The Instigator
CosmoJarvis
Pro (for)
The Contender
DefenderofBacon
Con (against)

Homosexual Marriage

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
DefenderofBacon has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 692 times Debate No: 100352
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

CosmoJarvis

Pro

This will be a short debate on whether Homosexual Marriage should or should not be accepted and legalized in the United States.

Pro must support the claim that homosexual marriage is positive for society, while Con must explain why it is detrimental to society.

Rules:
1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.
2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.
3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.


Rounds:
R1: Acceptance

R2: Main Arguments
R3: Rebuttals (No new arguments)
R4: Rebuttals (No new arguments)
DefenderofBacon

Con

I choose to accept this debate and the rules that go with it.

I assume that I am arguing that homosexual marriage should be banned again, as it was already passed by the Supreme Court in 2015 and is currently legal.

I would like to add that I am not against homosexuality. I am against them getting married in the same fashion as a man and woman would.

Good luck in the debate and have fun.

Debate Round No. 1
CosmoJarvis

Pro

Outline:
I. Introduction
II. Homosexuality
III. Marriage
IV. Are Homosexuals Capable of Raising Children
V. Sources

I. Introduction

Homosexuality: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex (S1).

Marriage: any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage (S2).

I, pro, will be advocating for homosexual marriage. To do this, I will explain the nature of homosexuality; proving, with scientific evidence, that homosexuality is natural. Additionally, I will properly define marriage to explain why homosexuals should have the right to marry a person of the same sex. Also, I will assess how capable homosexuals are of raising children.

II. Homosexuality

As I have defined in my introduction, homosexuality is a sexuality in which a person is
sexuality attracted to another of the same gender. There has been a fair amount of controversy shrouding the nature of homosexuality and whether it is natural or unnatural and whether it is inherently evil or not.

One of the greatest misconceptions about homosexuality is that "it's a choice." However, both studies and mere observations in our environment points to the belief that homosexuality is a genetic trait. For example, a study conducted by Dr. Tuck C. Ngun and his team at the University of California have come to a conclusion that homosexuality is a genetic trait. To find this, Ngun and his team gathered 37 pairs of twins in which one was homosexual and the other was heterosexual. Then, blood was taken from each subject. By analyzing the DNA, Ngun and his team have isolated a gene known as the "Xq28 marker." This piece of DNA is believed to be the "gay gene," (S3). Another strong piece of evidence pointing to the belief that homosexuality is natural is its common appearance in nature. Virtually all species that are, of course, not asexual, possess some members that are homosexual. No, this is not some "conscious act against God," which many religious zealots claim homosexuality to be, for animals lack the concept of "God" and "sin." Some animals exhibit homosexual behavior because their impulses naturally drive them to (S4).

I would also like to address the bogus idea that "homosexuals are immoral." This belief is mostly derived from religious beliefs, such as Christianity, where homosexuality is a direct act against God and that there's a place in the firey sulfur lakes of Hell for the "sexually immoral." However, famous religious figures such as Pope Frances have become accepting of the homosexual community. He has publicly apologized to homosexuals that have been marginalized by the Church, going as far to say "[homosexuals] must not be discriminated against but must be respected and accompanied pastorally," (S5). Additionally, one of the biggest fallacies being that "homosexual men are more likely to molest children," has been debunked multiple times. As shown by research conducted by Dr. Gregory Herek, adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, are equally likely to commit molestation (S6), showing that there is no correlation between sexual orientation and the tendency to molest children.

III. Marriage

Marriage, as I have previously defined before, is the legal union between two people of the opposite or same sex. According to statistics collected by Pew Research Center in 2016, approximately 55% of Americans support homosexual marriage (S7), and this number has slowly been rising. Many people are horrified of the lurid consequences of the legalization of homosexual marriage. However, as
infogr.am argues, "Gay Marriage will have no impact whatsoever on heterosexual communities, just as racial integration in the 60's had no negative impact on white communities. This is the same concept with legalization of gay marriage, it will grant the LGBT community a right that has been immorally denied to them," (S8).

One of the greatest arguments against homosexual marriage is that homosexual marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage. However, what makes this argument so ridiculous is that the divorce rate in America is practically over 50%. If anti-gay activists truly wished to "protect the institution of marriage," certainly they'd much rather advocate for the outlawing of divorce. Additionally, demographic data suggests that homosexual marriage will protect the institution of marriage (S9). According to NBC, states that allow same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates. These statists show that states that legalized homosexual marriage in 2013 had a divorce rate approximately 20% lower than states that prohibited it (S10).

IV. Are Homosexuals Capable of Raising Children

Many question the ability of homosexual couples to raise children. However, recent studies have shown that homosexuals are capable of being good parents. Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University who researches gay and lesbian parenting, says that gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents." Research also suggests that gay and lesbian parents are a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption. According to a 2007 report by the Williams Institute and the Urban Institute, 65,000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with another 14,000 children living in foster homes of gays and lesbians. Research has also shown that the kids of same-sex couples were raised no worse than kids of straight couples in terms of mental health, social functioning and school performance. In a 2010 study conducted by sociologist Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz, there were no differences found between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents (S11). Other research that suggest that homosexuals are compatible parents was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The association holds that "the research has been remarkably consistent in showing that [homosexual] parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents," (S12).

V. Sources
S1) http://www.dictionary.com...

S2) http://www.dictionary.com...
S3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
S4) https://en.wikipedia.org...
S5) https://cruxnow.com...
S6) http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...
S7) http://www.pewforum.org...
S8) https://infogr.am...
S9) http://ic.galegroup.com...
S10) http://www.nbcchicago.com...
S11) http://www.livescience.com...
S12) http://www.latimes.com...
DefenderofBacon

Con

I would like to reiterate again that I do not believe homosexuality is "immoral" in anyway and I understand that it is a natural, biological occurrence. I also believe that they are capable of raising children in the same fashion as a man and a woman could. I am going to be arguing that they shouldn't be married in the same fashion as a man and woman are. Now, for the arguments.

For the arguments, I will be arguing that marriage between two homosexuals should be renamed to something new.

1. Culture

Every group in the world has their own specific culture. From Hispanics, to Africans, to Asians, and Europeans. We all have this idea of "marriage", that has been, until recently, a man and woman joining together in holy matrimony. The new definition of marriage is "the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)" (oxforddictionaries.com). Now, most people might be thinking that I am going to argue that the culture of marriage should be the thing protected. This is wrong. I believe that the homosexuals' culture should have been the one that was protected. Hear me out on this one. They had their own culture: to be able to live under the same roof and get the same benefits as married couples could. What is the absolute problem of not calling it marriage? That's the beauty of the thing! The homosexual community could have named it anything they wanted to. They weren't restricted to the bounds of just marriage. However, it seemed the liberals were looking more to pushing them to do it. They wanted to put the focus on homosexual marriage instead of the more important things such as homosexual and transgender civil unions. There were quite a few homosexuals that were against marriage (politicaldiscourse.com, bbc.com). They all the same things: it isn't the same type of union that is formed when a man and woman are married and should not be.


2. Marriage is a Privilege, not a Right.

Marriage is a privilege that is given to a man and woman who wish to spend the rest of their lives together with. As you can see from usconstitution.net, it is not in the Constitution of the United States as a right. It is given to the people who get married in a church (or who marry at a courthouse). I believe that the homosexual community should come up with its own form of "joining together" that is both unique and original. However, the government has begun to say that it needs a bigger role in marriage, which leads me on to my next point.

3. The Government

This is the biggest issue with homosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with the homosexuals themselves, but with the government wanting more power in the average citizen's life. The real reason why the left pushed this agenda of homosexual marriage was to get more power over the religious systems. This is exactly why the government had "separation of church from state". Not because the church would influence government, but to protect religion from the government. The government has tried different ways in order to get more power over the people. The 18th amendment is a perfect example of this. It was created to lower crime, however it raised it because people realized that the government was just trying to gain more power in their lives. The same thing is with homosexual marriage. There has already been a case in which the government was attempting to coerce a pastor to do a same-sex marriage. Luckily, they were able to sue and win the case. However, what if it comes down to the day when religions aren't able to defend themselves?

I ultimately do not have a problem with homosexual marriage and am not offended by it. I am worried that the government will use that to its advantage to gain more power in the individual lives of the people they are governing. That religions will soon be forced to do these weddings despite the protection of the first amendment. I wish you luck in the debate and I can't wait to see your rebuttals.

Note: In the first paragraph under "Homosexuality", I believe there is an error in spelling. It says "homosexuality is a sexuality in which a person is sexuality attracted to another of the same gender". I believe you meant to say "sexually" but just correct me if I am wrong. Thanks!



Sources:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

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

http://www.bbc.com...

http://www.usconstitution.net...

https://www.adflegal.org...
Debate Round No. 2
CosmoJarvis

Pro

Rebuttal One:
"I believe that the homosexuals' culture should have been the one that was protected. Hear me out on this one... What is the absolute problem of not calling [a union of a same-sex couple] marriage? That's the beauty of the thing! The homosexual community could have named it anything they wanted to. They weren't restricted to the bounds of just marriage."

My opponent believes that to "protect" the culture of Homosexuals, we must refer to the union of a same-sex couple as something other than Homosexual Marriage. However, this is a blatant act of segregation. Nowhere does my opponent describe what he considers "homosexual culture," nor does he explain how opposite-sex marriage will "harm homosexual culture." Using another term to refer to the union between people of the same sex simply segregates the straight and homosexual community even moreso than it is now. Homosexual marriage activists do not want to attack straight people or their rights to be married. These people simply want homosexuals to be legally be protected under the same laws and rights that straight people have, specifically marriage.


I would also like to analyze an article that my opponent introduced, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...;. This article, as my opponent summarizes, is about a homosexual man that does not advocate for homosexual marriage. This man is Doug Mainwaring. He argues that homosexual marriage is perverse and threatens to "adulterate" and "mutilate" the institution of marriage (S1). A brief look at the articles he has published easily shows that he is a highly religious man who bases most of his work around same-sex marriage. He has claimed things such as "Proponents of same-sex marriage haven’t won in the arena of ideas—they have won through manipulation and intimidation..." in his article, "Marriage, Marketing and Intimidation," (S2). It is clear that he defends his claims with religion, accusing it of being sinful, and against God's "gift" of marriage. Yet, he still openly admits that "Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many," (S3).

Rebuttal Two:
"Marriage is a privilege that is given to a man and woman who wish to spend the rest of their lives together with."
My opponent claims that marriage is a privilege specifically given to a man and a woman. However, restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is clearly unconstitutional, as it violates the 14th Amendment. According to the 14th Amendment, "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," (S4). Therefore, giving exclusive privileges to opposite-sex couples infringes on the 14th Amendment.

Rebuttal Three:
"This is the biggest issue with homosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with the homosexuals themselves, but with the government wanting more power in the average citizen's life. The real reason why the left pushed this agenda of homosexual marriage was to get more power over the religious systems... I am worried that the government will use that to its advantage to gain more power in the individual lives of the people they are governing. That religions will soon be forced to do these weddings despite the protection of the first amendment."
My opponent's final point is focused around how homosexual marriage will not serve any positive purpose, and is, in fact, not even relevant to homosexuals, but instead acts as the next step for the government to infringe upon the rights of the people. He also talks about how legalizing homosexual marriage is an attack on religions, using hypothetical statements such as "what if it comes down to the day when religions aren't able to defend themselves?" My opponent uses the 1st Amendment, specifically the freedom to practice religious faith and expression, to support his argument.

My opponent is implying that homosexual marriage is a malicious scheme to give the government more power, and to take away the power of the church. He also goes as far to say that homosexual marriage is hardly even relevant to homosexuals. Firstly, yes, the freedom to practice your faith is protected by the first amendment. He believes that, because many religions do not accept homosexual marriage, we must prohibit it. With that logic, we should forbid people to wear torn clothes such as ripped jeans, gold or pearl accessories, tattoos and wearing polyester or other fabric blends, being that it goes against the Bible (S5), yet we don't abide by these religious laws. Additionally, there are checks on how extensive the power of the church is. According to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," (S6). The Constitution guarantees religious people's right to believe in their religion freely and assemble, it stringently restricts religions from being an influence in politics. Therefore, the argument that homosexual marriage should be illegal on the account of how it infringes upon the rights of churches is countered by the Constitution. Furthermore, the act of legalizing gay marriage in America was not an act of control, but that of equality and the expansion of American people's civil rights.

Conclusion:
To summarize, my opponent made three arguments against the legalization of homosexual marriage: the "protection" of "homosexual culture," the belief that marriage is a "special privilege" exclusive to straight couples, and that legalizing homosexual marriage will allow the government to have more power and to infringe upon the rights of the people and religion. He used sources such as an article from Doug Mainwaring, biased writer and religious activist, and the First Amendment of the Constitution. Additionally, my opponent agrees with certain parts of my argument, saying "I do not believe homosexuality is 'immoral' in anyway and I understand that it is a natural, biological occurrence. I also believe that they are capable of raising children in the same fashion as a man and a woman could." He also seems to agree with my argument in that homosexual marriage will not attack the institution of marriage, as he says, "Now, most people might be thinking that I am going to argue that the culture of marriage should be the thing protected. This is wrong."

Personally, I was confused during different parts of his argument. He believes that we should not refer to the union of homosexuals as "marriage," strictly for the homosexuals benefit. What benefit would alienating the homosexual community be to homosexuals? Many people advocate for homosexual marriage solely so that homosexuals are more equal to the straight community, not to be segregated from it. What I also find confusing is that my opponent clearly supports giving homosexual couples the benefits and implications of straight marriage, stating "They had their own culture: to be able to live under the same roof and get the same benefits as married couples could. What is the absolute problem of not calling it marriage?" and continues to boast about how "beautiful" it would be to call homosexual marriage something different.


Sources:
S1) http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

S2) http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...
S3) http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...
S4) https://www.law.cornell.edu...
S5) http://list25.com...
S6) https://www.constituteproject.org...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Round forfeited. Wonderful.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
DefenderofBacon, can you define what exactly "homosexual culture" is and how opposite-sex marriage will damage it?
Posted by DeenWorley 1 year ago
DeenWorley
im talking about gay marriage, age gap is a different topic and i agree with you there
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I agree but disagree with that statement. I do believe that people have the right to love people, regardless of their sex, but I don't support or believe in love between people with a large age gap.
Posted by DeenWorley 1 year ago
DeenWorley
as human beings, we should not restrict who is allowed to love
Posted by DeenWorley 1 year ago
DeenWorley
as human beings, we should not restrict who is allowed to love
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
I appreciate the support, and I'd be glad to have some spectators actively watching and commenting on this debate.
Posted by Vapid_Darkness 1 year ago
Vapid_Darkness
This is going to be fun to watch. Id love to debate, but I see no problem with Homosexual Marriage. Good luck!
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.