The Instigator
SpeakYourMind
Pro (for)
Winning
55 Points
The Contender
crazyninja77
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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: 1/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,424 times Debate No: 14544
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (37)
Votes (15)

 

SpeakYourMind

Pro

I belive gay marriage should be alllowed for simple reasons. I myself am a heterosexual man, but I believe that every person has the right to live their lives as they see fit. Not allowing gay marriage is effectively infringing upon other people's lives, and not allowing them to be with the sex that brings them fullfillment.

I understand that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Understand though, that the Bible was written when the Romans and Greeks, famous for their horrible sexual practices were in power. Homosexuality was just another act of theirs in which they satisfied deviant thoughts, and that SHOULD be condemned, I agree. But homosexuality is not like that, at least in most cases, in today's times. There are homosexuals who commit to thier partners for the long term, and some adopt, and their children grow to be good adults. What is wrong with it? Take out the Bible's condemnation, justified as it was at the time, and your false belief that all homosexuals are incapable of raising a child effectively, and you have little to argue your case. I'd like to hear what my opponent would have to say though. It's good to hear different opinions.

But here's a story to maybe help show why it is wrong to condemn homosexuality. I've had a friend years back, who I talked to daily for nearly a year. Never knew she was homosexual, and I never knew she had such troubles within her. One day she confided in me a story noone else was ever told. At 12 she was raped by a friend's father, and afterward she could not look at any man, let alone consider being with one without disgust. Years later, she still feels disgusted at men, but does have affection for women. Would you dare tell this poor soul, that she has to force herself to be with a man, who would remind her of the day her childhood was stripped from her, because the Bible says to, because you don't understand it? I myself find it hard to understand, but in this case you can more understand how it is for some people. Her life is difficult enough, without people telling her that she cannot and should not seek out love and affection, which is what you're doing when you condemn homosexuality. I ask that you please, listen to me with an open mind, and see that this belief brings harm to her and who knows how many others. I don't know if more are homosexual by circumstance in their lives or actually born with it, but it still remains the same. People deserve to live their lives, and find happiness. We may not understand, but for their sakes, at least try to be tolerant. We're all people, and we all have the same emotions.

As for people who ask for homosexuals to change, I ask, if homosexuals were a majority and they demanded that you change, what would you say? You wouldn't, and you couldn't even if you wanted to. Everyone is born differently, and everyone's life is different in different ways, further shaping who they become. Some things can be reversed, but some things are attached to the core of our being and make us us. That's how it is.

I hope that I have helped some that were against homosexuality before, see a little more of why it should be allowed. For those that already believed it should be, I hope I've given a stronger reaffirmation of your belief, and that perhaps you too will be willing to stand up for others rights. I am looking forward to hearing what my opponent has to say regarding the matter, and hope that we remain civil throughout it, despite differing views :).

As for sources and statistics, I feel my argument is strong enough despite a lack of them. If my opponent makes good points I might just have to however, and all for the better :). My sources are from my own personal experience and beliefs due to them and how I think. I look forward to a good debate.
crazyninja77

Con

This type of marriage should not be allowed for several reasons that I will be presenting below. This has been a developing issue over the past decades, and is growing all the time. I will be taking the con side in this argument, and I am looking forward to a legitimate debate over this topic of your choosing. I want to start by stating my first reason why this type of marriage should not be allowed. There is nothing anywhere that can prove this to be a normal, natural lifestyle. It is undeniably obvious. Please tell me how the world would continue to increase in population if this type of marriage was normal. The world would simply die off because these type of people cannot have natural children, and therefore must adopt. If everybody in the world held the viewpoint that it was normal, then there would be no children for them to adopt, and thus the world would die off. I am not going to be bashing the people that hold to this viewpoint, I will just be talking about the viewpoint.

Now, as that woman that you were referring to, I am very sorry to hear about that. That had to leave a terrible scar on her emotionally, even unto this day. However, I have a few questions, what do you think would have happened if it was a lady that took advantage of her? The circumstances would definitely be different. This is basically what happened to her emotionally. She had that incident happen to her, and she felt like she could not trust anyone that is a male. She developed a stereotype of the male gender in her mind, and she turned to the only gender that was left for her emotional comfort. If this had happened to her two different times, by two different genders, she would be in a very confused state today, as should would have stereotypes of both genders in her mind. The thing that should have happened, was a great deal of encouragement, and a good councilor to help the issue gradually become better. I am not demanding that they change, I am just showing them the fact that this type of lifestyle is not normal, no matter what viewpoint, or angle you look at it.

The recommendation that I have, is for anyone that has this type of viewpoint, that they all move to they same country, and live there. It would make things much more simple. They would be able to enjoy their lifestyle, and they would not have to worry about anyone saying anything about how they live.

I realize that I said I would bring out other points on this which I will do, once I have heard my opponents response to my argument.
Debate Round No. 1
SpeakYourMind

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. And thank you for not using hateful language as well, I'm glad to know you're not hateful and intolerant. It seems to me that you genuinely believe as you do, though I hope to show you more to it than what you see.

Firstly, I will negate your first comment 'There is nothing anywhere that can prove this to be a normal, natural lifestyle'.

Definition of "normal" : conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal.

By the definition of normal, statistics show that gays are most certainly not "normal". It is proven. A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.' This is most certainly a false statement.

As for homosexuality being 'natural'...

Definition of natural : functioning or occurring in a normal <--(Note the word) way; lacking abnormalities <-- or deficiencies. As you can see, using logic, homosexuality is, by definition, not 'normal' and not 'natural'. In this debate, natural often has a slightly different meaning, though you did not describe your definition of normal, nor natural in your argument, thus I conclude you mean their true meaning. Your first argument has been negated. It is not 'undeniably obvious'.

As for the 'how the world would continue to increase in population if this type of marriage was normal', is entirely irrelevent to this debate. Accepting gay marriage, will not magically, or gradually, turn all or any heterosexuals into homosexuals. That is preposterous, and it seems that this is what you imply. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and lesbians, are a very minute minority, and to even suggest that they would somehow multiply to a number higher than heterosexuals is absurd. That is not a problem we have to worry about. Heterosexuals would go on producing, as they always have.

As for your belief that if everybody accepted the viewpoint, 'then there would be no children to adopt', is also invalidated due to the invalidation of the prior statement.

As for your statement that the 'circumstances would definitely be different' if she was raped by a woman, well yes of course, though this irrelevent to the debate.

Though your use of 'would' and 'would have' in the statement 'she would be in a very confused state today, as she would have stereotypes of both genders in her mind.' is an assumption, and assumptions stated as facts are not allowed in debates. You are assuming something true that could not be proven. Perhaps some other event would happen, due to the second rape, and she would receive help for her pain. Noone knows. Even if it is the most likely, it is still an assumption.

And your talk of what should have happened after her incident is also irrelevent to the debate. It does not give us any reason to believe gay marriage should continue to be banned. And I find the fact that you say 'I am not demanding that they change, I am just showing them the fact that this type of lifestyle is not normal, no matter what viewpoint, or angle you look at it.' still does not further your argument. They know very well that they are a minority without being told that, and saying that you don't demand they change would have no affect on them or any other homosexuals whatsoever.

And as for your recommendation, that is a completely impractical, if not an impossible, inhumane, suggestion. It would succeed in avoiding having to come to terms with giving homosexuals rights, however, and I assume this is what you would want, because you don't agree with it.

Do you know that Abraham Lincoln, yes, Lincoln, suggested sending all 'Negroes' back to Africa before he was shot and killed by Booth? Why would he do that, besides the fact that the blacks would want to leave anyway? Because at the time, there was widespread hatred and/or intolerance of blacks, and America would not have to deal with the 'problem' if it was removed from their presence. Homosexuals face the same discrimination then and now, sometimes more severe, sometimes less, but they still face discrimination, and those that are 'normal' need to accept that everyone has their differences, and learn to deal with that fact. The suggestion of Abraham Lincoln's suited both parties, but yours is merely misguided to an extreme and impossible. No country would accept a mass influx of people to begin with, let alone homosexuals, on top of all the moral wrongs within that. This suggestion is invalidated, however, on the basis of complete impossibility and impracticality.

I hope this has made you rethink your views. I have enjoyed this debate thus far, and I will be awaiting your next argument. And thank you for accepting my challenge.

Sources
http://gaylife.about.com...
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
crazyninja77

Con

You are welcome. I do not believe that it is right for people to use hateful language to try to win their debate. That aggravates me very much. First of all, I am going to start refuting your first two comments about what I said. Where in mother nature can you tell me that you find this same kind of lifestyle? It doesn't make itself evident in nature, with animals, and therefore that is what I meant by it not being normal, and natural. People are not born with a desire for someone of their own gender. It is a desire that is triggered by several different things, the biggest of these being situations in the family. For example, lets say that a boy is raised in a home, that is a functioning American family. However, the father of the home, works on a Ups route, and is rarely home. The boy, still needing an influence in his life, turns to his mother, for support and encouragement, that is supposed to come from the father. So, basically, he is being taught how to become a man, by his mother. This will ultimately led in a boy that has an effeminate voice, and when they get out of the house, they will still be seeking a male influence in their life, to take the spot of the father that never was around. This can cause them to turn to this type of lifestyle.
I do not see what the discrimination against black people has anything to do with the homosexual crowd. The type of discrimination that was upon the blacks, is way more intense then the what little discrimination there might be on the homosexuals. Allow me to explain. The blacks face extreme types of discrimination such as lynching, getting sent to the back of the bus, complete social segregation, I could go on and on. The worst thing that the homosexual crowd gets is what? A little "hate speech" now and then? That is nothing compared to what the blacks went trough.
So what's wrong with being gay?? I will try to make you see. The issue of homosexual behavior has had a lot of publicity of late. Homosexuals say that the slaves have been freed and women have been liberated, so gay rights are long overdue. Society does seem to be moving in that direction. Many homosexuals are "coming out" and openly declaring their homosexuality. In many parts of the western world, homosexual couples receive the same recognition as heterosexual couples with regard to social security benefits. Some church leaders are giving their blessing to homosexual relationships, homosexual church members and even homosexual ministers.Many homosexuals' claim that…

They are made that way.

Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.

If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.

Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid. (Some even claim that the Bible condones homosexual relationships.)
Made that way?

Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one expert has said …

"Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."

In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.

Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument,Hamer's X-chromosome research,LeVay's study of the hypothalamus, and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results". There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.

To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable.

No harm?

Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.
Nobody else's business?

Gay activists claim that homosexual activity is nobody's business other than those involved in the relationship. However, this is not true. God, our Designer and Creator, has authority over all aspects of our lives. He makes the rules, and He quite specifically forbids homosexual behavior.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; see also Leviticus 20:13).

Disobedience of such a clear command indicates rejection of God's authority.

Some people argue that the Old Testament law (including Leviticus 18 and 20) was superseded with the coming of Christ. However, we should at least consider as binding those aspects of the law that are renewed in the New Testament. The teaching of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was certainly reaffirmed in the New Testament.
Some people claim that homosexual behavior was only condemned in the Bible because it was associated with idolatry (e.g. 1 Kings 14:24). However, it is clearly condemned apart from idolatry as well (e.g. Leviticus 18:22). It is described in Scripture as an unnatural, immoral perversion.
As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.
Debate Round No. 2
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 2 years ago
SpeakYourMind
If you'd like to debate me, I'm open to hear why you think it is wrong.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 2 years ago
SpeakYourMind
It's only legal in a couple states, because of society's view on homosexuality. That's like saying in the 1950's that blacks are inferior to whites because most states were prejudiced against them. It is a wholly faulty argument, as society is wrong on many stances- past and present.
Posted by Countrygirl1011 2 years ago
Countrygirl1011
I think that gay marriage should be illegal. It is wrong, I mean yes I have gay friends but its wrong. I told them that I don't think what they are doing is right. I think it is wrong actually. it is only legal in in a couple states for a reason. that is to prevent it.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 3 years ago
SpeakYourMind
Yes I know, it just rubs me the wrong way is all. People in general tend to act or think based on personal biases, including me at times, so I just need to remind myself that sometimes. :)
Posted by Yurlene 3 years ago
Yurlene
Speak: It's because he's voting based on his own bias. ~_~ typical
Posted by SpeakYourMind 3 years ago
SpeakYourMind
Wow I bet Crls011 didn't even read this at all. Ninja didn't even list any source, and the Bible is the only source noted and it can't be used in a debate. Ridiculous.
Posted by Yurlene 3 years ago
Yurlene
Ninja... It is quite obvious that you feed off of the anti-gay propaganda. I re-read the "debate" and generally many statements you made are blanket statements. Your arguments are highly flawed in many ways and are very distasteful.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 3 years ago
SpeakYourMind
I'd say alot more, but I'd be wasting my breath. All I have said in this debate, I hope, shows others why homosexuals should be allowed to marry. There is alot more to say to further my argument, as this specific viewpoint truly is as simple as everyone is human and should be allowed to live their life as they see fit and be happy, though the bulk has been stated. If you still stand with those like crazyninja77 though, I hope that at the least you aren't so rude and intolerant about it, because that just makes it even more intolerable for all who disagree.

As for when I said 'I'm glad to know you're not hateful and intolerant.' to crazyninja77 in the second round, I retract the statement, because this statement obviously shows so. He simply held in his truly hateful views and tried to sound neutral during the debate. Speak your mind crazyninja77, if you're right about it, why not say it all? Because you know very few would be that hateful and vote for you if that were the case. Blinded to truth.. what a shame.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 3 years ago
SpeakYourMind
I think your comment here basically shows the kind of person you are. I normally wouldn't say such this, but now it is obvious. You are a lowly pathetic man crazyninja77, and I am sorry you are as much of an imbassil as you sounded during the majority of the debate.

Learn to respect other people's opinions, and stop being such a rude bigot. It has no place on this site, nor in any kind of debate. That is all I have to say to you now, I see that with you at least you won't ever change. It's sad, though I will pray for you nonetheless. Good day.
Posted by crazyninja77 3 years ago
crazyninja77
Well this isn't a real debate moron, or we would be talking face to face, and it would last much longer!! And by the way gavin-windbag, I don't copy and paste all of my arguments, only the ones that I don't feel like arguing with idiots!
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Crls011 3 years ago
Crls011
SpeakYourMindcrazyninja77Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 3 years ago
Shestakov
SpeakYourMindcrazyninja77Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Amethist17 3 years ago
Amethist17
SpeakYourMindcrazyninja77Tied
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:42 
Vote Placed by Yurlene 3 years ago
Yurlene
SpeakYourMindcrazyninja77Tied
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:50 
Vote Placed by SusanBrei 3 years ago
SusanBrei
SpeakYourMindcrazyninja77Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Dyllon 3 years ago
Dyllon
SpeakYourMindcrazyninja77Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by tymel1120 3 years ago
tymel1120
SpeakYourMindcrazyninja77Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Studious_Christian 3 years ago
Studious_Christian
SpeakYourMindcrazyninja77Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by marg2003 3 years ago
marg2003
SpeakYourMindcrazyninja77Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by Alchemistress 3 years ago
Alchemistress
SpeakYourMindcrazyninja77Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20