Should Same-Gender Marrages Be Legal?
I Accept Your Challenge.
I need practice with gay marriage debates anyways. I’m going to start with some definition and rules if Pro does not mind.
Legal – “In conformity with or permitted by law” (1)
Marriage – “The state of being married” (2)
Gender – “Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture” (3)
Same – “Being the very one; identical” (4)
No trolling, semantics, straw manning, lawyering, language, insults, or any other action deemed as inappropriate by the average DDO user.
Now then, let’s begin.
My opponent has stated that he does not want any arguments pertaining to the nature of homosexuality or any biblical stand points so I will not do so. I will start off with some simple points then expand later in the debate depending on my opponent’s response.
Marriage and Procreation
What makes marriage what it is? What makes marriage special so that it should only be obtained by man and woman together? I can answer that with one word. Procreation. Normally the argument in support of gay marriage goes along the lines of, “Oh well they really love each other so they should get married!” If marriage was about the emotional connection then why wouldn’t the two people simply stay as girlfriend and boyfriend? There is no point in recognizing a relationship that is only out of love. Obviously, only man and woman can procreate. Without procreation a society could not continue to live or thrive. The reason the man and woman get the marriage benefits is because they are doing society a “favor” per say by procreating and allowing the society to live. This is something homosexuals simply cannot do. Procreation is at the base of marriage; it is the main reason marriage exists. This fits the traditional view of marriage, which is between man and woman. Gay marriage gives absolutely no value to society at all as a whole.
Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited
There is a limited role that the government can, and cannot do with marriage. Hopefully the government would never go as far as to legalize marriages based around pedophilia, bestiality, having multiple spouses, ect. In order to preserve the sanctity and meaning of marriage, the government must draw the line somewhere on who gets married. It logical to see that that line should be drawn at marriage between a man and a woman. Reasoning behind this can be seen in my procreation argument. Marriages between man and woman benefit society while not complicating society like having multiple spouses could do.
My opponent will likely respond to my procreation argument with the adoption argument and the No Difference theory which I will respond to now.
Parenting among homosexuals
Obviously one of the most important things in society is the children and how they are raised. Children need to be raised well in order to keep the society moving forward without problems. Homosexuals cannot achieve the expectations set in raising children well, or even better than heterosexual parents and I will now explain why.
A study taken in July of 2012 proved that homosexual parents fail in all categories in being better than their heterosexual counterparts at parenting.
"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."(5)
A study taken from the Journal of Human sexuality (6) concludes the following:
(6) Journal of Human Sexuality
(7) Quote from Fanboy in his debate, “Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.” I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate, and I would like to thank 1Historygenius, 16kadams, and Fanboy for helping me to form my arguments.
You seem very good with formatting, and you've obviously done this a few times before. My arguments probably won't look as professionally put together, but I'll do my best.
In your argument, you asked, "Why wouldn't the two people simply stay as boyfriend and girlfriend?" Off-topic, as you are against same-gender (Since this commonly confused, I will mention that "sex" is not the correct term when referring to sexual identity) marriages, I understand why you neglected to mention "boyfriend and boyfriend" or "girlfriend and girlfriend," though this also applies to homosexual relationships. Now, let's get back on topic. They would marry not only out of love, but for the benefits provided by our government. Here is a part of an article I found:
"...there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage. In this section, we'll list some of those benefits.
Spouses have or are entitled to:
Your formatting looks quite fine Pro, and I would like to thank you for not giving me a big wall of text to read through.
Now then, onto my rebuttals.
1) Marriage Benefits
Pro states, “In your argument, you asked, "Why wouldn't the two people simply stay as boyfriend and girlfriend?" Off-topic, as you are against same-gender (Since this commonly confused, I will mention that "sex" is not the correct term when referring to sexual identity) marriages, I understand why you neglected to mention "boyfriend and boyfriend" or "girlfriend and girlfriend," though this also applies to homosexual relationships.”
I do apologize for the mistake. I meant to add in girl/girl relationships and man/man relationships in my example. The point still stands however. What I was getting to is that there is no point in marriage if it is only about the emotional connection between two people and nothing else. My point was that the main point of marriage is procreation and not about emotional connection, because gays can only have an emotional connection and cannot procreate or even raise children properly then they don’t deserve the benefits of marriage, or deserve to get married at all.
My opponent states, “They would marry not only out of love, but for the benefits provided by our government. Here is a part of an article I found”
I already wrote that the reason heterosexuals get the benefits they do from marriage is because they provide society with benefits. It’s almost as if society is repaying them for the service they do for society. Married couples can procreate and if they don’t procreate they can raise children properly. Those are two things homosexuals cannot do.
In addition to the fact that homosexuals do not deserve the marriage benefits because homosexual marriage does not provide any service for society, it is also balderdash to think that homosexuals lack any rights that heterosexuals do. This can be put simply below:
We can see through this, that we have the exact same rights. To say a homosexual does not have the same rights as a heterosexual would be the same as saying a pedophile, someone who practices polygamy, and someone who practices bestiality do not have the same rights as a heterosexual.
2) Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited
“Obviously, the government shouldn't allow pedophiliac or bestial marriages or marriages between three or more people, but I wouldn't limit it to only heterosexual marriages.”
Considering this debate is about gay marriage, I feel there is no need to respond to most of what you have said. All other points I have made in this debate relate to why gay marriage should be illegal.
“Of course, adoption isn't a smart rebuttal as it isn't the adopting couple who made the child. I would have made the argument of having a close friend or relative donate his sperm if the marriage is female, or her egg if the marriage is male. I understand that this is a complicated and unconventional process, but I believe this counts as procreation.”
I would normally put this statement under Homosexual Parenting, but because you made note to it here, I will respond here. My point was that homosexual parenting does not work well no matter what. It does not matter how that person goes about raising a child, whether it is through adoption, artificial insemination ect.
Although, I would agree that it some-what counts as procreation, it is still not beneficial in society seeing that we need properly raised children for society to function properly. Homosexuals cannot raise children properly therefore they still do not help society in any way.
The heart of marriage is to procreate, and raise children properly. If you cannot procreate, like in the case of an infertile couple, you can still have the choice to adopt and raise children properly.
Marriage is about the procreation and the raising of children properly in type, not in effect. This means that as long as it is possible that a large majority of them will be able to benefit society, then it is acceptable.
3) Parenting Among Homosexuals
‘My dad died when I was young, so I can say from experience that some examples of that study aren't true. Of course, I had a father for the first few years of my life, so it might not be reliable.”
I am sorry for your loss. I must say that it is not quite the same. Not quite enough for it to be acceptable as a refutation in fact. We will use you case in the sense that you had to moms instead of having one mom and losing your dad in your early age. The difference is that you little baby brain was aware of your father at an early age, and although you may not remember, your mind was aware of your father’s role in your life. This allowed you to actually learn from your father from a very early age. Even better so, because the first couple years of a child are where they really start picking up and learning things, you learned from your father before you were even aware of it.
In addition to this, you have not lived with mothers all of your life. This can cause a lot of confusion on a child during their early life seeing that they are genetically attracted to males. When they see their moms that will cause their brain to conflict with their very genetics and make a mess of things.
Even more so, the studies I listed only apply to the majority of children raised by homosexual parents, not necessarily all of them. There will always be exceptions.
So either one of two things are happening in your case:
I am very sure it is the second one.
Although this is unrelated to the debate seeing that we both agreed not to bring up and biblical or natural-law arguments, I would still like to respond. I would like to note to voters that this portion of the debate does not count.
I would like to point out the natural law argument only applies to morality. Not everyday items. For example, being on a plane isn’t against natural law because it is not a moral issue. Homosexuality is however. Basically the words “natural” and “moral” are inter-changeable in the natural law argument. As for what you about animal species practicing homosexuality, the Natural Law argument only applies to beings that can reason and have logic. Animals have neither of these.
I await my opponent’s rebuttals.
LukeDude759 forfeited this round.
It is sad to see my opponent has not responded to this debate. If the case for the forfeit is because you cannot build a proper response against my argument I would appreciate it if you simply typed in "I concede this debate" the next round or even better, I would prefer you to try to make your arguments and post them.
LukeDude759 forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments.
LukeDude759 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|