The Instigator
OhioForHillary
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
goldspurs
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

SSM should be Legalized

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 13 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,292 times Debate No: 350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (50)
Votes (18)

 

OhioForHillary

Pro

Arguments are made that GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered) people should not be aloud to raise children. First of all, this argument is null and void. Statistics have shown that children raised in GLBT families are just as well off and possibly better off then those raised in straight families. And no, children raised by GLBT parents aren't always GLBT. All respectable medical, psychological, and children based organizations have come out stating that children are all of the above (APA, AMA, ect).

Secondly arguments are made that this opens the door for marrying your livestock or even multiple partners. The people who say anything about marrying livestock have certain issues, Two people marrying. And sadly, yes marriage has been redefined before. It now includes interracial couples. I can't even fight the argument that SSM would open the door for Polygamy because there is no basis, any first year law student could tell you that, it's illogical.

Civil rights are unalienable to all people. A government cannot deny rights to any citizen. There are over a thousand benefits offered to Opposite Sex couples that are denied to Same Sex couples.
goldspurs

Con

I would first like to establish common ground by saying that I do not disagree that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. I do not agree that it is a healthy household due to fact that the natural order has a mother and a father in a household. Obviously there are many households that are minus one of these figures even in straight couples. If you are going to quote statistics please provide a link. Same-sex parents are not really focused on the needs of children, but upon the needs of a small number of adults. No society would purposely deny a child a mother or father, yet that is what same-sex households do. The nature of the beast dictates that all same-sex households ALWAYS be without one of these important parental figures.

My argument against gay marriage focuses mostly around the benefits that marriage provides, and why only traditional families should be entitled to said benefits.

The first question I ask is why does the goverment bestow so many rights upon two people in the first place? What could the goverment possibly receive in return for promoting marriage. I argue that the goverment gives these benefits to traditional families based upon the fact that these families help to ensure the continued natural existence of the nation. This is somthing same-sex couples obvioosly cannot provide due to obvious reasons.

The goverment is not in place to provide happiness. It does ensure that you have the "pursuit of happiness", but does NOT provide. Are you saying that same-sex couple cannot be happy without the benefits of the goverment? And please esatblish why the goverment should provide those benefits to a relationship that provides no real benefit for the goverment.

Another problem that same-sex marriage has is support of the country. The majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage and think it should be left up to the states to decide. In the 2004 vote some states voted on whether SSM should be allowed or not. Even in Oregon, where the Gay and Lesbian lobby focused its efforts, it failed miseribly. Shouldn't what the majority wants matter in something so controversial?

http://www.abcnews.go.com...

I thank you for providing this debate and I'm sure we can complete it in a civil manner. This debate can bring the worst out of people from both sides of the spectrum and I wish to avoid that.
Debate Round No. 1
OhioForHillary

Pro

OhioForHillary forfeited this round.
goldspurs

Con

Seeing as my opponent was a little tardy I will an argument this round to let him catch up. Merry Christmas!
Debate Round No. 2
OhioForHillary

Pro

OhioForHillary forfeited this round.
goldspurs

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has failed to post again. I would like to point out that I have refuted his points and provided my own reasons for banning SSM.

Yes the goverment can deny rights to citizens. You do not see the goverment providing benefits to same sex couples who are not married. I would like for someone to tell me when the goverment got into the business of endorsing love? Can same-sex couples only be happy if they receive marital benefits?

I am not a "gay-basher" or anything like that. My personal and religious opinions have been left out of the debate. I do not think homosexuals are bad people, but I don not see the proof on the PRO side for providing them with benefits.
Debate Round No. 3
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 41 through 50 records.
Posted by mikelwallace 13 years ago
mikelwallace
If you need research to prove to you that homosexuality is unnatural then there is a clear problem, all you need is an anatomy book. If there were any species in history that were predominantly homosexual we would never know cause they would "breed" themselves to extinction. People have the right to be homosexual, it is a personal choice, but to argue that it is natural is without a doubt the most ridiculous and illogical thing I have ever heard. No serious and logical thinking person would ever entertain that Im sorry.
Posted by goldspurs 13 years ago
goldspurs
artC, exactly where in the Constitution does it say that same-sex couples have a right to marital benefits? Did I miss something?? The goverment DOES NOT provide happiness, it just ensures that you have a right to happiness. Are you telling me same-sex couples can only love each other and be happy if they get those benefits?

As far as children in same-sex households go, there is many studies that show missing a father in the household can cause problems in the child later on in life. How does that go with the studies you are quoting?
Posted by artC 13 years ago
artC
I absoluetly need to say two things about your argument goldspur.

1. "I do not agree that it is a healthy household due to fact that the natural order has a mother and a father in a household"-you

It has not been proven whether that is natural order. Since homosexuality happens in nature and family units happen in nature. It could be said that having a family with same sex parents is natural as well.

2. You use the benefits citizens provide for the country as an argument. But I think you are wrong in thinking the country runs on what it can get out of its people. The government is here FOR us. Not the other way around. It was established by the people to work for the people. That's kind of what democracy is. To deny someone at the least, a civil union, is to deny them their constitutional rights as a citizen of this country It is flat out against the constitution.

The only reason this is even a debate is because of the massive number of theists.
Posted by mikelwallace 13 years ago
mikelwallace
"That research is not done by ANY credible orginazations", does that mean you have pinpointed the source of every study with those results and have a good reason to discredit them? I must say it just sounds like the classic silence the other argument case. Like when Al Gore just pretends that no scientists disagree with him in anyway, thats awfully convenient.
Posted by goldspurs 13 years ago
goldspurs
thats fine...take your time...I have to go Christmas shopping most of the weekend anyways.
Posted by OhioForHillary 13 years ago
OhioForHillary
It might take me some time to formulate the response to this because of many issues you addressed.
Posted by OhioForHillary 13 years ago
OhioForHillary
That research is not done by any credibly organization. The NASW, APA, AMA, and several other organizations say differently. I'm still trying to find the Amicus Curiae Brief.
Posted by mikelwallace 13 years ago
mikelwallace
To be fair, you should let people know that there is an enormous amount of research stating that a baby needs a male father and female mother to develop properly. That research is much more common than the research you state in your argument. this is something i have looked into and that is just the facts.
Posted by OhioForHillary 13 years ago
OhioForHillary
You said that you can debate this without use of religion... Lets see it
Posted by goldspurs 13 years ago
goldspurs
I will accept your debate, but I do not have the time to give a good first argument until friday night or saturday morning.

Lets establish one thing though. I am not debating whether same-sex couples should be allowed to raise kids or not. I believe they have every right to adopt a kid.

I am only debating whether they should not be allowed to marry.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 5 years ago
U.n
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 13 years ago
bigbass3000
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by solo 13 years ago
solo
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 13 years ago
griffinisright
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 13 years ago
Tatarize
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 13 years ago
blond_guy
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Bitz 13 years ago
Bitz
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Richard89 13 years ago
Richard89
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Kals 13 years ago
Kals
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 
Vote Placed by magpie 13 years ago
magpie
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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:03 

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.