The Instigator
DomriRade4444
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
LaughItUpLydia
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The United States of America should legalize Homosexual Marriage

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...
DomriRade4444
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 563 times Debate No: 74326
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

DomriRade4444

Pro

Conditions for acceptance
1. 1st round Acceptance
2. No new arguments in the last round.
3. Please do not use this debate as an excuse to rant against gay couples.
4. No semantic/BoP arguments
5. My burden is to prove the resolution true.
Good Luck
LaughItUpLydia

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
DomriRade4444

Pro

Good Luck to my opponent

Observation 1-
It is unfair and morally unjust to use a Christian holy book (the bible) as basis for a law or lack of a law due to the the separation of church and state. This means my opponents contentions must not be based on the bible or other religious document. Even if that"s not enough, The Huffington Post adds, "There are those who claim it's [Homosexual Marriage] about protecting the integrity of what's written in the Bible. This is one of the most ridiculous claims ever made since the Bible is full of evil acts and suggestions we choose to ignore. Where is the integrity in that?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Observation 2-
Homosexuality is not a choice and it is out of someone's control whether they are homosexual. "The final witness for gays and lesbians seeking to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage testified Friday that most people don't choose their sexual orientation, few people change it and "conversion therapy" is useless and potentially harmful. "The vast majority of people are consistent in their (sexual) behavior, their identity and their attractions," Gregory Herek, a UC Davis psychology professor, said at the San Francisco federal court trial on the constitutionality of Proposition 8." says SFGate.
Definitions
Homosexual: sexually attracted to members of one's own sex
Homosexual marriage: the union of two same-sex partners
Legalize: to make legal; authorize
From Dictionary.com
Contentions
Contention 1: It is unfair to have homosexual marriage not be officially recognized, as this implies homosexuals are inferior and their marriages are illegitimate

Warrant: According to NPR, "Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that marriage is a fundamental right that the state cannot abridge without some real justification. It has said that prisoners have the right to marry, and so do people too poor to make child support payments."

Warrant: On July 25, 2014 Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled Florida's gay marriage ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban "serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society."

Impact: Homosexuality, being something you are born with naturally, is the rough equivalent of not allowing people to marry based on their skin color. It is unfair and unjust that in this modern era, people are still discriminated against by the law based on factors they cannot control.

Contention 2: Homosexual couples are affected in real and significant ways by not being able to legally marry

Warrant: "Plaintiff James Obergefell presents perhaps the most sympathetic case of all: He can"t even get himself listed on the death certificate of his deceased husband, John Arthur, because his home state of Ohio won"t recognize the couple"s out-of-state marriage." notes Politico.
http://www.politico.com...

Warrant: A partial list of marriage benefits from Nolo include, "Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate. Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf. Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. Receiving public assistance benefits. Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer. Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness. Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies. Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures. Making burial or other final arrangements. Filing for stepparent or joint adoption. Applying for joint foster care rights. Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only." Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for non citizen spouse. Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family." http://www.nolo.com...
Impact: Not allowing homosexuals to marry denies them many influential and important benefits in our society.

Contention 3: Homosexual marriage improves the economy

Warrant: According to the Williams Institute, "Our research shows that same-sex weddings injected significant spending into local economies. For example, the wedding spend of same-sex couples in Massachusetts, which includes a large number of out-of-state couples, was $111 million from 2004 to 2009. " http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...

Warrant: The Washington Post adds, "If legalized, same-sex marriages could generate more than $464 million in their first year for 11 state economies, according to a series of studies released this year." http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Warrant: The Huffington Post adds, "If California were to legalize same-sex marriage, it would generate $123 million for the state economy during the first three years same-sex marriage is legal, according to a 2005 Stanford study cited by the Fiscal Times." http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Warrant: PBS notes, "Hundreds of thousands of excited couples would start planning weddings, generating at least $1.5 billion, by my calculations, in spending on flowers, cakes, bands, meals, photographers, hotels, tourism in general, suits and gowns (not to mention those one-off gowns for the members of the bridal party). And of course all those purchases generate millions in sales tax revenue for state and local governments." http://www.pbs.org...

Impact: Legalizing homosexual marriage will spark the economy, which provides positive benefits for all citizens.
LaughItUpLydia

Con

Thank you. I will give rebuttals by number and according to the paragraph of Pro's previous argument. My arguments will form amidst the refutations and I hope it makes sense for all whom are reading.

Rebuttal for Pro's 1st paragraph--"observation 1":
-It is morally unjust for two people of the same gender to marry for "fun's" sake when it does not benefit socially or ethically.
-The Christian Bible is irrelevant to Pro's supposed argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S.A., so I will go on.

R2:
-It is not proven whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Science will never completely prove something like that because human nature will never be completely understood. I am not saying science is always wrong, but in this context mainstream scientific "discoveries" released to the TV news channels are not always fully reliable nor do they prove anything fully. http://socialinqueery.com...

Rebuttal of Pro's first contention (R3): Pro states "It is unfair to have homosexual marriage not be officially recognized, as this implies homosexuals are inferior and their marriages are illegitimate." There are a few things wrong with this. First, it would only be unfair if homosexuality was 100% natural and "no choice," because this would give them rights towards marrying. But, in this scenario, marriage is set, and subjects along the lines of 'genders' and 'reproduction' are obviously proven--not because of tradition, but because of science. Homosexuality is not proven through science, it is not tradition and it violates scientific facts concerning the conservative and apparent purpose of marriage and sex.

If marriage is a fundamental right that the state cannot abridge, why don't we hold ceremonies for gay (the word that means 'happy') observances of animals marrying? Or how about I marry my cat--I'll sue you if you don't let us wed!

R4: "Homosexuality, being something you are born with naturally, is the rough equivalent of not allowing people to marry based on their skin color." No, it's completely different, unless you're racist. Genders--not gender 'roles,' mind you--are specified and scientifically different in terms of sex/reproduction. Do you believe that race is also scientifically different in those terms? And do you believe that "blacks" are different from "whites" the same as males are different than females? If so, you are racist, but if not, you have proven yourself wrong. Back when interracial marriage wasn't allowed, it wasn't just desegregation and discrimination, it was disallowing a fundamental right. Interracial marriage is a fundamental right because all "races" are human, and different skin colors of guys should marry different skin colors of gals.

I love my girlfriend. I'm a girl. That doesn't mean I marry her. And if I have the urge to have sex with someone of the same gender as me, there is something wrong with me.

R5: "Homosexual couples are affected in real and significant ways by not being able to legally marry." It depends what you mean by homosexual couples. Some, like (Pro's) self, define "homosexual" by being a natural orientation--except that it's just starting to become prevalent in the last half century...? Some, like me, define "homosexual" as a false label for a disorder that was started by an idea which should be erased from history. Pro's statement above doesn't work unless it's from a certain perspective.

R6: There are many disadvantages to the people around a "homosexual couple." Gay sex spreads the risk of disease. They can sue anybody who opposes their point of view for big money. Pro's giant list of benefits for "homosexuals" only shows how they already have many rights among America and how this debate is somewhat pointless unless it's resolution is altered.

My case rests for round 2.
Debate Round No. 2
DomriRade4444

Pro

I will now refute everything my opponent said in her speech

"It is morally unjust for two people of the same gender to marry for "fun's""
This is blatantly offensive and implies that homosexuals are marrying as a joke, or as a game. As Slate notes, "In study after study, biologists have found that homosexuality, at least in men, is clearly, undoubtedly, inarguably an inborn trait." http://www.slate.com...
This clearly refutes R2 and most of R3.

The rest of RR3- My opponent has asked, "If marriage is a fundamental right that the state cannot abridge, why don't we hold ceremonies for gay (the word that means 'happy') observances of animals marrying? Or how about I marry my cat--I'll sue you if you don't let us wed!" If I read that correctly, my opponent compared a homosexual marriage, in which two humans of the same gender are married, to a bestial marriage, in which a cat or other animal marries a human. Besides the many literal flaws to this analogy (So one of the married homosexuals is like an animal?), I will refute this argument as the slippery slope contention (AKA the What if? contention). Anyhow, homosexuals feel biological attraction to each other. Unless your cat and you have something kinda strange going on, I highly doubt that's the case for you two.

RR4: " Back when interracial marriage wasn't allowed, it wasn't just segregation and discrimination, it was disallowing a fundamental right. Interracial marriage is a fundamental right because all "races" are human, and different skin colors of guys should marry different skin colors of gals." I would like to switch around some words in that quote to show you how easily you can apply that logic to homosexual marriage.
"Back when homosexual marriage wasn't allowed, it wasn't just segregation and discrimination, it was disallowing a fundamental right. Homosexual marriage is a fundamental right because all "genders" are human, and different genders should marry whoever they want." As said, the comparison to skin color is another example of an arbitrary rule society made to discriminate against certain people.
"And if I have the urge to have sex with someone of the same gender as me, there is something wrong with me." Wow. She called ME racist?

RR5: My opponent hasn"t actually given any evidence that shows gays have only existed since the 1950s, and RandomHistory notes, "Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom." http://www.randomhistory.com...

RR6: "Gay sex spreads the risk of disease. They can sue anybody who opposes their point of view for big money." First, this doesn"t change if homosexual marriage is legalized, making it irrelevant to the resolution. Second, homosexuals usually wouldn"t have sex with a heterosexual person, meaning that STD"s that gays/lesbians have wouldn"t actually affect heterosexuals. Finally, yes, any time that a civil right of someone is being violated they will and deserve to sue.

This is how my case looks after rebuttals.

Observation 1- The bible is an unjust way to judge morality in a legal setting.
Observation 2- Gay marriage is not a choice. As Slate notes, "In study after study, biologists have found that homosexuality, at least in men, is clearly, undoubtedly, inarguably an inborn trait."

Contention 1-It is unfair to have homosexual marriage not be officially recognized, as this implies homosexuals are inferior and their marriages are illegitimate

Remember, even if homosexuality is a choice, which it isn"t, religion and diet are also both important "lifestyle" choices. Additionally, if children should be the outcome of a marriage, as my opponent contends, then why are 70-year-olds allowed to marry? Extend this point.

Contention 2- Homosexual couples are affected in real and significant ways by not being able to legally marry

My opponent has not disputed that homosexuals would gain many significant rights from marriage, but that homosexuality is a disorder.
Extend this point.

Contention 3: Homosexual marriage improves the economy

This has not been contested at all.

Weighing: My opponent has called homosexuality "Unjust". What is the moral framework for this? I would like to use utilitarianism as the moral philosophy to judge the ethics of this debate. Carnegie Mellon University defines Bentham"s principle of utility as," (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure')." http://caae.phil.cmu.edu...

Therefore, whatever does the most good for society should win this debate. Legalizing homosexual marriage would do many good things for society. It would help the economy, which get many people out of unemployment, obviously a good thing. It would show that US provides equal rights for all, which prevents future discrimination. Finally, it would provide huge benefits for homosexuals. None of my opponents points are unique to legalizing gay marriage, they are just standard anti-gay tangents. We should legalize gay marriage if it does the most overall good for the community, and it clearly does.
LaughItUpLydia

Con

I do not ignore the truth when I infer it is not FACT that homosexuality is a natural orientation. Actually, the three most "reliable" studies right now of whether gays are born that way were conducted by homosexuals [1]. The scientific data did not follow suit with other researches and were therefore flawed, but media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results. The media is one of the main reasons, in my standard opinion, that homosexuality in society is the way it is currently, and it has morphed peoples' views on the subject for the worst over the last few decades.

It is an opinion made by many scholars, and it's not just me whom believes marriage between two humans of the same gender shouldn't be legal. Yet, in many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. [2]

Because I believe God created all matter and that He rules all, I also firmly believe in His Word. The Bible significantly helps explain the mystery of time and existence, but it starts with the seemingly simple apparatus of the first humans who ever walked earth. These first two humans happened to be two genders, and all we know is that there are two genders because of reproduction. (Although evolution is a different topic, I would like to add that the Bible has much validity. Without God there is no good explanation as to why creatures exist on this planet to reproduce and multiply generations. Furthermore, the Theory of Evolution certainly doesn't explain the beginning or meaning of life, and the Bible does logically). So, taken from Genesis 1, we know that the man and the woman were there for the purpose of filling the earth with more humans, and there is obviously a reason it was "Adam and Eve," not "Adam and Steve." [3] With that being said, I would like you to contemplate what the Bible and Christ, the Author, states about the harms and transgressions included in the events of homosexuality. Our main influence for wanting to break tradition and have a new rally blow up for 'rights' is the media and society's demands, whatever humankind does is erroneous compared to the perfect Lord God's ways. If our Creator tells us that homosexuality is wrong, why would I believe some wavering and unreliable studies?

Rebuttals

It's not offensive for me to make a claim of truth-seeking. Since it is merely an opinion to believe homosexuals don't have a choice, Pro didn't refute my claim, he just went by telling me I'm blatant. But I would still say it is actually quite hilarious that two people of the same gender can't just be friends and love each other, like how do they have "sex"? and what is the purpose of legal weddings and making it such a big deal for everyone who does not have that supposed orientation? The statistics say that only about 2 percent of Americans are actually labelled "homosexual." Then there's the 98% who are either annoyed by all the petitioning, strongly against the practice of homosexuality, or on the pro side of "gay rights." No matter what, though, a very small minority is putting a big dent in the rest of us--on the media and news--and getting into the rest of ours business so to make themselves known.

About my previous analogy concerning gays and animals. I didn't necessarily mean literally. I was simply trying to show you how vacuous and strange the whole idea of homosexual marriage is. But Pro has yet to refute my analogy. I would like to say also that, when you call homosexuality "not a choice," you are devaluing the homosexuals to animals because you tell them they don't have any control over their decisions and feelings.

A person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity. This is in contrast to innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity. If gay marriage is the equivalent to rights pursuit of interracial marriage, what does it say about genders? It is scientifically proven that race doesn't matter, especially in marriage. If homosexual marriage becomes the norm, are you saying that genders won't matter at all, either?

How is it correct to have the urge of sex with someone the same gender as me? Please explain.

I had said how gay sex spreads the risk of disease and how gays can sue anybody who opposes their point of view for big money. It's not safe and it's unfair. Pro said it was irrelevant. Do I have to explain to him how this changes whether homosexuality should be legalized or not?

Pro said "Homosexual marriage improves the economy." His back-up argument for this was very weak, and you could say mine is too, but this is because it's a matter of opinion on whether the children brought up by "gay parents" are good and helps "improve economy."

Conclusion:
A lot of what my opponent "refuted" was attacks on my point of view, not the argument, thus his rebuttals were fallacious and invalid. But, for what he did argue based on real arguments, I believe I have firmly refuted them.

Thank you, Pro.

[1] Hamer"s X-chromosome research, LeVay"s study of the hypothalamus, and Bailey and Pillard"s study of identical twins who were homosexuals.
[2] http://christiananswers.net...
[3] https://carm.org...
Debate Round No. 3
DomriRade4444

Pro

Key R1=Refutation to paragraph 1, etc.
My opponent hasn't managed to provide any evidence for these claims, but for the sake of refutations, I will accept them at face value. However, if you have any doubts, know that my opponent has given no evidence for her claims. On to R1.
R1: If a study conducted by homosexuals was biased, wouldn't a study by blacks about racism be flawed, or a study by whites about racism be flawed, or therefore a study about homosexuality by heterosexuals be flawed. Additionally, just because results don't all follow suit, that doesn't make some flawed. Finally, even if homosexuality is a choice, so is religion, and we respect those choices.
R2: "Yet, in many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated." I agree with what the homosexuals say. Scholars also believe the opposite.
R3: It is unfair and morally unjust to use a Christian holy book (the bible) as basis for a law or lack of a law due to the the separation of church and state. This means my opponents contentions must not be based on the bible or other religious document. Even if that"s not enough, The Huffington Post adds, "There are those who claim it's [Homosexual Marriage] about protecting the integrity of what's written in the Bible. This is one of the most ridiculous claims ever made since the Bible is full of evil acts and suggestions we choose to ignore. Where is the integrity in that?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... My observation 1 refutes this attack perfectly.
R4: The purpose of legal weddings is the whole premise of contention 2. According to a washington post/abc poll, 59% of people support gay marriage. That isn't a small minority. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
R5: I did adress the absurdness of the analogy by stating that then one of the homosexuals would've been an animal. "I would like to say also that, when you call homosexuality "not a choice," you are devaluing the homosexuals to animals because you tell them they don't have any control over their decisions and feelings." Than woukdn't you also being comparing heterosexuals to animals? If being gay is a choice, wouldn't being straight be a choice too?
R6: This tangent is irrelevent to the debate. The comparsion simply illustrates how people are being didscriminated against based on something they cannot control.
R7: It is irrelevent whether it is normal, it just matter whether the united states has reason to legalize the marriage.
R8: Yes, con does. These impacts have nothing to do with legalization, just anti-gay tangents.
R9: This is not a refutation, just an attempt to wave the argument aside.
PBS notes, "Hundreds of thousands of excited couples would start planning weddings, generating at least $1.5 billion, by my calculations, in spending on flowers, cakes, bands, meals, photographers, hotels, tourism in general, suits and gowns (not to mention those one-off gowns for the members of the bridal party). And of course all those purchases generate millions in sales tax revenue for state and local governments." http://www.pbs.org......
Refute conclusion: My opponent has not given any convincing reasons, why according to the Utilitarian framework I have used to weigh the debate, it is better for society to keep gay marriage illegal.

Weighing: My opponent has called homosexuality "Unjust". What is the moral framework for this? I would like to use utilitarianism as the moral philosophy to judge the ethics of this debate. Carnegie Mellon University defines Bentham"s principle of utility as," (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure')." http://caae.phil.cmu.edu......

My weighing from last round still stands.

Therefore, whatever does the most good for society should win this debate. Legalizing homosexual marriage would do many good things for society. It would help the economy, which get many people out of unemployment, obviously a good thing. It would show that US provides equal rights for all, which prevents future discrimination. Finally, it would provide huge benefits for homosexuals. None of my opponents points are unique to legalizing gay marriage, they are just standard anti-gay tangents. We should legalize gay marriage if it does the most overall good for the community, and it clearly does.

Vote Pro
LaughItUpLydia

Con

LaughItUpLydia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by cjchristi26 1 year ago
cjchristi26
What is the basis for the separation of church state? There is nothing in the Constitution that states the separation of church and state. The only statement involving religion is that the government shall not favor one religion over another. The separation of church and state is false.
Posted by DomriRade4444 1 year ago
DomriRade4444
http://www.sfgate.com... link for observation 2.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
DomriRade4444LaughItUpLydiaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. For this, Pro wins Conduct. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. This was a solid back n' forth, with neither really coming out on top. What made the difference here was Con forfeiting the final round. It was a shame that that happened because it left Pro's final round to stand unchallenged. For this, Pro wins arguments. I would strongly urge Con to not forfeit the final round, as it is essentially a drop of all his arguments. Sources - Pro. Both utilized multiple sources in this debate. However, I found Pro's sources to have more academic integrity, as well as the fact that there were more in terms of quantity as well. For this, Pro wins sources. Good debate overall, but a clear win for Pro. I would truly like to see a rematch of this sometime.