The Instigator
frozen_eclipse
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
martianshark
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points

gay people ought to have rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 11 votes the winner is...
frozen_eclipse
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,074 times Debate No: 23164
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (11)

 

frozen_eclipse

Pro

My posistion is clear. Gay people ought to have rights. I will take pro, my opponent will take the con and hopefully present compelling arguments.
martianshark

Con

I assume that the first round is for acception.
Debate Round No. 1
frozen_eclipse

Pro

In this debate I will be defending That gay people should have rights. The backbone of my case will be the case of human rights. The other aspects of my case will be explained systematically.

Human rights advances this resolution.

All humans deserve to have egalitarian human rights. Be the person gay or heterosexual because all of these orientations as relating to humans are in fact human. Thus, Homosexuals ought to be entitled to human rights. I will define human rights by quoting the fist line of the preamble of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDOHR)---"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"........http://www.un.org...

So Gay people according to the UDOHR are entitled to freedom, justice, and peacee. These rights are to be guaranteed regardless of social status, race, sex, or religion etc.....

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Conclusion of this point---Human rights guarantees equal rights among humans because all humans deserve to have rights. Since homosexuals are human, they deserve to have rights.

Denying marriage to homosexuals contradicts equality pertaining to human rights.


Article 16.

  • (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  • (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  • (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Natural- Present in or produced by nature

Fundamental- serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation

http://dictionary.reference.com...


Obviously gay people fit these two definitions. They are present in nature and are produced by nature therefore there natural. Gay people serve in our society by getting jobs. Every job contributes to the foundation of society so gay people fit the definition of fundamental as well. Thus denying gay people of the right to marriage is a violation of the UDOHR.

Conclusion of this point--By denying gay people of the rights stated in the UDOHR, in this particular case marriage states violate the principles of equality in the UDOHR witch is to be enforced internationally.


Gay people should have to right to donate blood.

Gay people, men in particular arnt allowed to give blood.....http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

I understand that there is this argument where people believe that gay people have stds.

"a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions. "

This prohibition is illogical. So what this tells us is that they plan to prevent the spread of aids via denying gay people the option of donating blood. First of all, I think its absolutely absurd to allow anyone to give blood without testing the blood. Which they don't do even if your straight. They also fail to realize that straight people carry hiv as well. If we are truly to apply there line of logic, then straight people ought not to give blood either because they carry hiv as well. We ought to test all the blood given. Back to my point,Gay people are no different blood wise than any other normal person. Thus I believe it is unethical to deny gay people the option to give blood.

conclusion of this point--Since gay people and straight people alike can get hiv, we should not exclude gay people from this. Thus, gay people should have the right of the option of giving blood, and to not be discriminated on by social status.



Case conclusion---Human rights guarantees equal rights among humans because all humans deserve to have rights. Since homosexuals are human, they deserve to have rights, By denying gay people of the rights stated in the UDOHR, in this particular case marriage states violate the principles of equality in the UDOHR witch is to be enforced internationally, Since gay people and straight people alike can get hiv, we should not exclude gay people from this. Thus, gay people should have the right of the option of giving blood, and to not be discriminated on by social status.


martianshark

Con

My stance is simply that gay people already have rights, and therefore the resolution is vague and doesn't have much of a point. Aside from one right Pro described, gays generally have the exact same rights as straights. Thus, technically I have already won, lawyer style. But of course, loopholes aren't very convincing, so I'll argue a little further than that...

According to the UDOHR, gays are entitled to freedom, justice, and peace. Since gays already have freedom, justice, and peace, this isn't very relevant.

By declaration, I assume you really meant constitution. The declaration doesn't have much to do with American law, and it doesn't contain a bunch of articles. Anyway, everyone is of course entitled to the rights in the constitution, regardless of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, etc. I'm not sure if it mentions gays, but they obviously count as humans too. You say that the constitution guarantees equal rights among humans. And they do. So once again, this is basically repeating what you already said, and as I stated previously, gays already have the exact same rights as straights. Marriage is allowed too - it's just that they would have to marry to the opossite sex. I'll talk more about marriage in the next part, but technically, gays already have equal rights.

Article 16:

First of all, you seem to have skipped the first part, where it said "men and women of full age." This clearly means that in the constitution, men are allowed to marry women. It doesn't say that men are allowed to marry men, or that women are allowed to marry women. Back when the constitution was written, it was clear to the founding fathers that gay marriage was unnatural, and possibly even unthinkable. So they didn't put it in the constitution.

Natural: Gay marriage is not natural. Although I can understand what being gay would feel like, it's obvious that people of the same sex are not meant to be together. Men and women literally fit together, whereas two of the same sex do not. The gay equivalents of sex is unnatural. It's also extremely unsanitary and unhealthy. You cannot argue that gay marriage is a natural thing to do, even if one thinks it should be allowed.

Fundamental: Gay marriage also isn't fundamental because they can't produce children. Therefore, gay marriage isn't important to the structure of society.

So obviously, gay people don't fit those two definitions.

Gay people should have the right to donate blood:

I can agree on this one, although this is the only right you have described that gays don't have. Gays should be allowed to give blood as long as they are tested. However, this rule isn't meant to take away the rights of gays. It's only intention is a safety issue. By the way, this isn't a very important point. If a gay can't give blood, he'll live. It's not like there's a huge blood shortage, or that the gay will die if he's not allowed to give blood. Also, straights are tested. If they weren't, they wouldn't know what type of blood they have.

I have no comment on your conclusion since you're repeating again that gays should have rights when they already have rights. Continue.
Debate Round No. 2
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I will begin by further analyzing cons case. I will underline my opponents quotes to make this debate more easy to read.

It seems my opponent hasn't really described why gay people shouldn't have rights.

"My stance is simply that gay people already have rights, and therefore the resolution is vague and doesn't have much of a point."

The point of debating is to argue if something should stay the same or change or if something is right or wrong. Just because a resolution may possibly already be enacted it doesnt mean that the topic is nondebateable. Thus this resolution stands to be valid to debate. My opponent needs to prove why gay people ought not have rights. While I have already proven why gay people ought to have rights. So there is a point to this debate. Obviously Con is against this resolution but gives no compelling arguments or reasons as to why such a stand is logical. Thus I urge the voters to consider pro as winner of this debate.

"Aside from one right Pro described, gays generally have the exact same rights as straights."

This sentence is boldly a contradiction. First my opponent says that I have pointed out a right that gay and straight people don't share. Then he says they have the same rights. Contradiction this is a fallacy.

"Thus, technically I have already won, lawyer style."

A little bit cocky arnt we?

According to the UDOHR, gays are entitled to freedom, justice, and peace. Since gays already have freedom, justice, and peace, this isn't very relevant.

Gays may be entitled to freedom, justice, and peace but the facts are that gay people do not have the same freedom, justice or peace as straight people. Below is a list of things gay people do not have a right to. I urge all who read this to look up my source to get a detailed description of each thing listed and how these rights or freedoms are denied to gay people, but are given to straight people.
  1. The right to have the option to give blood
  2. marriage
  3. adoption
  4. Hospital Visitation Rights
  5. Health insurance
  6. Spousal Privilege
  7. Family leave
  8. Pensions
  9. Nursing homes
  10. Home protection
  11. Retirement savings
  12. Taxes
  13. Social Security benefits

http://www.republicoft.com...

So as we can see gay people do not have the same freedom,justice or peace as straight people. We are America. Who is based on the principles of equality. It is a contradiction to our own moral values as a country to deny any human being within our jurisdiction the right to equal rights. Thus gay people ought to have rights as is guaranteed in the 14th amendment.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

http://www.14thamendment.us...

We are denying gay people of the right to pursue happiness by not allowing them these rights especially the right to marry whichever sex they want to pursue happiness. So because of the reasons of witch I've made in this debate and for America to not contradict its own principles, gay people ought to have rights.

By declaration, I assume you really meant constitution. The declaration doesn't have much to do with American law, and it doesn't contain a bunch of articles.

It seems my opponent is confused of what I meant by declaration. I have never said the word declaration alone. The words my opponent is confused about is this......The Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDOHR). When I say declaration, I mean declaration and nothing else. If you need more information on what that is please look at this source.....http://www.un.org......
Also my opponent is dangerously wrong when he states the UDOHR doesnt have to do with American law. This is a international law my friend. The UN follows these laws. SO yes these laws count as being included in American law.

"and as I stated previously, gays already have the exact same rights as straights. "

You also said this statement witch contradicts this idea, "Aside from one right Pro described, gays generally have the exact same rights as straights."

So once again, this is basically repeating what you already said, and as I stated previously, gays already have the exact same rights as straights. Marriage is allowed too - it's just that they would have to marry to the opposite sex.

This isnt right. Gay people obviously are not attracted to the opposite sex. So putting an impossible condition on marriage for them to marry the sex there not attracted to denies them equal rights. In addition the right to pursue happiness. lastly I want to ask my opponent as to what influenced his opinion?

"First of all, you seem to have skipped the first part, where it said "men and women of full age." This clearly means that in the constitution, men are allowed to marry women. It doesn't say that men are allowed to marry men, or that women are allowed to marry women. Back when the constitution was written, it was clear to the founding fathers that gay marriage was unnatural, and possibly even unthinkable. So they didn't put it in the constitution."

First let me make it clear that this is not the constitution. This is United Nations Laws. The words men and women of full age does not imply man to a woman. This statement is saying women have the right to marry, and men also have the right to marry. There is not exclusive texts that say only opposite sexes may marry.

The issue of the naturally of homosexuality

There is this one study that comes to the conclusion that homosexual men's brains are synonymous to a females brain as is the same effect for lesbians.........http://www.guardian.co.uk......
This added with the additional findings in this study promote the possibility that homosexuality may be an effect of hormone imbalances,and a different brain anatomically, Also lets plug in the fact that who would willingly choose a gay life style? No one while growing up says they want to be gay. I mean why would they? gay people especially during teen years are confused about who, what, and why they are what they are. They have to face ridicule and prosecution for the rest of there lives. Though gay people accept who they are and embrace it. I'm sure every single gay person wishes they were straight because it would be a easier life for them. So with these facts being stated, I is highly probable that homosexuality is present at birth.

Also homosexuality occurs in animals as well. So this supports the fact that homosexuality is natural. .....http://www.debate.org...

Also in that debate I cited this evidence where scientists deleted a gene in mice and afterwards they became attracted to the same sex.........http://www.telegraph.co.uk......

Also obviously gay people fit the definitions of natural, and fundamental. In addition all sex can be unsanitary and is not exclusive to gay people. Girls lick guys anuses. Is that healthy or sanitary?
Gay people can produce children. maybe not with the same sex but still can produce children by artificial insemination, donating sperm, turkey basters etc....

About gays donating blood

I do believe that the rule of not allowing gays to donate blood is discriminatory, because the first person to have aids was a gay person they think that aids came from gay people witch is so stupid. Just because you were found fist doesnt mean you are the first to contract the disease. Also not every vile is tested for disease. I've ran a blood drive for red cross, I no.....lol. I need not go on any further since my opponent affirms this point.

My opponent agrees that gays ought to give blood, and that they should have rights.
martianshark

Con

Darn, I was hoping you were going to forfeit. :P

I could debate that gays should have less rights than they do, but that's not the position I'm taking. Just because I'm on the con side doesn't mean I have to argue the exact opposite of your opinion. According to your original argument, you said that gays should have rights. My stance is that you need to be more specific than that; the only right you specified in your first argument was the right to donate blood.

My statement was not a contradiction. I said that gays have the same rights as straights BESIDES your one example. That means gays have the same rights as straights, not counting your one example. If I only said "Gays have the same rights as straights," that would be wrong, which is why I included "aside from your one argument." Unless you'd like to give some more examples (and I'm aware that you now have in Round 3), my argument was technically correct as far as we had discussed.

Thank you for including some more arguments. I'll put some comments on each of them, but I'll say now that technically, gays could have these benefits if they pretended to be straight. Not that that's necessarily a good thing, but it's technically true...

The right to have the option to give blood
I'll talk about this further below.

marriage
As I stated before, both gays and straights are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Their right is the same - it's just that gays aren't happy about it.

adoption
This was not included in your source. I'm assuming this refers to single parent adoption or gay couple adoption. Both of these are controversial subjects, and aren't necessarily a good thing. Discussing these would be an entirely different debate.

Hospital Visitation Rights
This only wouldn't be allowed if they weren't married. Basically, you're restating here that gay marriage should be legal. Also, the chances of a hospital completely denying visitation isn't likely.

Health insurance
You make it sound like gays can't have health insurance, which isn't true. What your source said is that an unmarried couple can't automatically make decisions for each other. Aside from restating that gay marriage should be legal, this isn't really an issue.

Spousal Privilege
I believe that this actually is legal even if you are married.

Family leave
Once again, you're arguing that gay marriage should be legal.

Pensions
Once again, you're arguing that gay marriage should be legal.

Nursing homes
You make it sound like gays can't go to nursing homes, which isn't true. Other than that, you are once again basically saying that gay marriage should be legal.

Home protection
I've never heard of that law, but other than that, you are once again basically saying that gay marriage should be legal.

Retirement savings
Your source doesn't have much to do with retirement savings. It just says that a deceased spouse can have his/her spouse's stuff without being taxed. Once again, this is an argument that gay marriage should be legal. Anyway, I personally think that estate tax just shouldn't exist.

Taxes
Same comment as above.

Social Security benefits
Once again, this is an argument that gay marriage should be legal.

So, in conclusion to the above, only one argument you have presented is valid to the resolution: Gay people should be allowed to donate blood. The rest of your arguments have to do with gay marriage being legal. If you wanted to argue about that, you should have started a debate called "Gay marriage should be legal." We're not talking about gay marriage here; we're talking about the difference between the rights of straight people and the rights of gay people.

I didn't know we were talking about UN law. I thought we were talking about the US. Dang. And you did say declaration alone. Look at Pro's first argument under Article 2: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration..."

"This isnt right. Gay people obviously are not attracted to the opposite sex. So putting an impossible condition on marriage for them to marry the sex there not attracted to denies them equal rights. In addition the right to pursue happiness. lastly I want to ask my opponent as to what influenced his opinion?"

Yes, one might think it's not right, but we're not arguing about whether or not gay marriage is right. We're arguing about the resolution, which was: "gay people ought to have rights".

Also, the fact that gay marriage is illegal in some places doesn't stop gays from being together if they want to. If they wish to live together, marriage doesn't effect that.

"First let me make it clear that this is not the constitution. This is United Nations Laws. The words men and women of full age does not imply man to a woman. This statement is saying women have the right to marry, and men also have the right to marry. There is not exclusive texts that say only opposite sexes may marry."

Although I can't say for sure since I don't know much about UN law, I believe it was intended to mean men marrying women.

It can't be known at this time that homosexuality is present at birth, and it isn't very likely. However, I know for a fact that many people become gay through a gay experience earlier in their life. http://www.biblebelievers.com... In situations like these, the problem should be fixed through counseling as this is probably what they would want anyway according to you.

As for the gay animal thing, that's not very relevant. I'm not saying that it's impossible for homosexuality to occur naturally. I'm saying that although they might do it, gays are not designed to be with each other. Also, the gay mouse thing obviously wasn't natural. The scientists made them gay.

I never said that licking someone's anus is natural either. It isn't natural, even if some people find it enjoyable.

Gay people still can't truly produce children. If they used one of the methods you described, the child would only be half their kid. It would be the child of one gay person, and wouldn't genetically be the child of the other one at all.

About gays donating blood:

Nevertheless, the rule isn't discriminated against gays. Its intention is still a safety issue, even if they're wrong. The people that made up the rule aren't thinking "I don't like gays, so let's make it so they can't donate blood. Take THAT stupid gays!"

I'm okay with gays giving blood, but they already do have rights.
Debate Round No. 3
frozen_eclipse

Pro


Just because I'm on the con side doesn't mean I have to argue the exact opposite of your opinion.

My opponents job as the con of this debate is to be on the opposite side of the resolution. The resolution is: Gay People Ought To have Rights. The con would have to debate the negative of this witch would be that gay people ought not have rights. Since my opponent refuses to take this position I personally feel that Pro should win.

"My stance is that you need to be more specific than that; the only right you specified in your first argument was the right to donate blood."

My opponents stance isnt a valid one. His stance s to prove that gay people ought not have rights witch my opponent has failed to do. My opponent states I only explained one right that gay people should have, witch is denied. This list I posted earlier proves that statement false:

  1. The right to have the option to give blood
  2. marriage
  3. adoption
  4. Hospital Visitation Rights
  5. Health insurance
  6. Spousal Privilege
  7. Family leave
  8. Pensions
  9. Nursing homes
  10. Home protection
  11. Retirement savings
  12. Taxes
  13. Social Security benefits

I also stated that gay people ought to have human rights witch is synonymous with my first contention witch my opponent never tackled.

My statement was not a contradiction. I said that gays have the same rights as straights BESIDES your one example.

Im sure everyone sees the contradiction here. You cannot state that someone has the same rights and then admit that he agrees that gay people don't have a shared right. This is a contradiction in itself. I will post the definition below.

Contradiction-
  1. something illogical: something that has aspects that are illogical or inconsistent with each other.
Synonyms: illogically, flaw, inconsistency, paradox,


Gays could have these benefits if they pretended to be straight. Not that that's necessarily a good thing, but it's technically true...

Of coarse they could. But the fact that they have to be denied there own nature is sad and unjust. even if they did lie and marry the opposite sex, we all know that there going to cheat witch will cause some other problems.

marriage
As I stated before, both gays and straights are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Their right is the same - it's just that gays aren't happy about it.

It's not about marriage of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are denied the right to Mary homosexuals. It seems my opponent has tried to strawman my contention because of his inability to tackle it witch he has also failed to do. My contention was;
Denying marriage to homosexuals contradicts equality pertaining to human rights.

This argument is specific to homosexual marriages, denial of these marriages contradicts the equality principle witch remains unrefutted and in effect still stands.

adoption

I didnt provide a source because I thought it was well known enough to not provide one. But I will provide one now.....http://www.greenwichtime.com...

Hospital Visitation Rights,the chances of a hospital completely denying visitation isn't likely.

Just because something isnt likely doesnt mean it doesnt, or cant happen or does not happen.........http://www.nytimes.com...

Health insurance

This article explains he issue more in depth......
http://ezinearticles.com...

Spousal privileges

"
Whether married or not, gay and lesbian same-sex couples are denied many federal benefits that are ... Spousal survivor benefit. A surviving spouse of a worker entitled to ..." .......http://www.nolo.com...

My rebuttal for the rest of my points will be this since he counters them with the same comment. Even if your against gay marriage it is unethical to deny a citizen a right that other citizens have based on orientation because it contradicts the principal of equality of witch this country is founded. Gay people ought to have rights including these rights that I have listed.

So, in conclusion to the above, only one argument you have presented is valid to the resolution: Gay people should be allowed to donate blood. The rest of your arguments have to do with gay marriage being legal.


Marriage is a right. Witch homosexual couples are denied. Seeing as the resolution does not specifically say witch rights all rights can be considered. Also not all of my arguments talk about gay marriage. The meat of my position is; Human rights advances this resolution. Witch my opponent has failed to address effectively.

Yes, one might think it's not right, but we're not arguing about whether or not gay marriage is right. We're arguing about the resolution, which was: "gay people ought to have rights".
Also, the fact that gay marriage is illegal in some places doesn't stop gays from being together if they want to. If they wish to live together, marriage doesn't effect that.

Were not arguing if gay marriage is a right because obviously it is a right. Marriage guarantees benefits and security for the mate if they die. Also marriage shows ultimate love and commitment. Gays are denied tat opportunity. So no, they cant be together in the way they want to to show their love like straights.

It can't be known at this time that homosexuality is present at birth, and it isn't very likely. However, I know for a fact that many people become gay through a gay experience earlier in their life. http://www.biblebelievers.com...... In situations like these, the problem should be fixed through counseling as this is probably what they would want anyway according to you.

The evidence witch I have provided shows strong evidence that homosexuality is natural. Homosexuality is present in nature,Gays have a different brain than there sex,The rat example, Also in these rape incidents it usually only happens to guys where there seemingly turned gay. his is because that kind of sex is what they associate the only pleasure to the g-spot. This can be cured by learning other ways to stimulate it. So there not truly gay.

Also, the gay mouse thing obviously wasn't natural. The scientists made them gay.

This evidence shows that homosexuality may be caused by a gene, or hormone imbalances in nature.

Gay people still can't truly produce children. If they used one of the methods you described, the child would only be half their kid. It would be the child of one gay person, and wouldn't genetically be the child of the other one at all.

Half there kid? When a straight person had kids aren't they still half there kid? Also it doesnt matter how they get here as long as the person produced the child from there genitals it proves my point that gay people can have kids.

About gays donating blood:

Nevertheless, the rule isn't discriminated against gays. Its intention is still a safety issue, even if they're wrong. The people that made up the rule aren't thinking "I don't like gays, so let's make it so they can't donate blood. Take THAT stupid gays!"

I'm okay with gays giving blood, but they already do have rights.

Obviously I win on this point and don't need to refute it anymore.

I find that the pro side is more logical and justified while the cons position of, since there are already rights given to gays, rights ought not to be given to gays is extremely illogical and unjustified. Thus I believe pro should win this debate. Next round I will summarize this entire debate.

.........................................................................................................................................................................

Please keep in mind that 4th round is dedicated to summarization. Beyond this point no new arguments or contentions are to be introduced. Any new contentions or arguments that hasn't been discussed already being introduced should result in a win for the other person.



martianshark

Con

HOLD ON A SECOND! If the fourth round is for summarization, why is it that you are allowed to rebut while I am not? We never agreed to this. Since you rebutted in the final round, I believe it is fair for me to rebut as well.

As I already stated, I am not obliged to have the exact opposite position of Pro's statement. To be on the Con side, I must simply disagree with Pro's resolution in some way (and obviously we are disagreeing). Take this debate on pancakes and waffles for example: http://www.debate.org... Pro's resolution was that pancakes are better than waffles. Con disagreed and took the stance that neither are better than the other, and that it's a matter of opinion. He did not have to take the stance that waffles are better than pancakes. Sure enough, Con won the debate. My stance is valid.

You seem to be having a hard time understanding the grammar of my statement. "Aside from" means "if you don't include." or "not including." http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... Expanded, my statement was: "The only example you gave was that they can't donate blood, and not including that, you gave no other examples."

"Of coarse they could. But the fact that they have to be denied there own nature is sad and unjust. even if they did lie and marry the opposite sex, we all know that there going to cheat witch will cause some other problems."

You're not being very specific here. Cheating? Causing other problems? What do you mean by this? Do you have any sources to back these claims? You're being vague, but nevertheless, gays still technically have the same rights as straights, so my point remains valid.

Marriage:
You're still arguing that gay marriage should be legal, which is a completely different debate that has nothing to do with your resolution. Once again, if you wanted to debate about gay marriage, you should have started a debate about gay marriage.

Adoption:
What your source says is that it's illegal for unmarried couples to adopt children. Considering other situations, it seems logical for these laws to exist, and many people believe that even if gay marriage was legal, they shouldn't adopt children. One of many reasons is that it can mess with the child's mind concerning parents. But besides that, this argument should be a separate debate.

Hospital Visitation Rights:
So there was one situation where it happened, and the news made a big sob story out of it to promote gay marriage. The chances of this happening are still extremely low. I have searched this and have found a few situations where it happened, but I believe I can safely say that even if you're gay, you'd be more likely to die from a lightning bolt (about 44 deaths per year http://www.nws.noaa.gov... )

Spousal privileges:
It's true that legal marriage offers some government benefits. However, marriage isn't supposed to be about what you can get from the government. There is still nothing stopping a gay couple from living together. And of course, you're still arguing that gay marriage should be legal, which is a different subject.

My rebuttal to Pro's last point: No rights are denied to gay couples. The only thing here that gays can't get are legal benefits from the government, which aren't rights. They're benefits that come with marriage, and if you're against gay marriage, then maybe the law should be changed so that couples can get benefits without being married. Then again, this would probably cause numerous people to take advantage of the government by pretending they're a couple. Honestly, I think it's good how it is. But whether you agree with me or not, marriage and its benefits are a separate issue.

For your next argument, I should probably start by noting that marriage is not a right. It's a privilege. There are many topics explaining the difference if you search for it, such as this one: http://nt.gmnews.com... Here's a link that tells the difference in very simple terms: http://wiki.answers.com... Living together, on the other hand, is a right. Also, since Pro stated that gay marriage is a right in the final round, rebutting it doesn't count as a new argument.

Now, even if you had stated that marriage is a privilege, it's not something that gays are technically denied. Just like all people, gays are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Although you may consider this to be wrong, gay marriage, as I've said several times, is a different subject. Ultimate love and commitment can be shown without marriage. These days, marriage seems more like a legal way for couples to stay together instead of a way to show ultimate love and commitment. And it's impossible to show love like straights since they're the same sex

You have provided no evidence for homosexuality being present at birth other than one of you own debates, which by the way is unfinished. On the other hand, my source says that "No researcher has found provable biological or genitic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior" and "People tend to believe that their sexual desires and behaviors are learned." http://www.biblebelievers.com... Therefore, it should be possible to reverse homosexuality instead of promoting it.

The mouse test doesn't prove anything since the scientists made them gay. No evidence provided shows that it can be possible for this to happen from birth instead of genetic experiments.

When I said half their kid, you responded as if you didn't read the rest. I meant that the kid would only be half the couple's. In other words, the kid would only be the child of one gay parent, and the other parent would be some random guy (for example), while the other gay "parent" wouldn't even be related to the child. So even with those methods, it's still impossible for two gays to truly produce children. Thus, gay couples do not create families for the structure of society, and aren't fundamental. In one way or another, it is always a male and a female who create babies.

Donating blood still isn't a right being deprived. Since the intention is a safety issue, it's not purposely against gays. And as I suggested in Round 2, does blood donation for gays really matter that much?

My Conclusion:

My point is that Pro's resolution is too broad and too vague, and his arguments are irrelevant to it. He argues that gays should have rights, when they already have all the same rights in comparison with straights. Although this may not be what most people want, it is technically true to the resolution. Pro's arguments seem to suggest that the topic should have more to do with rights concerning unmarried couples and adoption, which would require a different resolution other than "gay people ought to have rights." Pro should have created multiple debates on the topics he actually wanted to discuss such as gay marriage and single/unmarried/gay parent adoption.

I ask for the conduct point...
a. Because of my calmness, cleanness, and good organization.
b. Because Pro's conduct, in my opinion, wasn't as good. He also threw in some some direct personal insults.

I ask for the spelling and grammar point...
a. For Pro's slightly worse spelling/grammar
b. For Pro's overuse of font sizes
c. For Pro's failure to capitalize the resolution.
d. Because Pro criticized valid grammar, and I had to waste text explaining it to him.

I ask for for the convincing arguments point...
a. Because of my arguments, which I believe were well written and correct.
b. Because Pro's resolution doesn't match his arguments.

I ask for the reliable sources point...
a. Because many of Pro's sources were from sites that seem to be biased towards gay rights.
b. Because he also used one of his own debates as 'proof.'
b. Because while rebutting his arguments, sourcing was hardly necessary to show his faults.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
I'm sorry, Con, but you were not arguing the resolution. It was about whether or not gays "should" have rights. The fact that they may already have rights is immaterial. You needed to prove that they should not have them.

Suppose, for example, I am arguing about whether or not you should be permitted to live. You don't need to be dead for us to make that judgment.
Posted by XimenBao 5 years ago
XimenBao
The resolution is clear. "Gays should have rights." Pro needs to negate this, arguing that "Gays should not have rights" or at the very least arguing that Pro hasn't affirmed it. Most of Con's argument was trying to win that he didn't have to. That the resolution was too vague, that gays already had rights, and so forth. The resolution may have been overly broad, but not vague. Whether something "should" be the case is irrelevant to whether it is or is not currently the case.

If Pro shows that gay people should have at least two rights, then he wins, and con conceded several, noting simply that they already existed.

S&G to Con, because that was just horrible.
Posted by martianshark 5 years ago
martianshark
1dustpelt and royalpaladin, did you read the first paragraph of my final argument? I don't have to prove they should be taken away.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Whether or not someone has rights is immaterial to the notion of whether or not they OUGHT to have rights. Con's burden of proof was to prove that they should not have rights, and he did not do this.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
Even though Con proved they already have rights, because he is Con, he must prove they should be taken away, therefore Pro meets the Burden of Proof, giving the win to Pro. Pro proved they should have (and/or) keep those rights, meeting the Burden of Proof. Con's only argument was that they already have rights, but that is not the resolution, he failed to meet his Burden of Proof that the rights should be taken away. Pro also had more sources. Pro wins.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
youve commented on alot of my debates....we should debate one day.....
Posted by martianshark 5 years ago
martianshark
Haha, that's okay. Make a fifth round next time since the first was for acception.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 5 years ago
frozen_eclipse
o.k to my opponent im stupid......i thought we was in third round when i posted this......sorry about the confusion
Posted by martianshark 5 years ago
martianshark
I would have thanked you for debating, but I only had one character left.
Posted by martianshark 5 years ago
martianshark
Pro, I'm going camping, so if you post your next argument right away, I'll probably have to forfeit from the time limit. I request that you post your next argument as late as possible.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
frozen_eclipsemartiansharkTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had superior arguments while the con tried to use semantics to defeat the resolution by saying "gays already have rights" which also warrants the conduct point to the pro. Sources tied, spelling tied
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
frozen_eclipsemartiansharkTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Final point to counter Jman
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
frozen_eclipsemartiansharkTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments. (Con does not fulfill BoP). Added 4 extra points to counter jman. 1 more point is needed.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
frozen_eclipsemartiansharkTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Adding a few extra points to help counter thejman's vb. Someone still needs to counter it by 5 points.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 5 years ago
XimenBao
frozen_eclipsemartiansharkTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by thejmanjman 5 years ago
thejmanjman
frozen_eclipsemartiansharkTied
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 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 is true - gay people do have rights. "Ought to" implies they don't and that is simply not the case.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 5 years ago
Mrparkers
frozen_eclipsemartiansharkTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I liked Con's idea of "Gays already have rights so I win", except that isn't what the resolution is asking. The question is whether or not gays OUGHT to have rights, not if they do or not. Con was supposed to be arguing that gays ought not have rights, which I didn't see in a lot of his arguments. Arguments from both sides didn't make a lot of sense to me (with respect to the resolution), but at least Pro did a better job of sticking to the resolution so I gave arguments to him.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 5 years ago
miketheman1200
frozen_eclipsemartiansharkTied
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 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: Multiple accounts of pro using personal insults, "A little bit cocky arnt we?" Some grammical errors make pro lose on that part. Not only did pro fail to describe which rights gays are deprived of at first, but con also shows that the things he did list later on were nothing more than legal benifits. I went through the sources and pros were definatley biased, or at least more so than cons.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
frozen_eclipsemartiansharkTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO never defined rights, marriage, eating, voting etc. There are many rights, con showed gays had rights, therefore giving them more rights would be viewed as "unfair." He then showed many of the things pro used had no dictation of US laws. Sources because pro had more, and cons where just as biased, so I went with who had more. Poor debate, I want pro to debate SSM and see if that case works out.
Vote Placed by Jhate 5 years ago
Jhate
frozen_eclipsemartiansharkTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con overally proved Gays do have rights, Pro was not clear on what rights in the debate topic. That'll kill ya every time