The Instigator
LukeDude759
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should Same-Gender Marrages Be Legal?

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...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 757 times Debate No: 32099
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

LukeDude759

Pro

I'm no good with opening statements, so I'll let the other side start this one. Also, please use convincing arguments and good sources. I don't want anyone saying "It's unnatural" or quoting the Bible because we've all heard that before. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I want a challenge, and those arguments are just too easy to refute.
xXCryptoXx

Con


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.



Definitions


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)


(1) http://education.yahoo.com...


(2) http://education.yahoo.com...


(3) http://education.yahoo.com...


(4) http://education.yahoo.com...



Rules


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:



  1. The presence of a father reduces the chances that the child will participate in criminal activities and reduces the chances the child will take drugs.

  2. Lesbian mothers make children more sexually active. Fathers help the child stay chaste.

  3. “Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex.” (7)

  4. People have the best sex lives when raised by heterosexual parents.

  5. Fathers help children with interaction among other people.

  6. When going through puberty, the father teaches the son “how to be assertive and how to be a “man”.” (7)


(5) http://catholiceducation.org...


(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.
Debate Round No. 1
LukeDude759

Pro

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.


Marriage Benefits

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:

  • visitation rights and can make medical decisions, unless otherwise specified in a living will
  • benefits for federal employees -- many of which are also offered by private employers -- such as sick leave, bereavement leave, days off for the birth of a child, pension and retirement benefits, family health insurance plans
  • some property and inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will
  • the ability to create life insurance trusts
  • tax benefits, such as being able to give tax free gifts to a spouse and to file joint tax returns
  • the ability to receive Medicare, Social Security, disability and veteran's benefits for a spouse
  • discount or family rates for auto, health and homeowners insurance
  • immigration and residency benefits, making it easier to bring a spouse to the U.S. from abroad
  • visiting rights in jail"

Source: http://people.howstuffworks.com...

Seeing as there are so many benefits, you can understand why two people of the same gender would want to marry despite being unable to procreate.


Government has a role in marriage, however that role should be limited

I left this line unchanged as I agree that government's role in marriage should be limited, but I believe it should be limited to less of an extent than you do. 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.

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.


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.

1. I have never committed a criminal offense (I can't say I will never commit one by accident), and I have never and will never take drugs.

3. I have formed a sexual identity, but still have trouble interacting with girls despite always living with my mom.

5. I interact perfectly well with other people (Including the opposite sex, when not romantically interested).

Like I said, I used to have a father, so don't rely too much on this information.


Other notes

Though I should have said this earlier, I would like to explain why the "unnatural" argument is too easy to refute. First of all, it's hypocritical. There are too many "unnatural" things the average person uses in a day than I can count on my fingers. Computer, internet, phone, refrigerator, cars, even the clothes you're wearing. Second, it's false. I don't remember the exact number, but homosexuality is found in thousands of species. It's perfectly natural, and the argument that it isn't just shows lack of research.

Looking forward to round 2!

xXCryptoXx

Con

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:

  1. Heterosexuals can marry one person of the opposite sex.
  2. Homosexuals can marry one person of the opposite sex.
  3. Heterosexuals cannot marry people of the same sex.
  4. Homosexuals cannot marry people of the same sex.
  5. In addition to this, all other rights are granted to them as human beings by the Constitution, amendments, ect.

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:

  1. You are an exception, or
  2. You father was truly important to your learning as a child so you cannot be counted towards this study at all, and you haven't been put in a homosexual fily atmosphere.

I am very sure it is the second one.


Other notes


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.





Debate Round No. 2
LukeDude759

Pro

LukeDude759 forfeited this round.
xXCryptoXx

Con

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.

Hopefully my opponent will give me a response in the next rounds.

Extend arguments to Round 3.

Debate Round No. 3
LukeDude759

Pro

LukeDude759 forfeited this round.
xXCryptoXx

Con

:/

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
LukeDude759

Pro

LukeDude759 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
LukeDude759xXCryptoXxTied
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's intelligence was too much for Pro. FF.