gay marriage should be legalized in the US
Do to the computer sever I have I can"t watch any videos so please don"t use them as a source, nor can I get anything from Facebook, so I"m sorry if this is an inconvenience to my opponent. This is my fist debate on this sight.
State: A government body either at the federal, state or local level
There are many types of social relationships that two individuals might enter into. Some examples are: an acquaintance, friendship, enemies, girlfriend/boyfriend, courtship, engagement and marriage. In the examples provided, the state only regulates one type of relationship; that of marriage. All other relationships are left up to the individual. The question then arises as to why the state involves itself in this type relationship?
Typically state involvement at any level is to insure some type of benefit to the citizenry. The state regulates traffic laws to keep citizens safe on the road. The state regulates contracts so that people are not unfairly treated. You get the picture. So what is so special about marriage?
I propose that state involvement is due to the fact that in a traditional marriage (husband/wife) a natural product of that relationship is children. The state seeks to foster the best environment for the children. Several studies have shown that children raised in a home with both biological parents have a lower rate of behavioral problems (1). Children with less behavioral problems grow to be more productive citizens and a benefit to the state.
The state is not concerned with the intent or ability of potential married couples to have children. Their only concern is that if a married couple happens to naturally produce children, the state wants to support children raised by biological parent. Since same-sex marriage will never result in children being raised by biological parents, same-sex marriage should not be legalized.
Over to you Pro"
First off I would like to apologies about a mistake I made in the 1st round, where I quoted the declaration of independence , but had put down the Constitution, so my apologies,
Now to my rebuttal, though I am arguing that the US government should legalize gay marriage as whole, I will retort to con"s argument that "Typically state involvement at any level is to insure some type of benefit to the citizenry. The state regulates traffic laws to keep citizens safe on the road. The state regulates contracts so that people are not unfairly treated. You get the picture. So what is so special about marriage?" well I would like to argue the point that the state involvement is typically good for the citizenry, like how for the first hundred years African Americans where considered sub civilians and a large part of that they were slaves (by state law) with laws that made them property, yes the state involvement at that level really helped to insure the benefit to the citizenry. Or how the Cherokee nation were having trespassers, vandalizes, and murders come onto their land, and the state of Georgia supported it, and refused to cooperate with federal law even when the supreme court ordered the authorities to have the squatters removed, which in return there were citizens who were murdered in retaliation.
Now for the traditional marriage can have kids, but homosexuals can"t argument, I would like to say as a child I was adopted and know firsthand on how big the need for more people to adopt, this is because the biological parents (a man/woman relationship), are unable to take care of their own children so why should we say that a perfectly good homosexual couple should not adopt in which having the legal status of married can help them care for the children and make the best environment possible.
Now I have to talk about the rights of married couples have that unmarried couples don"t I found this onhttp://philadelphia.cbslocal.com... "In terms of money, unmarried couples aren"t generally on the hook for each other"s debts " but on the flip side, unmarried couples with separate bank accounts have no right to each other"s funds. Which may be fine " unless something happens to your partner and you"re not automatically entitled to pay his bills " or your joint ones. Married couples are eligible for dependent or survivor Social Security benefits. Cohabitating, unmarried couples are not eligible for their partner"s dependents" or survivors" benefits." So what this is saying is that for couples who can"t marry can"t have many of the benefits of a couple who can. So let"s say a gay couple that has a member in the military and that member dies do to say, a bullet wound, there partner, can"t get any help from the government now that there partner is no longer sending money to them to pay the bills, that person unlike a strait couple would not get the money that they may desperately need and unlike the strait couple would have no choice but to file for bankrupt and destroy their credit. This is sadly an occurrence that is possible to many gay and lesbian couples who have members in the military.
You asked why does the state involve it"s self with the type of relationship known as marriage? The reason is that the government doesn"t care if someone is dating someone or not, they"re not going to fill out a bunch of paper work because two people decide they want to sleep together for a little while, but marriage is a completely different kind of relationship, it is the unionizing of two people who decide that they wish to be a family and have privileges that will protect each other in times of crisis. So I must ask you con, as a married man, would you want your wife to have some means to have money coming in for herself and your 2 children if something like a fatal car accident happened to you?
I"m sorry but your site http://marri.us...... Was unavailable for me to look at due to the security restrictions of the internet where I am, so I can"t retort to that.
thanks again for excepting this debate and now eagerly await your retort.
Thanks to Pro for the thoughtful comments. Pro has offered three topics and a question. I have identified each using subject headers for the readers benefit. I will respond to each accordingly and offer a conclusion.
Slavery and the Cherokee Nation
Pro seems to want to counter my claim that state involvement on an issue is to benefit the citizenry. Pro does so by highlighting examples of slavery and the treatment of the Cherokee Nation. I am not entirely sure of the purpose here other than to point out that sometimes the state behaves badly. If so, then I agree with Pro. However, I certainly hope Pro is not attempting to compare slavery and the treatment of the Cherokee Nation to not legalizing gay marriage. I will give pro the benefit of the doubt and make no such assumption.
If Pro has an alternative purpose for state involvement, then I am interested to hear it. I see no reason to comment further on this topic.
Although I do not see how Adoption is strictly germane to the debate, I will address this topic as it relates to the welfare of children. I hope Pro will agree that environments into which children are adopted can vary greatly. The various Child Services Agencies do their best to place children in good adoptive homes. If a child can be placed in a home environment that is better than their current situation, then I am all for it.
As previously shown, however, the overall best environment for children is with their biological parents. Should this not be possible, the next best environment is one where there is a mother and a father (either biological or adoptive). Children need a mother AND a father.
I am sure that there are plenty of single parents and same-sex couples who raise extremely well adjusted and productive children (some under very difficult circumstances). Likewise, I am sure there are numerous heterosexual couples who do an extremely poor job of raising children, but studies show a significant benefit for children raised by a female (mother) and a male (father). Unfortunately, this will never occur in a single parent or same-sex parental home. (2)
Pro has identified some cases where benefits are extended to married couples that are not extended to co-habiting or other relationship types. In many instances a co-habiting couple can enjoy some of the same benefits via prudent financial planning (ex.: joint checking accounts, designating beneficiaries, power of attorney, etc.). I concede that a married couple enjoys unique benefits, but I believe they should.
When a man and a woman come together in marriage, the state wants to support the likelihood that this marriage will result in procreation. As previously established there is a benefit to the state to treat this unique relationship differently than couples who merely co-habitate or same-sex couples with no chance of natural procreation. A man and a woman make a lifelong commitment to each other and there is a potential of natural procreation. It is in interest of the state to support this couple so that their children are raised by them.
Pro asked if I would want my family to receive benefits in the event something tragic happens to me. My answer is, “yes”, and I have taken the necessary steps to insure that occurs. Before I was married and had children, I designated my nephew as my beneficiary and took the necessary steps to see that he received those benefits.
Pro has discussed Slavery and the Cherokee Nation in defense to rebut my position. I believe I have shown that these arguments are not directly pertinent to this debate. I have provided additional support for my argument that the best environment is that children are raised by their biological parents and that the state should hold traditional marriage in a unique position for this reason.
Other than attempting to refute my points, Pro has not offered justification on why gay-marriage should be considered the same as heterosexual marriage and thus enjoy legalization.
Con said in the first round that the "state involvement at any level is of benefit to the citizenry" And I countered that argument with 2 out of many facts that people learn in high school, about how States being wrong with their ideas of what is right and wrong in the past, and just leave it to the individual state, and there for bringing us back to the real subject at hand, which is for the legalization of gay marriage in the US (not states) Con didn"t seem to understand this so I am clarifying why I said this.
Next comes adoption, Con again doesn"t seem to understand my argument "I was adopted and know firsthand on how big the need for more people to adopt, this is because the biological parents (a man/woman relationship), are unable to take care of their own children so why should we say that a perfectly good homosexual couple should not adopt in which having the legal status of married can help them care for the children and make the best environment possible." I don"t understand how this didn"t make sense to him, saying that there aren"t enough people adopting and by Cons own admission married couples make better households then an unmarried couple, so this actually helps my argument.
For more proof on why gay/lesbian couples should be allowed to marry just in the category of the need for more married couples to be there to raise adopted children in a better home, consider the following approximately 400,540 children in foster care on September 30, 2011.
www.acf.hhs.gov/.../foster-care...Youth in Transition:
Each year, an estimated 20,000 young people "age out" of the U.S. foster care system. Many are only 18 years old and still need support and services. Several foster care alumni studies show that without a lifelong connection to a caring adult, these older youth are often left vulnerable to a host of adverse situations:
And there are always more on the way to being put into the system by the day
Currently, about half (51%) of the 6.6 million pregnancies in the United States each year (3.4 million) are unintended-www.guttmacher.org/.../FB-Unintended-Pregnancy
Countless unmarried partners (same-sex or different-sex) are co-parenting a child or children, but frequently only one partner has a legal relationship to the child(ren). In many cases it would benefit the child(ren) to have a legal relationship to both parents. Many, but not all, states allow "co-parent adoptions" or "second parent adoptions," which create a second legal parent-child relationship for these families. Qualified, screened single and LGBT people can be excellent parents. Having a single or LGBT parent could be in an individual child"s best interest, for a number of reasons. www.unmarried.org/parents-children/adoption
So hopefully you see my point that by getting rid of the problems that people who are legally "single" or unmarried, these people not only don"t put unintentional children into the system, but also have many who are wanting to raise the children that we do have, with parents who are abusive, unwilling, or even just unable to take care of the children that they brought into the world. Now let me ask you something, why would you want them to have a harder time doing this. I believe this also addresses Cons argument that the State gives married couples extra benefits only for the hope that they will have children.
I would also like to argue Cons belief that for a good home setting you must have a man and a woman, to get maximum results for raising a child: though I never said that the Government should just take the kid away from their biological parents when the parents are able and willing to care for them, instead (as before) I was saying that gay and lesbian couples can care for those in the system through adding more (stable homes that the parents can have a happy marriage in)
But wait there"s more! "In some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.
Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement." www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights (ps I"m not saying straight parents are bad in any way)
Next I would like to emphasize the benefits of being married that Con responded to with "I concede that a married couple enjoys unique benefits" (There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.- www.hrc.org/.../an-overview-of-federal-rights-a...) So on a moral note, why not let gay people enjoy the same rights that everyone ells enjoys.
The only source that Con used was http://www.foryourmarriage.org...... I looked at this site and found something very interesting about the main source that your sight used: Patrick Fagan who is the same Patrick Fagan who said "Well, societies have always forbidden [sex outside of marriage], there were laws against it" In this case the Supreme Court said"they can do whatever they like" They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have" Society never gave young people [the right to sex outside of marriage], functioning societies don"t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever." thebarkingatheist.wordpress.com/2013/...punish-sex-outside-of-marriage
Wow so your source supports going back to the stone age, and punish the "95 percent of Americans that have premarital sex. www.truthdig.com/.../20061219_95_of_americans_have_had_premarital_s
Now I have one last question to put down, (mainly because I"m running out of computer time) and that is. How is Gay- Lesbian marriage being legal hurt you? Why are you against it I guess would be the better question.
My apologies, but due to some personal issues, I cannot appropriately provide my final round submission. My arguments will have to stand as is. I just want to take a moment to thank Pro for an enjoyable and civil debate. I noticed that this is Pros first debate on DDO and I hope he/she will have many more.
|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:||3||1|