cannot look at your sources. But most of your sources are only about gay parents which has nothing to do with this debate as stated earlier.
I send this back to Con to make a better argument that is not copied and pasted from his other debates.

1. That's your problem if you cannot look at my sources. Your supposed to find better sources. Like I said before, I am just using the proper persuasive writing format used in a debate structure. Colleges and high schools typically use this method of sourcing.

2. Why should I make a better argument when no one has defeated it?

Conclusion

My opponent is just simply wrong on everything. For sources, I used proper studies and essays while my opponent just used biased news networks. I have clearly stated why the government wants gay marriage illegal. This is because it has no benefit on society and is in fact a negative with parenting. The government wants children to be brought up in a healthy environment and gay parents cannot provide that. Finally, my opponent seems to do terribly at grammar, so count this against him.







Debate Round No. 2
gt4o2007

Pro

"Incorrect. They are forming a type of union that supports children in a healthy environment which gay marriages does not. The government wants children to be raised well and marriages between men and women do that. Gay unions do not." Again children have nothing to do with gay marriage as even without being married gay COUPLES can have kids marriage is not the qualifying factor to have a kid.

"My opponent then discusses that procreative type unions can lead to overpopulation, but this is false because some people can choose not to have kids and still already fulfill the procreative environment." I did not discuss how it can lead to overpopulation I discussed how it has lead to overpopulation and if you read my links and did not write them off as "Biased news networks" you would see that by 2050 the world population will be above 9 billion people.

When I mentioned gay adoption I misspoke I meant to say that gay parents having kids has nothing to do with gay marriage and because as I have stated people do not have to be married to have kids and gay marriage would not change how many kids go to gay parents. If you want to debate what family is better for a kid have another debate because this is not about that at all but you made it about kids in your opening argument saying the only reason Gay marriage should not be legal is because gay people can't reproduce.

Your sources in a persuasive writing would be acceptable but in this debate it is nearly impossible for me to read your sources it is only possible for me to get your understanding of the books or essays what ever they are. Now for you to call them biased net works I could do the exact same thing saying your sources are straight people and therefore they are biased towards straight marriage.

"Or we can just abolish the estate tax since it takes money from people. Also, this has little to do with why gay should be married. My opponent talks about a gay couple, but were talking about gay marriage. Remember that we are discussing husband and husband, not boyfriend and boyfriend. Both these arguments are irrelevant since my opponent never talks about a union, just a couple. Perhaps my opponent could clarify." Gladly my argument has everything to do with this debate because we are discussing the inequality of straight and gay marriage. Onto why I say gay couple and not a husband and husband is because it is not legal yet so for me to call them married would be false because it is not recognized by the federal government. Maybe my opponent should recognize that it is not legal on the federal level only in certain states.

"The government wants children to be brought up in a healthy procreative environment, my studies conducted on gay parenting shows that gays are bad parents." "Your studies" only showed that a gay couples with a child are not as productive as a marriage that lasts the full time of the child living with the parents.

"You also say that kids and gay parents had nothing to do with this debate, but in fact it does. Since the government want children to be raised in a family with a healthy relationship, they would ban gay marriage because of its negative effects on children". Kids and gay parents have nothing to do with this debate because we are not talking about gay parents we are talking about adults getting married not the adults having a child.

Again marriage does not give people authorization to have a child you can have a child with or without being married banning gay marriage would not stop gay people from having kids unless the government bans gay people from having kids which would be illegal.

"That's your problem if you cannot look at my sources. Your supposed to find better sources. Like I said before, I am just using proper persuasive writing format used in a debate structure. Colleges and high schools typically use this method of sourcing." If you cannot provide a source that can even be looked at in this debate why would it fall on me to go find better sources that would further your argument? Colleges and high schools use this type of sourcing in essays.

"Why should I make a better argument when no one has defeated?" Maybe because your understanding of my argument are not adequate and you would realize that I have already refuted your arguments.

"My opponent is just simply wrong on everything." Please show me how I am wrong on everything

"I have clearly stated why the government wants gay marriage illegal. This is because it has no benefit on society and is in fact a negative with parenting." You have stated clearly why you think the government should keep it illegal even though it would not matter if gay parents are not as good as lifelong straight marriages because gay people can still be parents without having to be married.

"The government wants children to be brought up in a healthy environment and gay parents cannot provide that." Then go debate someone on why gay parents should not have kids because that is all it is gay parents not parents that are married.

I will finish with this for my opponent to be able to say gay marriage should not be legalized because it hurts children. My opponent would have to show that for gay people to become parents the only way for them to obtain a child is to get married which I have already shown is not a factor for gay couples to have kids. http://adoption.about.com...

http://25.media.tumblr.com...

Make sure you check the last link it is very important.
1Historygenius

Con

My Case

"Again children have nothing to do with gay marriage as even without being married gay COUPLES can have kids marriage is not the qualifying factor to have a kid."


My opponent does not seem to understand that marriage has a special link to children. Yes, marriage is private, but it has a purpose to the public. That public purpose is the production of children and child rearing. It is only made for the male and female union that encourages responsible procreation. This is why the state must regulate marriage in society. Homosexuals cannot fulfill what marriage is. [1]

"I did not discuss how it can lead to overpopulation I discussed how it has lead to overpopulation and if you read my links and did not write them off as "Biased news networks" you would see that by 2050 the world population will be above 9 billion people."

Still, this has little to do with arguing for gay marriage as gay marriage cannot prevent the growth of the population. In fact, I read some sources on overpopulation it may just be a hoax. Populations have been massively declining in the western world. In fact, the CIA ranks the United States 121 out of 224 countries, so were not overpopulated. [2,3]

Again, this argument has little to do with gay marriage.

"When I mentioned gay adoption I misspoke I meant to say that gay parents having kids has nothing to do with gay marriage and because as I have stated people do not have to be married to have kids and gay marriage would not change how many kids go to gay parents. If you want to debate what family is better for a kid have another debate because this is not about that at all but you made it about kids in your opening argument saying the only reason Gay marriage should not be legal is because gay people can't reproduce."

Like I said above, marriage has a purpose with children and that is why the state regulates it. This is just repeating information from above.

"Your sources in a persuasive writing would be acceptable but in this debate it is nearly impossible for me to read your sources it is only possible for me to get your understanding of the books or essays what ever they are. Now for you to call them biased net works I could do the exact same thing saying your sources are straight people and therefore they are biased towards straight marriage."


You don't need to know if my sources come from straight people or not and you don't even need to read the sources. All you need to do is counter with stronger and respected sources on why marriage has little to do with children. All you say is that children has no purpose to marriage, but I have used sources to proved that it is in the state's interest that marriage does have a purpose and that it must be regulated. You must find why the state does not have that reason.

My Refutations

Gladly my argument has everything to do with this debate because we are discussing the inequality of straight and gay marriage. Onto why I say gay couple and not a husband and husband is because it is not legal yet so for me to call them married would be false because it is not recognized by the federal government. Maybe my opponent should recognize that it is not legal on the federal level only in certain states.

But your talking about why gay marriage should be legal, so you should not be using the term couple. Homosexual unions would be a better term. Again, this argument does nowhere.

"Your studies" only showed that a gay couples with a child are not as productive as a marriage that lasts the full time of the child living with the parents.

Indeed. That is why gay marriage should be illegal. They traditionally make bad parents and do not raise children in the healthy environment that the state hopes.

"Kids and gay parents have nothing to do with this debate because we are not talking about gay parents we are talking about adults getting married not the adults having a child."

My opponent has repeated this argument for the third time. I have proved that the state does have a reason to regulate marriage and I have constantly used essays and studies to prove this. My opponent has no properly countered it.

"Again marriage does not give people authorization to have a child you can have a child with or without being married banning gay marriage would not stop gay people from having kids unless the government bans gay people from having kids which would be illegal."

My opponent has now repeated it for the fourth time. Just read my argument at the beginning of this round.

"If you cannot provide a source that can even be looked at in this debate why would it fall on me to go find better sources that would further your argument? Colleges and high schools use this type of sourcing in essays."

We have already talked about this. My opponent is just repeating again.

My opponent then goes after my conclusion, but conclusions are not meant to be attacked. There only meant to conclude this round of the debate.

Conclusion

My opponent has not properly refuted my argument on the state's interest in marriage and has no sources to back him up. I have proven that marriage is certain obligations to the public and that is why it must be regulated. My opponent continues to show bad grammar in this debate, so count the point against him. Finally, he continues to repeat arguments in this round and gives a rude response to my conclusion on his grammar (the tumblr picture). That is bad conduct and count that point against him. There is a reason we have a spelling and grammar option in debates. Readers of the debate might have a bad time understanding my opponent's arguments.

I strongly urge you to vote Con.

Sources

1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)
2. https://www.cia.gov...
3. Osterfeld, David. "Overpopulation: The Perennial Myth." Fee.org. The Freeman, 1 Sept. 1993. Web.
Debate Round No. 3
gt4o2007

Pro

"My opponent does not seem to understand that marriage has a special link to children. Yes, marriage is private, but it has a purpose to the public. That public purpose is the production of children and child rearing. It is only made for the male and female union that encourages responsible procreation. This is why the state must regulate marriage in society. Homosexuals cannot fulfill what marriage is."

Your right I do not understand how you could say marriage has a special link to children because there are many marriages that have no children and could not possible serve a special link to a child. The "public" purpose of marriage by your statement would still not have a need for infertile people but once this is mentioned you just say well it encourages "responsible procreation" yet I have already stated that it is possible for homosexuals to have kids. Then once it is mentioned that homosexuals can procreate you say there horrible parents that hurt children.

Now we both agree that multiple studies show that gay parents are not the ideal parents compared to a man and a woman that stay married the entire time there child is living with them. The same studies also note that gay parents would be better then that of a single parent situation or a divorce.

"My opponent has repeated this argument for the third time. I have proved that the state does have a reason to regulate marriage and I have constantly used essays and studies to prove this. My opponent has no properly countered it."

If you haven't noticed I repeated this because of how many times my opponent ties marriage to children. I have also shown with my sources that you do not need to be married to have kids or if you are married you have to have kids.
My opponent's only argument against gay marriage has been that it hurts the children I have already shown that it is not marriage that can have an impact on children it is the parents whether it be married or non married parents.

"You don't need to know if my sources come from straight people or not and you don't even need to read the sources."
Then what would be the point of having a source to begin with if other people cannot read it?

"All you need to do is counter with a stronger and respected sources on why marriage has little to do with children. All you say is that children has no purpose to marriage, but I have used sources to proved that it is in the states interest that marriage does have a purpose and that it must be regulated."

I have countered your arguments already you have failed to actually counter mine except for saying what your view on marriage is, and how the sole purpose for marriage is reproduction.

"But your talking about why gay marriage should be legal, so you should not be using the term couple. Homosexual unions would be a better term. Again, this argument does nowhere."

When you refer to a husband and wife you still say they look like a great couple you do not say wow they look like a great heterosexual union don't they?

By the way the reason I included the picture was because it was hilarious and I still find it hilarious. Calm down buddy it was a joke.
1Historygenius

Con

My Case

"Your right I do not understand how you could say marriage has a special link to children because there are many marriages that have no children and could not possible serve a special link to a child. The "public" purpose of marriage by your statement would still not have a need for infertile people but once this is mentioned you just say well it encourages "responsible procreation" yet I have already stated that it is possible for homosexuals to have kids. Then once it is mentioned that homosexuals can procreate you say there horrible parents that hurt children."


Heterosexual marriages in which no children are present still will likely practice safe sex measures. That would mean that are still forming procreative type unions and are benefitting state interests. What the government wants is a climate for procreation and procreative unions so not procreative effect. If gay marriage cannot fulfill procreative type unions then the government has not reason to legalize it.

"Now we both agree that multiple studies show that gay parents are not the ideal parents compared to a man and a woman that stay married the entire time there child is living with them. The same studies also note that gay parents would be better then that of a single parent situation or a divorce."

We are not talking about divorce or situtations with single parents. Were talking about gay marriage.

My Refutations

"If you haven't noticed I repeated this because of how many times my opponent ties marriage to children. I have also shown with my sources that you do not need to be married to have kids or if you are married you have to have kids.
My opponent's only argument against gay marriage has been that it hurts the children I have already shown that it is not marriage that can have an impact on children it is the parents whether it be married or non married parents."

Like I said before. The institution of marriage must be protected by the state because it allows children to grow up in a healthy environment and like I said above, Heterosexual unions with no children will still practice safe measures. The government looks for procreative effect.

"I have countered your arguments already you have failed to actually counter mine except for saying what your view on marriage is, and how the sole purpose for marriage is reproduction."

Because I have proven that the sole purpose of marriage is its public obligations there is a reason why homosexual unions should not exist. I have proven what the purpose of marriage is, you have not.

"When you refer to a husband and wife you still say they look like a great couple you do not say wow they look like a great heterosexual union don't they?"

Your talking about in a social format, but this is a debate format. Also, this argument gets you nowhere and does not help you in the debate.

Conclusion

My opponent has still been unable to properly refute my arguments. He is not defined what the purpose of marriage is and how it is important to society. My arguments on its purpose and on gay parents have both held. My opponent's weak arguments have been easily refuted. Based on how weak my opponent has debated I strongly insist that I get all the points. My opponent has bad conduct, my opponent has bad grammar, my opponent has weak arguments, and my opponent has brought no sources.
Debate Round No. 4
gt4o2007

Pro

1."Heterosexual marriages in which no children are present still will likely practice safe sex measures."
1A. You are repeating this again there is not a study out there that you have presented that would say when gay people marry they have unsafe sex. Even if homosexuals did not have "Safe sex" while married this would not be a deciding factor at all when debating the legality of it because there are many straight marriages that would not practice "safe sex".

2. "That would mean that are still forming procreative type unions and benefitting state interests."
2A. They are forming a union between a man and a woman that if they weren't infertile could reproduce, but since they cannot they do not benefit society in your definition.

3."What government wants is a climate for procreation and procreative unions so not procreative effect."
3A. I don't understand what you mean here

4."If gay marriage cannot fulfill procreative type unions then the government has not reason to legalize it."
4A. Again gay people can become parents and reproduce just like any other person. Also the government does not say that the only reason marriage is legal is to procreate, because this would be absurd and you can have children without being married.

5."We are not talking about divorce or situations with single parents. Were talking about gay marriage.
5A. Your right we are not talking about divorce or situations with single parents. But my point is that you are trying to make it seem as if homosexual parents are the worst people ever and hurt there children, and use this as an argument against gay marriage yet you are not arguing against marriage for people that might divorce, or could become a single parent due to trouble in there lives.

6."Like I said before. The institution of marriage must be protected by the state because it allows children to grow up in healthy environment and like I said above, Heterosexual unions with no children will still practice safe measures. The government looks for procreative effect."
6A. Not a single person has said that marriage should not be protected I simply argue that it should be changed. Marriage I also agree allows a child to grow up in a healthier environment because the child would have 2 parents, but as I have said and proven before you do not have to be married to have a child.

7."Because I have proven that the sole purpose of marriage is its public obligation there is a reason why homosexual unions should not exist. I have proven what the purpose of marriage is, you have not."
7A. You have not proven anything. Marriage is not a public obligation, it is a commitment between two consenting adults that love each other and want to spend the rest of there lives together and get the benefits that the government has to offer for married couples.

8."Your talking in a social format, but this is a debate format. Also, this argument gets you nowhere and does not help you in the debate."
8A. It was not a argument I was explaining why I did not use the word union over the word couple. I provided a specific example for it.

Throughout this debate I have completely refuted my opponents argument that. Gay marriage hurts children and means that they cannot procreate. I have given specific example on how absurd this statement is here is a small list why.
1.You can have kids with out being married.
2.Gay couples can procreate with artificial insemination.
3.Marriage is much more than just having sex.
4. Based on my opponent's statement anyone that does not have a kid should not get married because it does not end with procreation.

Now the last one I know my opponent will say well just because they can't have kids doesn't mean they shouldn't get married because they still have a "Procreative type union". The key word in that quote is "Type" because the only similarities a procreative and procreative "type" union have, is that they are at this moment, due to gay marriage not being legal on the federal level a Man and a Woman.

My opponent also throughout this debate failed to recognize the flaw in his own argument. If gay couples cannot not procreate then how can they possibly have studies done on if they are adequate parents? Please do not try to say that they simply adopted 14 million babies because only 65,000 adopted children have gay parents and the others have a biological gay parent clearly your argument is invalid.

I my self have provided many reasons that gay marriage should be legal and you have not refuted any of them you have simply attacked the grammar of a high school freshman.

Lets do a quick summary of this debate.

Con- States that since homosexuals cannot procreate they should not get married. Then Con goes on to state that gay parents hurt children therefore they should not be aloud to get married.

Here is why they are wrong.
1.Homosexuals can procreate
2. Without marriage people can still have kids
3.With marriage you are not required to have a kid
4. Many other people like Asexual and infertile people should not be allowed to marry

Pro states- Due to inequality two consenting adults that would like to get married should be able to.

Here is why this is right
1.When a persons partner is in the hospital you cannot visit them
2.Estate tax when partner dies
3.Civil rights
4.Income tax

In conclusion to not allow gay marriage is a civil rights issue and has not one affect on society at all except for homophobic people that will have to get used to it. I urge the voters to pay attention to the arguments that were presented in this debate and see which debater truly did have the better argument whether it be for or against the motion.

Since I have been accused of having brought "no sources" here is all the sources I included.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://adoption.about.com...

Total of 8 sources were given as well as using my opponent's own sources "studies" in my debate.
1Historygenius

Con

My Case

"You are repeating this again there is not a study out there that you have presented that would say when gay people marry they have unsafe sex. Even if homosexuals did not have "Safe sex" while married this would not be a deciding factor at all when debating the legality of it because there are many straight marriages that would not practice "safe sex"."


"They are forming a union between a man and a woman that if they weren't infertile could reproduce, but since they cannot they do not benefit society in your definition."

Nobody is claiming that marriage and procreation are the same thing. They are distinct, but inherently linked. Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children. Not every married couple will have children, but every married couple has an inherent link to the generation of children, even if they choose not to act on that link or ifthey cannot exercise it due to some defect. To put it more succinctly, all marriages are procreative-in-type, even if not in effect.

"I don't understand what you mean here."

My opponent does not even understand some of my arguments. Please count this against him.

"Again gay people can become parents and reproduce just like any other person. Also the government does not say that the only reason marriage is legal is to procreate, because this would be absurd and you can have children without being married."

My opponent has brought no sources on what the state's interest is in marriage. I have, so my opponent is wrong here in just saying the government does not say marriage is only legal to procreate. If this is incorrect, then what does the government say? We have discussed gay people as parents and it has been prove that they are bad parents. Even with reproduction, they do not follow the interest of the state in that they are not raising children in a safe environment.

My Refutations

"Your right we are not talking about divorce or situations with single parents. But my point is that you are trying to make it seem as if homosexual parents are the worst people ever and hurt there children, and use this as an argument against gay marriage yet you are not arguing against marriage for people that might divorce, or could become a single parent due to trouble in there lives."

Because divorce is not the issue, marriage is. We cannot predict who will divorce and who will not. In the case of single parents we would not be arguing marriage. With gay parents we are arguing marriage. After all, the issue is if gay marriage should be legal.

"Not a single person has said that marriage should not be protected I simply argue that it should be changed. Marriage I also agree allows a child to grow up in a healthier environment because the child would have 2 parents, but as I have said and proven before you do not have to be married to have a child."

To change marriage would be to change its definition and to change its purpose. This is impossible as it would destroy the institution and the good it does. In fact, a state that distinguishes and recognizes marriage as a special institution will exclude some kinds of unions. This is the case with homosexual unions. [1]

"It was not a argument I was explaining why I did not use the word union over the word couple. I provided a specific example for it."

Your specific example is a social format.

"1.You can have kids with out being married."

Then we would not be discussing marriage. We are only discussing the cases with marriage.

"2.Gay couples can procreate with artificial insemination."

That's not proper procreation. This is not involve two bodies coming together for the creation of a child.

"3.Marriage is much more than just having sex."

Obviously.

"4. Based on my opponent's statement anyone that does not have a kid should not get married because it does not end with procreation."

I have refuted this above.

"Now the last one I know my opponent will say well just because they can't have kids doesn't mean they shouldn't get married because they still have a "Procreative type union". The key word in that quote is "Type" because the only similarities a procreative and procreative "type" union have, is that they are at this moment, due to gay marriage not being legal on the federal level a Man and a Woman."

Gay marriage is not a procreative type union. In fact, all unions are in a sense procreative type unions.

"My opponent also throughout this debate failed to recognize the flaw in his own argument. If gay couples cannot not procreate then how can they possibly have studies done on if they are adequate parents? Please do not try to say that they simply adopted 14 million babies because only 65,000 adopted children have gay parents and the others have a biological gay parent clearly your argument is invalid."

We are talking about children with adopted gay parents, that is what the studies use.

Here is why they are wrong.

"1.Homosexuals can procreate"

No they can't as explained above.

"2. Without marriage people can still have kids"

We are talking about with marriage, so this is irrelevant.

"3.With marriage you are not required to have a kid"

Obviously, but there is a public obligation.

"4. Many other people like Asexual and infertile people should not be allowed to marry"

My opponent now believes that Asexual and infertile people show not be allowed to marry. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. He should have clarified his fourth points.

"Here is why this is right
1.When a persons partner is in the hospital you cannot visit them"

Not important to the institution of marriage. This should be clarified.

"2.Estate tax when partner dies"

The estate tax should be abolished.

"3.Civil rights"

That right does not include gay marriage.

"4.Income tax"

I don't understand, my opponent should clarify here.

Conclusion

My opponent has still not explained what the definiton of marriage is and what the purpose of marriage is. My opponent has also not explained what the state's interest in marriage is. My opponent has not brought studies that refute mine on gay parenting. Marriage as a civil right does not extend to gay marriage. I have refuted my opponent's arguments while mine have held. My opponent's bad grammar is clearly known. We have already discussed bad conduct. I have used more reliable source than just media outlets and past debates.

Sources

1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
Vote bombs galore!
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
@16k lol
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
@silvertechbombs that's a vote bomb, you should get rid of it
Posted by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
I might take this...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
gt4o20071HistorygeniusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: zCounter effimero89
Vote Placed by effimero89 3 years ago
effimero89
gt4o20071HistorygeniusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: ,,,,
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
gt4o20071HistorygeniusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Con won but Pro EASILY could have. First of all, Pro put himself at a disadvantage by allowing Con to have more rounds than him, and not specifying that the last round was to be ignored by Con or something. Pro didn't really attack the finer points of the argument. Pro should have looked at this statement Con made: "The purpose of marriage is to continue the survival of society". By not disputing this statement, you let Con control the entire debate. Pro should have said that the purpose of marriage is NOT just to procreate, and ask Con for justification behind that claim.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
gt4o20071HistorygeniusTied
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: Wow, I did not realize people were so stupid. How can you not oppose gay marriage?
Vote Placed by silvertechfilms 3 years ago
silvertechfilms
gt4o20071HistorygeniusTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow, I never realized people were this stupid. How could you not be pro gay marriage?
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
gt4o20071HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had very weak refutations and showed a large mis-understanding of the majority of Con's arguments. Moreover, Pro's reasoning for why it should be legal was poor at best. Sources were at about a tie. Con had much better conduct and Pro's grammar was an atrocity.