The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Should Gay marriage be Legal?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,035 times Debate No: 73687
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Gay people love, just like everyone else! What's wrong with that!? God said not to judge, so if you're straight, who cares? Their life isn't your problem!


My opponent's arguments are weak.

- Merely because someone loves another person is not enough to warrant legal recognition. I love my mother but our legal connection (being her child) comes from two things: biology and state interests. The state's interest in this entire thing is to bring me closer to my mother in order to ensure a good environment for growth. Marriage means mothers and fathers come together for life. Of course divorce is fairly common (~50%), in part due to liberal divorce laws, but the fact is that married couples stay together longer. This means there are two incomes, reducing poverty. Connecting fathers to their children reduces teen delinquency, increases educational attainment, and leads to greater stability [1]. The government doesn't care about love. Love *is* essential for marriage, but it is *not* sufficient. The government encourages marriage in order to promote responsible procreation and child rearing. This means homosexuals cannot be married because, unlike heterosexuals, they do not fulfill the state's interest. I am legally connected to my parents not because of love, but because of the state's interest to promote stability. Of course, I personally am connected because of love and not the law, but the government would not regulate or monitor these issues if there was no reason to do so. So, for my opponent to win, he/she must prove that allowing gay marriage fosters a strong state interest.

- God is irrelevant to public policy. The church and the state are separated--my argument is secular.

- It doesn't matter if it affects you. If I became married and beat up my wife it wouldn't affect you but it would be regulated (and I am not comparing SSM to spousal abuse, btw). It is regulated because it harms someone. Same sex marriage means more same sex parenting, and this means more children are harmed. Sure, gay parenting should not be banned--for the simple reason that it is impractical. But promoting child rearing from homosexual homes is irresponsible. And, again, they do not fulfill state interests.
> I must also note that SSM has moral harms as well. Harms do not need to be tangible in order to be relevant. Desecrating the meaning of marriage is an abstract concept but has real meaning.
> Slippery slope has become an issue in countries with SSM, and is a totally realistic argument.
> harming institution of marriage

Hope my opponent is now more aware of some basic anti-SSM arguments and understands that they do not stem from religion nor bigotry.

Debate Round No. 1


That was merely my opening statement. So you say that gay marriage cannot fulfill the state's interest because they cannot procreate. Well, has a straight couple who can't reproduce because of medical reasons been turned away at the alter (this is figuratively, not literally)? No! Why would anyone say, state or otherwise, that people who love each other cannot make a commitment to each other! Gay couples can do everything to benefit the state that straight couples can, except for one thing- they don't 'produce' children- instead, they adopt for the multitude of children without any parents! (1) (There are 397,122 children in foster homes(2))
They do not, in any way, "harm the institution of marriage"! Why would you think that? Like, seriously, I would like to hear a good explanation for that statement! It is completely unfounded and was just thrown into your argument. Gay marriage does not change the meaning of marriage (3), and will in no way hurt the existing straight couples!


== Infertile couples ==

1. Preventing infertile couples from marrying one another is simply impractical. With homosexuals, if they are marrying someone of the same sex, it is easy to spot it. This is not true for infertile couples. Many people who are unable to reproduce do not even know it until they are married. Taking away their marriage at that point wouldn't make any sense. Testing people before they get married would either cost the state, the people getting married, or the insurance companies. Doing this *only* has the effect of making it harder for people to marry with added cost. It is impractical to do this. Enforcing this for gays is not particularly difficult.

2. Infertiles can have heterosexual sex which makes them procreative in type. This in and of itself promotes the meaning of marriage--a comprehensive union oriented towards procreation and child rearing--as it promotes heterosexual sex acts. This means prohibiting interfiles is actually against my argument because it further muddy's the meaning of marriage.

3. Infertile heterosexual sex still embodies fertile heterosexual sex. They are united comprehensively. They are a union still oriented towards procreation. A broken finger is still a finger, despite the fact it is unable to be a finger in effect. It cannot bend, pick up, or lift anything. But it is still a finger. A deaf ear is still an ear, it just cannot hear. This is the same for marriage. Infertile couples are still married, they just cannot do it in effect. Homosexuals cannot do it in effect nor can they orient themselves toward procreation because they do not procreate--their sexual unions are not intrinsically capable of having children. Infertiles are intrinsically capable, even if they are extrinsically unable to.

== Adoption ==

1. Homosexuals raising children is not as effective as heterosexuals. As I have discussed before, I do *not* support prohibiting gay child rearing. But I do argue that, on balance, children do best when raised by *heterosexual* parents. When a gay person adopts a child, they will never have a mother *and* a father. Both of which are important for child rearing. "Over thirty years of research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage. Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family. This is, in part, because biology contributes to parent-child bonding." [1]

2. Gay marriage means children do not have two parent dual gender homes. This means children are worse off if we legalize gay marriage.

== The institution of marriage ==

1. This is untrue. As noted, marriage is defined between a man and a woman whose union has the inherent capacity (though they may be unable to) create children and rear them in dual parent, dual gender, homes. By allowing gay marriage we are forced to take out procreation and child rearing. It would be redefined as a union between two loving human beings. But this fails because friendships, unmarried relationships, and polygamous unions would all fall within this category. Polygamy technically does not, however the two person criteria at this point would become arbitrary. So it, too, would logically be recognized. Allowing all of these groups to access the benefits of marriage would harm the institution.

2. An interesting study in the Netherlands has found marriage rates declined. It is not significant at the 5% level, but it is significant at the 10% level. This means there is a 90% chance, statistically, that gay marriages have reduced the marriage rate in the Netherlands [2]. This is a verifiable negative. Fewer children get raised in married homes; crime, poverty, and delinquency would increase over the long-term.

3. Liberals like to claim that in the Netherlands divorce rates were stable, so gay marriage has no effect. This is playing with statistics in a dishonest manner. Homosexual divorce rates in Scandinavia are higher than the divorce rates of heterosexual couples [3], so any norms of a lifelong union damaged by no-fault divorce laws will further disintegrate. In the UK heterosexual cohabiting relationships broke up about twice as often as marriages over 5 years, for homosexuals they broke up five times as much [4]. Although formal divorces have declined in the Netherlands, unorthodox 'flash' divorces have increased--the increase is responsible for the former's decrease. These divorces, when measured, outweigh the decline. This means SSM in the Netherlands has ruined marriage [5].

4. Remember we are a long way away from even studying the effect of SSM on marriage--in most cases, a decade is a very short time period. So, really, all we have is theory. And the theories claiming SSM will have no effect (or be good) are severely lacking, but the arguments proving that it will, on balance, be bad have been borne out in theory but also in the newest research [6].

Debate Round No. 2


So I'm sorry, I'm just so confused. You're actually saying if the state or the individual (or insurance) didn't have to pay for it, (as in it was known since earlier in life) a heterosexual infertile person should be denied marriage?!?! That doesn't make sense concerning infertile straight people, or gay people! Or, what if a couple, (straight or gay) didn't want to have sex? (Like, ever?) (I know, mind blowing!) Should they not be allowed to marry? Your points are weak and just sort of thrown together to look like a lot of writing!
Adoption- Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. (1) Plus, children that grow up in same-sex households will be more sympathetic to differences and more likely to believe in equality for all. (2).
The Netherlands facts are irrelevant.



== Infertiles ==

1. My opponent misinterprets what I say. I did *not* say that if the state pays for a fertility test that couples should be denied marriage if found to be infertile. I said that it would be too costly to do this, thus making the interfile argument null and void because doing so would, if anything, be harmful. The costs of mandating tests to prove fertility is inefficient—asking sexual orientation is easy. My opponent misinterprets my argument and thus has failed to refute it.

2. My opponent drops all of my other infertility points, including that infertile couples actually fulfill the procreation requirement while homosexuals do not.

3. It is laughable that my opponent calls my arguments “weak” when all he/she has done is say that “gay people love eachother”—which, by the way, I refuted and she dropped. She, then, has *zero* affirmative arguments. This is enough to vote Con. My arguments are not weak—my opponent is just closed minded to my views. Which is fine, he/she can believe whatever he/she likes.

== Parenting ==

1. If you actually go through the sources, the quotes come from a 2010 review of the literature on lesbians. This does not include male homosexual couples. This source should be discounted because the review cited ignored many key studies, including research noting how lesbians have higher divorce rates and how children of homosexual men are more likely to be detached and have emotional problems. The review, written by lesbians (confirmation bias, anyone?) ignores many key studies, including: Sarantakos 1996, Sirota 2007, and at least 6 other studies which the study either completely ignores (for no reason) or shows only the results favorable to the pro-gay political agenda. Newer studies, including Sullins 2014, Allen 2013, Regnerus 2012, Potter 2012, and Schumm 2012 have all shown that children raised by homosexuals do worse [1]. I offer studies using nationally representative results—my opponent cites a biased op ed summarizing the results of a fatally flawed study. I clearly win this point.

== Dropped points ==

One: Gay people love eachother—opponent dropped my rebuttal. This means she loses here *entire case*, which is enough for a Con win.

Two: Infertility—she ignores the bulk of my rebuttal here. This means I pretty much win the procreation argument, too.

Three: Institution of marriage—opponent drops this arguments. This mean he/she *concedes* that allowing gay marriage will harm the institution of marriage. Her only response is that “evidence from the Netherlands is irrelevant,” but she offers no reasons as to why it is irrelevant. Even assuming it does not apply nationally, the authors of the study say it does apply to the liberal states—making it very relevant for the country as a whole. Making such a strong claim needs an explanation. Unreferenced or unprovable assertions are not arguments. And I gave a reason why it would harm large swaths of the United States. This is the largest impact SSM will have: as I noted in R1, this means SSM would lower educational attainment, increase crime, and increase poverty. I win this point, too. This, just like he/she dropping her entire case, is enough to vote Con.

Four: Slippery slope—ignores this point.

Five: Moral harms—again, my opponent concedes this point as true.

It is pretty clear that I have won this debate. My opponent has dropped too many arguments to win, including his/her entire case, and has either dropped entire arguments I have made or the relevant rebuttals I brought up. There is no way that Pro has won this debate. Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ThatLibertarian 3 years ago
By the way, even though I don't agree with 16kadams I'm not biased because i disagree with him, and you people shouldn't be either.
Posted by ThatLibertarian 3 years ago
Although I support gay marriage being legal, pro made horrible arguments for it and did not represent people in support of making gay marriage legal well. He made virtually no legal arguments, most of them based on love and couples, and not stuff that would actually win a debate or convince any kind of government official to support the legalization of gay marriage. Take it away, Adams.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
the bias is strong with this one.
Posted by JR-CreativeGenius 3 years ago
Con's arguments are very weak and don't even make sense. Go Pro!
Posted by Falafa 3 years ago
Varrack should accept this debate.
Posted by Elord 3 years ago
Lol but but demonize people by their skin color.
I have an urge to troll by arguing that the Bible claims that homosexuality is a sin, chosen by these people. We look down at them just as we look down on people who have no self control and eat too much.
Posted by Jaxsor 3 years ago
Gay people just have different genes, like with eye color. Do we demonize people who have unusual eye colors? I didn't think so. So why should we stop gays from marrying?
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sadolite 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro made no legal arguments to the affirmative for gay marriage. The only argument to the affirmative for gay marriage made by pro was that gay people can love one another. Con destroyed this argument by proving that simply loving someone is not sufficient to justify changing access to marriage and that to accept such an argument opens the doors tall forms of love. Over, all of cons arguments and sources destroyed pro. I gave spelling and grammar to con as pro talked like a valley girl. (Like, ever?)