The Instigator
alexsimran
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
21MolonLabe
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Should gay marriage 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 6 votes the winner is...
21MolonLabe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 937 times Debate No: 75128
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

alexsimran

Pro

Gay marriage should be legal because, like straight people, they are people who have fallen in love with another person and want to spend the rest of their life and start a family with someone. It is wrong to deprive two people of a chance to love and marry.
21MolonLabe

Con

Rebuttals:

My Opponent's arguments are addressed in my below arguments.

Arguments:


What is Marriage?

There are two views of what marriage should be. The first of which is called the Revisionist view, which solely includes love and romantic feelings. The sole difference between this union and others is that the state recognizes it. We soon run into a problem with this view of marriage: There are multiple relationships that exist because of love that are not recognized by the state. You can have love for a friend without the state recognizing it. While marriage cannot last without love, love itself is not enough to have a union recognized by the state. We can see that this view has no legitimate foundation for its argument. There is no purpose for the state to recognize it.[1]

The second view is called the Conjugal view. This view holds that two people unite for a common purpose which is procreation. The goal of this union is to share a life that is oriented towards child-bearing. Now only one union can accomplish this goal of procreation, the union of one man and one woman. Marriage in this sense is not like any other union as it has a purpose. [1]

The New Family Structures Study found that young-adult children of gay fathers reported statistically significantly higher levels of depression than young-adult children of heterosexual parents and were five times as likely to have thoughts of suicide. When children of lesbian mothers were asked if they had been touched sexually by a parent, they were eleven times more likely to say "yes" than those of heterosexual parents.[2] When they were asked if they were forced to have sex against their will, they were four times more likely to say "yes" than children with heterosexual parents.[3] You can see that adopted children of same-sex do not fair as well as those of heterosexual couples.

With this information we can argue the following:

P1. If the state regulates marriage, then marriage must have some purpose and it must have a definite meaning.

P2. Because the state regulates marriage, the purpose must benefit society.

P3. The logical purpose of marriage must be procreation and child-rearing.

P4. Unions that contrast this definition of marriage must not be recognized by the state.

C1. Same-sex marriage must not be recognized by the state.

Defense of Premises:

P1 and P2 are facts.


P3 is explained my opening paragraphs.

P4 is logical as unions that do not fit the definition of marriage do not have the societal benefit that procreation and biological parents have.

C1 holds true.

Conclusion:


The Revisionist idea of what marriage should be would serve no purpose to the state, resulting in the state not regulating it. Since the government DOES regulate marriage, there must be some purpose for it to do so. The reason it regulates marriage is for the purposes of procreation and child-rearing which same-sex marriages cannot provide. As a result, it should not be recognized by the state.


Sources:

http://discussingmarriage.org...

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

http://www.frc.org...
Debate Round No. 1
alexsimran

Pro

If I am not mistaken, there are four different words for love. They are:
Storge-familial love
Philia-brotherly love
Eros-love derived from attraction
Agape-sacrificial love

Next, if the state legalizes gay marriage, then doesn't it have a both a purpose and a meaning?

How does a heterosexual marriage benefit society more than a homosexual one, other than the creation of another human being? If you think about it this way, gay couples can adopt. Wouldn't you rather see a gay couple who would love their kid rather than see a kid who is in an orphanage or a foster home that people don't love?

If I am not mistaken, that is the Catholic view of the purpose of marriage. What if everyone is not Catholic? Why should they follow the beliefs of a religion that they don't follow?

"Same-sex marriage" is not recognized by the state, but it is legal. Therefore, it is recognized by the state.
21MolonLabe

Con

Rebutals:

"If I am not mistaken, there are four different words for love. They are:

Storge-familial love
Philia-brotherly love
Eros-love derived from attraction
Agape-sacrificial love"

I have already established what love and marriage are, as you did not do so. Do not try to change the meanings that have been established.

"Next, if the state legalizes gay marriage, then doesn't it have a both a purpose and a meaning?"

I think you missunderstood my argument here. I said that marriage must have a meaning if the state has to regulate it. I was NOT saying that if you regulate marriage, then it has meaning.

"How does a heterosexual marriage benefit society more than a homosexual one, other than the creation of another human being? If you think about it this way, gay couples can adopt. Wouldn't you rather see a gay couple who would love their kid rather than see a kid who is in an orphanage or a foster home that people don't love?"

Did you not read my argument? I clearly showed that a homosexual marriage would not be able to provide the child-rearing aspect as well as that of a heterosexual marriage.

Anyways, since you didn't pick up on it, I will list the benefits:

1. Children with parents in a homosexual marriage are more liely to suffer from sexual abuse than children in a heterosexual marriage.

2. Children with homosexual parents are more likely to think about suicide.

To put it simply, Heterosexual couples are better fit for the task of child-rearing than Homosexual couples.

"If I am not mistaken, that is the Catholic view of the purpose of marriage. What if everyone is not Catholic? Why should they follow the beliefs of a religion that they don't follow?"

The Conjugal view does not belong to any particular religion. It is called the Conjugal View, not the Catholic view. Duh.

'"Same-sex marriage" is not recognized by the state, but it is legal. Therefore, it is recognized by the state.'

This debate is discussing wether gay marriage SHOULD be legal, not wether it IS legal. This comment is irrelivant to the debate.

Arguments:

Extend all arguments as Pro did not refute them.

Conclusion:

The Revisionist idea of what marriage should be would serve no purpose to the state, resulting in the state not regulating it. Since the government DOES regulate marriage, there must be some purpose for it to do so. The reason it regulates marriage is for the purposes of procreation and child-rearing which same-sex marriages cannot provide. As a result, it should not be recognized by the state. So, basically the same one as last round.
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Themeaman909 11 months ago
Themeaman909
MoonLabe did much better at refuting than Alexsimran. Alex did not give very good arguments, or any rebuttals. Pro also did not use any sources compared to con.
Posted by Trustmeinlying 1 year ago
Trustmeinlying
We all know that @1Molonlabe should win this because he proved his point. He also stayed on topic. Also he had all sections of a debate.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
21MolonLabe
Biased vote.
Posted by TheConservativeGays 1 year ago
TheConservativeGays
I understand the Con's points. From the collective, leftist view, all society should be to serve the welfare of the community as a whole, not for the welfare of individuals and individualistic interests. The newer definitions of marriage are too unconventional and illogical, and seem to specifically be catering for the issues that the LGBT community has raised over the past few years. A intangible feeling cannot be recognized by the government, for the government must be as objective, unemotional and unbiased as possible. Love is a huge, significant part of marriage but not what marriage is. I agree with the Conjugal view. The definition of marriage has been rigidly set in stone for hundreds of years, and has not changed. If the pro-Gay marriage community wants marriage to mean something which better fits their definitions, don't destroy the traditional meaning of the word. Instead, create a new word which better fits your definition, and use this word in the place of marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and if you want a union between woman and woman or man and man, please call it something else. Don't tell us it's marriage.

Understand that this does not mean I do not support the union of gays and it does not mean I believe that should not be allowed to associate, but they must respect culture, history and the dignity of our ancestors.
Posted by CommunistDog 1 year ago
CommunistDog
Alex simply wants homosexuals to have the same rights as straights.
Good, right? What do you lose?
1. Nothing
2. Nothing
3. Nothing
4. The ability to make a good list (as you can see)
5. Nothing

What do YOU lose from gay marriage? I concluded, NOTHING.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
If that was aimed at me, you failed to catch my sarcasm. I fully support gay marriage! It was a satire of the opposition!
Posted by Birch227 1 year ago
Birch227
How can you say that they aren't real people. They are just as real as anyone else. They just were able to find their own happiness with the same sex. Say that it was your own family that wanted to date the same sex. Shouldn't you just be happy that they were able to find love.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
noooooooooobsnipe!
Posted by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
21MolonLabe
@TVoT,

You can't say anything. I've seen you noob snipe quite a bit.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
noooooooooobsnipe!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by mwesigwa1 1 year ago
mwesigwa1
alexsimran21MolonLabeTied
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: It wasn't hard deciding this one.
Vote Placed by Jonnykelly 1 year ago
Jonnykelly
alexsimran21MolonLabeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though I don't appreciate the noobsnipe, Con showed a much greater understanding of the topic and completely destroyed Pro's weak arguments.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
alexsimran21MolonLabeTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro did not make any relative arguments, and did not refute any of Con's arguments at all. Thus, the point goes to Con. Con used the only sources, so the point goes to him, of course. Con had better S&G, so the point goes to him. Happy to clarify if either of the debaters want me to.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
alexsimran21MolonLabeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed why marriage is regulated by the state, and how homosexual couples lack in this regard: they have no link to procreation and cannot parent as well. Pro dropped all of these arguments, and instead sent on about how homosexual couples should be able to adopt, which is irrelevant to the debate. Pro did not come close at refuting the conjugal view, which cost him the debate. Con wins sources for having the only ones present.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
alexsimran21MolonLabeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: The winner of this debate is pretty clear to see. Con's arguments were succinctly laid out and defended superbly. He cogently argued that the revisionist view of marriage is inconsistent, because the state has no obligation to regulate a loving relationship ipso facto. Therefore, he concluded that the conjugal view of marriage is more appropriate. Con then cited a valid source that supported his crucial claim that homosexual parents are less suitable for children than heterosexual parents, and hence the government is best placed not to regulate homosexual marriage. Therefore, Con negates the resolution. Pro did not cite any sources, and made frequent non-sequiturs, ipse dixit fallacies and appeals to emotion.
Vote Placed by brad1999 1 year ago
brad1999
alexsimran21MolonLabeTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave very convincing arguements. but con used sources to backup there arguements