The Instigator
tatrafan77
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jzonda415
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

gay marriage will not have a significant toll on society

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 2 votes the winner is...
jzonda415
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,515 times Debate No: 34072
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

tatrafan77

Pro

Although it might be against certain religions(which may or may not be true) our society is not based off religion, and there is no evidence that legalizing gay marriage will have any negative effect on how society operates.
jzonda415

Con

As my opponent has proposed no rules or arguments of his own, I will begin my arguments right off the bat.

If Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) was to be legalized, there would actually be negative effects that would ensue.


Children:


The largest effect SSM will have is on the children . It is self-evident that if it were to be legal, gays would have a higher demand for children and would find ways to obtain them. If that were to happen, this would have a largely negative effect; for children, with their early development, need less openness about sexuality and both a man and a woman as parents [1]. With gay parents, we see the clear effects of children who do not have the correct development:

Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (Heterosexual Mothers and Fathers), children of homosexual parents (Gay Mothers and Gay Fathers):

-Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
-Have lower educational attainment
-Report less safety and security in their family of origin
-Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
-Are more likely to suffer from depression
-Have been arrested more often
-If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

Children of lesbian mothers:

-Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
-Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
-Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
-Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
-Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
-Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
-Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
-Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
-Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
-Use marijuana more frequently
-Smoke more frequently
-Watch TV for long periods more frequently
-Have more often plead guilty to a non-minor offense
-Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship [2].

-Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship [2].

In review, SSM marriage will lead to demand for kids by gays. Such effects of this homosexual parenting with have a sizable effect upon kids and our future society.



Illegitimate Children

SSM legalization will increase the amount of illegitimate children born. Norway, for example, has had SSM since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, out-of-wedlock births have soared—70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock. Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39% to 50% in just the first decade of same-sex marriage. [3]

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes, “When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” [3].

In terse words, illegitimacy will rise and affect the society in obvious, negative ways.



Change of the Concept of Marriage:

Despite what most people believe, marriage is not simply a state recognition of a relationship. Marriage is a concern of the state due to the fact that it has a special connection to children. Without marriage, society would struggle to continue on, for marriage is the place where kids can grow up and have the greatest opportunity to perform to their absolute best in their life endeavors. [4].

Now, if SSM was to be legalised, less people would marry; thus, creating less children and harming society.

Giving the option of SSM would tell society that marriage in general is "optional," not normative, and fewer people would marry. In turn, this would eliminate the incentive for procreation in man and female unions (For there are less of them). There is already evidence of at least a correlation between SSM legalization and low birth and fertility rates, both in the U.S. and abroad. While some people still harbor outdated fears about "over-population," demographers now understand that declining birth rates harm society. [5]

Gay marriage could potentially lead down a "slippery slope” ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other non traditional relationships the right to marry. Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May Op-Ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." [6]


Conclusion:

There is a large amount of evidence that legalizing SSM will damage the development of children and their future life, cause more Illegitimate kids to be born and less kids to be born in stable marriages. All of these hurt children who will run our future society; thus, damaging society.

Sources in comments.
Debate Round No. 1
tatrafan77

Pro

One of the reasons I really don't like those sources is because they seem to be comparing children with same sex parents to children with a mother and father. There are absolutely NO studies that show that children with same sex parents are at any more of a disadvantage than a single parent or someone with divorced parents http://factsaboutyouth.com.... That basically says that there is no proven disadvantage to ssm compared to any other family structure besides the traditional. Put it this way, I'm sure you wouldn't want to outlaw divorce, that is a huge violation of human rights. So why should ssm be illegal? Also a substantial number of same sex parents have been through a divorce before. Basically what I'm saying is that sure there might be evidence saying that the quality of life of a child with two same-sex parents might be a little lower, but it isn't any lower than single or divorced parents, and if we make society more accepting of same sex marriage, that will also help matters.
And also, saying that if your parents are gay makes you more likely to be gay is total bogus. There is absolutely no reliable research that shows that(http://www.aacap.org...) pretty reliable source eh?, sure they might be more likely to come out as gay but that would be because their family would be more ACCEPTING of it.

As far as illegitimate children, I don't think correlation necessarily implies causation, and even if it does, so what? Are we really going to outlaw gay marriage because in some country it was proven that it might have a chance of increasing illegitimacy? And it's not even against the law to have kids out of wed lock.http://www.capitalgazette.com...

Okay now to your last argument, changing the concept of marriage. First, I don't even know how to respond with your opening argument: "if SSM was to be lagalized, less people would marry, thus creating less children and harming society."
So basically what you're saying is that once gay marriage is legalized, there will be less heterosexual marriages. Well guess what! Legalizing gay marriage won't in any way shape or form change the number of straight people who want to marry. Just look at Canada, they have plenty of straight people who get married all the time, they don't have major population decrease and they're doing just fine. Now after that you say that allowing SSM will tell society that marriage is "optional." Well maybe you don't know but it isn't a national law in the U.S. to get married, in fact I know plenty of middle-aged people who aren't married and never have been. And btw, if you want to keep the traditional way of parenting, I also suggest you try and outlaw divorce and single parenting because there is no proof that those degrade family any more than same-sex parenting. http://www.bu.edu...

Conclusion: Sure we may be able to find some study with a small sample size and not enough evidence to show that families of SSM's might be at a slight disadvantage but they aren't any more than a single-parent family or divorced parents. ultimately what it boils down to is the child's relationship with his/her parents. The parent's sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with a child's sucess.
jzonda415

Con

I thank my opponent for responding. Sorry to make this so last minute, I've been playing a lot of saxophone lately and have had many school projects I needed to finish.

Children:

My opponents states that SSM will not play more of a negative toll on society than divorced parents or single parents would, which is untrue.

Divorce, in many instances, can actually be good for children [1] [2]. Moreover, Sarakantos 1996 showed that homosexual children do worse in school than other types of family structures in school [8] Also, the Regnerus 2012, Sirota 1997 and Sirota 2007 shows children of gay parents do the worst than other family structures. [4]

In response to you statement "So why should ssm be illegal?" that is irrelevant to this debate. The question IS NOT over whether SSM should be outlawed (it should, but that's for another debate). Rather, the question is over the negative effects SSM would have on society.

Moreover, to you claim that "...if your parents are gay makes you more likely to be gay is total bogus". One of the most reliable studies to date on families, Cameron & Cameron 1996, finds children of homosexuals more likely to be homosexual. It was a nationally representative and random sample. [3] [4] Also, Schumm in 2006 replicated Cameron's findings [5]

Illegitimate Children:

My opponents arguments are irreverent and missing the point of the debate. I will admit, correlation doesn't always equal causation, however, in this instance, it does. The illegitimacy rate rose sharply as soon as SSM as legalized. Moreover, my opponent is talking more about outlawing gay marriage rather than the negative effect it will play on society. I am aware it's not against the law to have kids out of wed-lock, but it's not a good thing [7]. I showed that gay marriage has, as proven with Norway, correlation with an increase of illegitimate children, which will damage society.

Change in the Concept of Marriage:

In truth, Canada has been facing a decrease in the amount of marriages since SSM was legalized. [6] [9] Also, when I said "optional" I was fully aware that there is no "national law in the U.S. to get married." What I was meaning was people would see it as "optional," and not see it as very necessary so they would do it less; NOT that it won't be required. Moreover, as I've shown with the aforementioned Sarakantos, Regnerus and Sirota studies, they are at more of a disadvantage. In addition, my opponent does not refute my argument about SSM being a stepping stone to polygamy which will obviously hurt our civilization.

Opponent's Conclusion:

My opponent begins by stating "Sure we may be able to find some study with a small sample size and not enough evidence to show that families of SSM's might be at a slight disadvantage..." In truth, the Regnerus 2012 study I cited (Which my opponent has yet to refute) used 3,000 subjects, a representative sample, who actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. These are numbers just large enough to be reliable and create an accurate population sample. [10] As for the rest of his claims, such as "ultimately what it boils down to is the child's relationship with his/her parents. The parent's sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with a child's [success]." He ignores my previous studies which shows that sexual orientation does in fact matter in raising a child and that gay parenting is not optimum for children.

Conclusion:

My opponent's arguments were repetitive, poor, irrelevant and filled with improper grammar. My arguments on the other hand are still affirmed; for, gay marriage will lead to a higher demand for children by Same Sex Couples which will hurt children, increase the amount of illegitimate children and change the concept of marriage for the worst. All of these will affect society in negative ways.

Sources in Comments.
Debate Round No. 2
tatrafan77

Pro

tatrafan77 forfeited this round.
jzonda415

Con

Arguments extended.

VOTE CON!!!
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
@16kadams

That's what I was kind of getting at. If the divorce can be used to divorce abusive spouses, cheaters or couples who constantly fight around children, then it is good. I said in the debate that in many instances, not every instance, it can be good.

And I will be careful.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Jzonda, be careful about citing Paul Cameron. He is hated by many.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Outlawing some divorce is actually a good thing. I support banning no fault divorce, which is the strongest societal ill. I really think that law will lead to a higher divorce rate, it has, by the way. Banning all divorce is illogical. Divorcing an abusive husband, or one who cheats on his wife, is probably best for the children. But the divorces for monetary absurdity are counter intuitive (at PRO). Also, even if we assume all divorce is the worst option for children (usually, not always) two wrongs don't make a right. And divorced parents (Regnerus 2012) still did slightly better than those in homosexual homes.
Posted by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
@16kadams

Yeah, I realize how bad divorce is now after reading into it a bit. I had about 5 hours to type up this argument and my friend sent me some articles on positive effects of divorce so it was the easiest argument I could make at the moment.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
LOL, divorce is the worst thing for children. Sarakantos 1996 says that (that) may be the reason why homosexual children do worse, though the gap, in my opinion, is not all social factors.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
"Moreover, to you claim that "...if your parents are gay makes you more likely to be gay is total bogus". One of the most reliable studies to date on families, Cameron & Cameron 1996, finds children of homosexuals more likely to be homosexual. It was a nationally representative and random sample. [3] [4] Also, Schumm in 2006 replicated Cameron's findings [5]"

It's actually Schumm 2010 which replicated the finding. Regnerus 2012a, 2012b, Statcey and Biblarz 2001, and the sociology model of homosexuality get this result. I have a crap ton of studies on this. PM me.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
I told you people read your blog. ;D
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
8. "Social Conservatism: Sarakantos 1996." Social Conservatism: Sarakantos 1996. Social Conservatism, n.d. Web. 26 May 2013.

I wrote that!
Posted by jzonda415 4 years ago
jzonda415
Sources:

1. Wong, Brittany. "Divorce And Kids: 5 Ways Divorce Benefits Kids." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 May 2012. Web. 26 May 2013.

2. Arkowitz, Hal, and Scott O. Lilienfeld. "Is Divorce Bad for Children?: Scientific American." Is Divorce Bad for Children?: Scientific American. Scientific America, 19 Mar. 2013. Web. 26 May 2013.

3. Paul, Cameron. "SAME SEX MARRIAGE:." A Dr. Paul Cameron Pamphlet on Homosexuality. Biblebelievers.com, n.d. Web. 26 May 2013.

4. "Family Research Institute " Blog Archive " How Do the Kids of Homosexual Parents Turn Out? The Best Evidence." Family Research Institute " Blog Archive " How Do the Kids of Homosexual Parents Turn Out? The Best Evidence. Family Research Institute, n.d. Web. 26 May 2013.

5. Kix, Paul. "Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids." AOL News. AOL, 7 Oct. 2010. Web. 26 May 2013.

6. "Fifty Years of Families in Canada: 1961 to 2011." Fifty Years of Families in Canada: 1961 to 2011. Statistics Canada, n.d. Web. 26 May 2013.

7. Salazar, Leona. "Children Born Out of Wedlock: Unexpected Consequences."BernardGoldberg.com. Bernard Goldberg, 22 Mar. 2012. Web. 26 May 2013.

8. "Social Conservatism: Sarakantos 1996." Social Conservatism: Sarakantos 1996. Social Conservatism, n.d. Web. 26 May 2013.

9. "Family Life - Marriage." Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, n.d. Web. 26 May 2013.

10. Spring, Peter. "Family Research Council." Family Research Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 May 2013.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
tatrafan77jzonda415Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
tatrafan77jzonda415Tied
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 Checkmark1 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: Con had more convincing arguments. Con gave specific statistics, while Pro simply said there is no evidence. (While Con gave many statistics, I personally don't think they are necessarily negative, but that's irrelevant). Conduct for 1 FF. Con had way more and more reliable sources.