Should gay couples be able to marry?
Debate Rounds (3)
It seems you see marriage as nothing more than a public declaration of whom one loves. This is not true, which you may know. There are other prerogatives, such as tax breaks for the couple, visiting rights, powers of attorney, etc. However, would�you really believe the government gives out privileges to a couple just because they love each other? Marriage laws* ensure that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.�
* The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing. 
Again, there is nowhere in the Bill of Rights or Constitution that anyone automatically has a right to marry.�
"No one should stop two people from loving each other and making it real."
And no one is.�They do not need a government stamp of approval for their love to be real.
"If you love someone and want to marry them, you should be allowed to and allowed to show everyone how you feel."
This statement really does make me think that you think marriage is only for showing people how one feels.�Let me ask you, if your only criterion for marriage is love (and perhaps being 'fair' and that it 'doesn't hurt anyone'), why not let multiple people marry, or an adult and child, or a person to an animal? I'm sure some pets and owners have special feelings for each other.
*Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974's Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry, shows we don't accept gay and lesbian couples or accept them to become a family. Gay marriage also will increase the chance of adopting children. In the United States, there is over 100,000 children waiting to be adopted and if same sex marriage goes up, so will children being adopted because same sex will eventually want to have their own family with their own kids.
Benefits are provided to married couples because, in turn, married couples benefit society.�Traditional marriage is taken to mean the marriage between 1 man & 1 woman. You cannot justify a problem by citing other problems.�Gays are treated equally. They are free to marry a person of the opposite sex, just like everyone else—excluding the cases I aforementioned.�
The breakdown of the family leads to the breakdown of society: Look at the rise of the welfare state, the rise in adolescent suicide, or at the rise in crime to see this. We have a record prison population, record numbers of teen suicides, and—not coincidentally—a record number of "alternative" families. According to Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson "Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States." When the nuclear family breaks down into divorce, cohabitation etc., society as a whole pays.
It has been shown time & time again that children thrive best with a biological mother & father because of the very nature of the parent's opposite sexes. Child Trends, a nonpartisan research organization, summarized the scholarly consensus as: "Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by 2 biological parents in a low-conflict marriage." If this is true, it follows that removing that dynamic of 2 opposite sexes would be detrimental to the raising of children.�
Thanks to pregnancy & breastfeeding, "mothers are more sensitive to the cries, words, and gestures of infants, toddlers, and adolescents, and, partly as a consequence, they are better at providing physical and emotional nurture to their children."�Fathers "excel when it comes to providing discipline, ensuring safety, and challenging their children to embrace life's opportunities and confront life's difficulties. The greater physical size and strength of most fathers, along with the pitch and inflection of their voice and the directive character of their speaking, give them an advantage when it comes to discipline, that is particularly evident with boys, who are more likely to comply w/ their fathers' than their mothers' discipline". Thus 2 essential elements to the development of children–nurture + discipline–are fulfilled in the 2 sexes.
This is not to say that a gay couple could not play that missing role essential to the development of a child. It is simply to say that it is not innate, and thus not as likely to be fulfilled as would be in a traditional marriage.
Please read this link for more studies containing evidence of the detrimental effects on children, as I'm running out of room:
smaher1 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mak-zie 2 years ago
|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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Good arguments for both sides-but Con won me over. And to be fair, Pro forfeited a round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.