The Instigator
SpeakYourMind
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
MrCarroll
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,684 times Debate No: 14932
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

SpeakYourMind

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge, and I look forward to what I know will be a riveting debate. I have read MrCaroll's debates and they are finely structured and intelligent, so I am glad to have you as an opponent. I see where you're coming from. I'll begin.

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 fulfillment.

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 their 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 a false belief that all homosexuals are incapable of raising a child effectively, and you have little to argue your case.

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.

And some would argue that legalizing gay marriage would make it so that pedophiles and the like would then receive similar rights in the future. Ask homosexuals and bisexuals what you think, and the majority will also find it repugnant. When you say allowing homosexuals their rights will open the pathway for these other groups of people, you're essentially saying what they're doing is morally wrong, but not to the extent that these other groups are. They're just a little below heterosexuals, but even a little is too much. In truth, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equals.

People have the sense to know that zoophilia and pedophilia is wrong, that's not going to change. Except those in those groups of course. Allowing gay marriage would naturally spark their outcries for the same rights, of course, but it will not make them come to be as you suggest. So long as the masses don't one day think like Romans and Greeks did, I don't see it happening. Even if it did bring about those horrible practices, it doesn't change the fact that gay marriage should still be legalized.

As for sex being meaningless without the ability to reproduce, which homosexuals are incapable of doing, I disagree with. The reason being is because, in loving relationships, sex is the most intimate one can be with another. The phrase "making love", essentially refers to love's physical incarnation. I understand why you'd be against having sex purely pleasure's sake, and while I don't share that same belief either, that's not the case with homosexuals. Sure, there's going to be those that do, but there are also heterosexuals who have sex for the sake of pleasure's sake. Their marriage should not be denied them either. Homosexuals deserve to share that loving embrace with each other that we call sex. It's about intimacy most of the time in cases of love. Who should be denied true love?

And the argument that I see often against gay marriage is how it leaves a homosexual household with children without an either male or female parent, and the effect it likely has on their adopted children. This concern I definitely understand and sympathize with, as family is important to me as well as I'm assuming most people. Proof of this claim though, is usually substantiated with the likes of, say, single parent households where a child is raised. That single parent is forced to take on the role of mother and father, so naturally a child might not know which roles a mother should play and which a father should, as the mother has to take on both. A very reasonable theory, I believe.

But it is different from homosexual relationships, in that often times, say, one male is a mother figure and the other is a father figure to their child. They do their appropriate roles, and I would guess that the male who is ‘mom' might tell the child to call him mother. Thus, the child knows the difference between the two roles, as they are separate from each other and no doubt explained as the child grows older. And you could say that the child sees both males for what they are physically, as men.

But understand, that babies and very young children are for the most part completely unbiased and untouched by the outside world. Until told so, or exposed to anti-gay propaganda and comments which no doubt won't take long to occur, that child would not see his parents as how the masses do. Seeing a friend's mother and father rather than male mother and male father would be curious to him, sure, and it would all have to be explained. Like I said, it wouldn't take long for a homosexual couple's child to realize his parent's aren't the same as the majority physically.

The point is though, the affect is often negligent, though it's unfortunate when a child comes to condemn his parent's sexuality. It happens, but it's not because they're right. Because they're bullied because of who their parents are, how no one will be their friend because of it, they may come to feel so. But those examples bring strife to the homosexual family, as a result of a lack of knowledge on homosexuals, and even intolerance and hatred. It would not have been an issue, had people been more understanding and informed.

As stated before, family is big for you, as it is for me. This is just one example of how being against gay marriage and treating them and their children often times differently, however slight or major, can ruin a family. Imagine your own child disowning you, because of who you are. Society's mindset had been a great factor in bringing it about in who knows how many cases. And it can be avoided.

I hope that we can remain civil throughout this debate, despite differing views :). I look forward to hearing your response.
MrCarroll

Con

It seems you are debating a bit more than just the legality of gay marriage. This makes the subject very complex. Hopefully we can get through everything.

It is my every intention to remain civil and respectful to you and to gays while disagreeing with many of their ideas. When gays and similar people listen, for example, to messages from others on this subject, they often feel attacked. I really hope no one personally feels attacked in this debate, while I will attack homosexuality.

I. My first point is on your second paragraph, and you say, "I believe that every person has the right to live their lives as they see fit." I'm not sure if you recognize your error here, but just in case you don't I will have to explain. If everyone in the world was good, then this could be true. They aren't; from what I've seen, many people are bad, very bad. You could argue sexual preferences aren't affecting anyone else's lives, but they are discreetly undermining the meaning of sex and marriage. Perhaps some would see this as a good thing, however I do not.

II. "I understand that the Bible condemns homosexuality." Let's talk about this a bit. I do not know all your beliefs about the Bible, but you say on your profile that you are a Christian. Consider this verse, (don't mistake it, I'll explain it in a second) "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV) Firstly, I certainly do not believe death should be the punishment for homosexuality; that would be taking the verse out of context. This is a law strictly for the levites and has since been overwritten anyway. However, it would not be taking it out of context to say homosexuality is an abomination. That part is pretty clear and concise and this was not written during the Romans and Greeks either. Also, other verses say the same thing, and let us not forget Sodom and Gomorra. In the New Testament, Paul touches on the subject so I urge you to read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Romans 1:26-27.

Now what is wrong with it you ask? Well according to the Bible, marriage is instituted by God. He created a man, and as he was obviously alone, God created woman for him to marry. God could have created one gender or made us asexual, but He made two genders, so that when they marry, they create children. Do you see where I'm going with this? One last thing, if you are not a Christian and believe in evolution, there is no reason to believe that homosexuality is wrong, but there is reason to believe that gay marriage should not be allowed. I will explain this further.

III. About your friend, I feel utmost sympathy for her. However, I do not change my position. She should not have sex with her own sex despite her attractions. I do not ask her to change and marry a man, but she may not marry a woman. This may sound cruel, but who ruined marriage for her? God, the law, or the evil fool who raped her? Also, being tolerant does not mean giving in to ideas that I think are wrong. It means not telling people what I believe, while, in this case, allowing them to make whatever choice they wish and love them anyway. However, this doesn't really apply to gay marriage.

IV. "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?" Some Christians see a gay come into the Church become a Christian and expect that person to suddenly be straight. What fools. While some gays may change, most will struggle with homosexuality their whole life. I don't expect anyone to "change" like we would want them to. Secondly, your point fails because if most people were homosexuals, humans, or at least the gays, would die off. There is a reason that most people are heterosexual.

V. "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." An interesting issue is if gays are born gay.

VI. "And some would argue that legalizing gay marriage would make it so that pedophiles and the like would then receive similar rights in the future." Now, I do not assume that pedophiles and the like will ever receive these rights. This is much more widely condemned in our culture, not to mention this is a slippery slope fallacy. However, in order to be fair to everyone, marriage between adults and children, animals and humans, and polygamy should (not ‘will') be allowed. I also realized relatives should be allowed this right too as long as they don't reproduce. You see, now marriage isn't about reproduction at all. You're completely separating marriage and reproduction from each other by allowing gay marriage.

"People have the sense to know that zoophilia and pedophilia is wrong, that's not going to change. Except those in those groups of course." Why don't these people have rights? You are in turn "discriminating" these people. I would ask you to re-explain why the aforementioned "unacceptable" forms of marriage (not just zoophilia and pedophilia but other forms too) are unacceptable. This is a crucial point.

"In truth, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equals." The people are equal, but not the marriages. Gay marriages will not reproduce, and these couples do not provide proper support for children.

VII. "As for sex being meaningless without the ability to reproduce…" Now, I think I've touched on this a little already. Homosexuality implies sex is merely for pleasure, not just for gay sex but for all sex. That is what homosexuality purports, it is not for reproduction, it is for pleasure only. Now, I would ask, is adultery immoral and why? We will continue this argument in the next round.

VIII. "Who should be denied true love?" Apparently, adults and children, as well as siblings, animals and humans, etc. should be denied true love. If your married, and suddenly love someone else, should that be denied? If you love multiple people, should that also be denied?

IX. About children with gay parents, you bring up the example of single parents. Divorce, I believe is never a good thing in any situation, one of the strongest reasons being children are left living with one parent. This is a bad thing, and so is a child living with parents of one sex. A woman is never in reality a father, even if they she is required to act like one. A father (a real one) is so important in a boy's life, and without one, he will be required to find a father-figure. I do not support this type of family. God established male and female parents for a reason.
Also, on the whole mother father role gay parents issue, the children are now being told that men can be mothers. Mothers are supposed to be the ones who birth children, feed children, and most importantly are women. Are we trying to muddle gender into an indistinguishable mess? People are male and female for a reason. Sometimes single parents are required to fill in both shoes, but I do not support this.

X. You mention on a few instances hatred and such with homosexuals and I think we both understand I am completely against any hatred for anyone. This doesn't really apply to gay marriage though.

XI. Most people in America oppose gay marriage, another reason it should not be made legal. [1]

We have a lot to get through in this debate. Good luck.

[1] http://articles.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 1
SpeakYourMind

Pro

I. I should've phrased this sentence better. Naturally, those that are unfit or unable to live a sound life, or indifferent to do so, etc, should have action done to make it so that they are unable to do whatever it is they do wrong, punishment if need be, etc. When I said every person, I referred to people who do not fall under such a category. And naturally sexual preferences affect other people's lives; the stigma against them is very prevalent in our culture as it has been in almost all cultures. Once the stigma is gone, or significantly reduced, however, the affect as well leaves or fades. As an example, it took until 1991 before more were pro-interracial marriage than against it, as had been in America prior [1]. I mention this because you say it affects others' lives, I assume in a negative way, and for those against it naturally they will be unsettled and perhaps outraged. When the truth becomes more apparent in time though, as it had with other groups of minority, the negative impact is absent or negligible. Even if it were legalized now though, the negative impact is only present due to those who are against it, and actions that would be done due to such an act. Perhaps some others exist, as I'm sure you will point out if you know of any besides those that have been mentioned already, but in the end, they still deserve these rights.

And you stated that ‘they are discreetly undermining the meaning of sex and marriage.‘ Now I fervently disagree with this statement, as to be discreet implies that it's a conscious and purposeful act. Gays are certainly not purposely trying to destroy the structure of marriage, and neither are they on accident. And legalized it wouldn't destroy it either, despite your fear. Using a word such as ‘discreetly' though, implies that they are purposely and sneakily doing so, and that is why I spoke more on it than I would've otherwise.

[2] Discreetly : With discretion; prudently and with wise self-restraint

[1] http://www.religioustolerance.org...
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

II. I could simply state that the Bible holds no legitimacy in a debate, though I feel I should address it seeing as how it is a main reason for anti-homosexuality. First off, I agreed with the viewpoint of the Bible as I stated in my argument regarding the time period in which it was written, for the most part. I believe that the act of homosexuality at the time was an abomination, in most cases. Like I said before, I gave an example of the Romans and Greeks and how it was an abomination in their case. You stated that a verse was made before the Romans and Greeks though, but there are of course other examples that the writers of the Bible had known of or came across in their life at some point. This condemnation is not timeless, and little in life is unaffected by the course of time. Everything in life evolves and changes as time goes by, and I'll give of an example of how something can completely be the opposite in the future.

The pentagram, a symbol of evil today, in Medieval times was the equivalent of the cross in today's times [3]. The pentagram's five points represented the five wounds of Christ on the cross. It is completely different, and viewed completely differently than it was upon its creation. It has no good connection to Christ in today's times. While homosexuality is an idea, you can see how given time, something can mean or be the exact opposite as how it once was. Both can be true, but only at the certain point in time we call life.

[3] http://www.angelfire.com...

III. As for you not changing your position, I respect that you at least acknowledged she deserved sympathy. But if you believe as you do, that she should not marry despite her attractions, do you believe she should be doomed to die alone and miserable, without the comfort of a lover to make her life bearable? Or if you don't believe in the above statement, why should she be allowed to be with a lover, yet not be wed? If you do acknowledge that there are gays that truly love their spouse, then should they not be wed?

As for your statement of ‘who ruined marriage for her?', you suggested God may have ruined marriage for her. Now I'm not sure why you would suggest this, unless you think it's because it's part of God's plan for her. If it's something else please say.

And it does sound cruel, because it is. She of all people, needs someone to love her in such a way after what's been done for her, and denying her marriage, while it would not ruin her completely, still would remind her how she as a gay, is worth less than a heterosexual is every day, in a sense. She is not in reality though.

As for the definition of tolerance, I do not agree that it is ‘not telling people what I believe, while, in this case, allowing them to make whatever choice they wish and love them anyway.' My definition of tolerance is this.

[4] Tolerance : showing respect for the rights or opinions or practices of others

For example, while I disagree with you, I am tolerant of your views, and going beyond that, try to understand why you think as you do and find common ground if possible. I never defined tolerance as ‘giving into ideas that I think are wrong'. Being tolerant does not mean to surrender your view in favor of the opposition, nor necessarily to even respect the other viewpoint, but to at least be courteous enough to SHOW respect. I see why the idea of being tolerant of gays would ruffle your moral feathers though, as to you they are the equivalent, or at least close to practitioners of zoophilia, pedophilia, and the like. No one should be tolerant of what truly IS wrong, though homosexuality does not fall under such a category.

[4] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

IV. You said ‘most gays will struggle with homosexuality their whole life.' You make it seem as though it's a problem. Struggling with dealing with the stigma against it, yes they have to, but most gays accept that they are who they are. There are those that struggle with it as you say, often shamed upon them by devout Christian parents, though with the mass I don't believe it's the case.

And reproduction is needed for humans to survive, but it does not provide any reason as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to love the same sex, so it is irrelevant to this debate.

VI. And allowing marriage for those other groups mentioned, is not ‘fair'. It is still wrong. And marriage isn't all about reproduction in all heterosexual marriages either, which doesn't make the marriage any less loving or right. Reproduction is often a part of marriage, but it is not unequivocally linked to it. Marriage should still be allowed to gays.

VII. I already said gay sex is not all about pleasure, but intimacy. I argued this case in the first round. Gays can still be truly intimate and caring through sex with their spouse.

VIII. I said ‘true love' for a reason. Your examples cannot truly love, it's wrong period. You seem to not understand that gays are capable of truly loving one another, but instead are vile such as your examples.

X. You ignored a major point of mine, and hatred most certainly does apply to gays. My examples referred to the effects of something as simple as a popular stigma though, not hatred, and you have thus to refute it. It does have to do with gay marriage though, and I was pointing out how it's bigger than just gay rights.

XI. The majority of Americans opposed giving blacks their rights as well. The majority of Germans during WWII were in favor of Hitler's regime. Were either of these examples of where the mass had what they wanted right? NO! I don't think I need to elaborate. The mass is not always right, and, staying with the mass has led to much wrong before. It is the same with not allowing gay marriage, and popular disapproval of gays in general.
MrCarroll

Con

I. Thankfully you've recognized your error and became clear on your point. One of your main point is that there is this stigma against homosexuality. Many people believe homosexuality is wrong and this is not just becuase it is "different," but because, for example, the Bible says it is wrong (my personal reason as well). If you don't believe in the Bible, morality is subjective anyway. Using inter-racial marriage as an example is not conclusive because either the Bible says its wrong, or its subjective. Also, you say "the truth" will become apparent but what if the truth is that homosexuality is wrong? "Even if it were legalized now though, the negative impact is only present due to those who are against it..." This is not a good argument and I disagree. I do point out negative impacts, three of them.

"Gays are certainly not purposely trying to destroy the structure of marriage, and neither are they on accident." You're over analyzing this sentence. Maybe I used the wrong word. People are trying to change marriage. It does not apply just to gays, it applies to the very foundation of marriage. When I said discreetly, I meant people act like it affects gays only. Most people won't think about the consequences and just say "Hey, let them live their lives." If it did not affect me, then I would say do whatever even if I don't agree with it. "And legalized it wouldn't destroy it either" Needs explanation.

II. Remember, you were the first to bring up the Bible. I do think that it does not necessarily apply to gay marriage but rather to homosexuality. And it is all based on whether or not one actually believes in the Bible.
God does not change like our culture changes. He specifically explains what is right and wrong and addresses all sorts of sexual abominations. Why would God suddenly change?
Your example is completely irrelevant to God changing His mind on what is right and wrong. How does time make something the opposite of how it once was anyway?

III. This whole situation is dependent on her worldview. I believe homosexuality is wrong, but if she see nothing wrong with it, then I can't stop her. However marriage should not be allowed because of the reasons I am arguing. I don't think this story is an argument for gay marriage, but rather a sad situation meant to make me appear heartless, so I'm not sure if this is an important part of the argument.
"As for your statement of ‘who ruined marriage for her?'" You missed the point, I meant that it was not the first two that ruined her life but it was the guy who raped her. It was a question to get you thinking, but I guess it had a different effect.
Who is the cruel one here? "She of all people, needs someone to love her in such a way after what's been done for her, and denying her marriage... still would remind her how she as a gay, is worth less than a heterosexual is every day, in a sense." You are narrowing down love to marriage only. I never said she was worth less than a heterosexual; I don't know where that comes from. That doesn't really make sense.

On tolerance, I don't respect practices, I respect people, and more importantly, I love people. Recently, the word tolerance has lost its meaning.

"as to you they are the equivalent, or at least close to practitioners of zoophilia, pedophilia, and the like." You still haven't explained why these are wrong and homosexuality is right.

IV. I'm talking about gays who enter the Church and are expected to become straight. Some do try to change, but it isn't like they will be attracted to the opposite sex. This was just a point I made criticizing the Church that you took out of context. And I wasn't taking about the "stigma."

"And reproduction is needed for humans to survive, but it does not provide any reason..." I was just saying, your first argument doesn't make any sense.

V. Ignored by my opponent.

VI. "And allowing marriage for those other groups mentioned, is not ‘fair'. It is still wrong." Why is it wrong again? "And marriage isn't all about reproduction in all heterosexual marriages either." There's a difference between being infertile and marrying someone of the same sex.
"Reproduction is often a part of marriage, but it is not unequivocally linked to it." Its more like the main reason for sex. Otherwise sex is no longer for reproduction. Now what is the meaning of sex then?

VII. Why don't we be intimate with anyone whom we feel physically attracted to? And what is wrong with adultery then?

VIII. "Your examples cannot truly love, it's wrong period." Why can they not be true love? You have dodged this argument, and honestly, its my main argument.

IX. Ignored by my opponent.

X. I still am a little unsure of this "stigma." Many people believe homosexuality is wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with hatred. If I don't understand exactly what you're saying, you should explain more clearly.

XI. I am just saying, if the majority is opposed, then a law should not be passed. In addition, these are irrelevant examples because you cannot prove homosexuality is wrong, while the others situations we can agree on. It all depends on how you view morality. "The mass is not always right" If you believe morality is subjective, then yes, the mass is always right.
I'm trying to apply all arguments to those who believe in absolute morality and those who believe in relative morality.
Debate Round No. 2
SpeakYourMind

Pro

I. On your statement of ‘what if homosexuality is wrong', as I've said before, I believe there are cases where it IS morally wrong. But there are also cases where it is right, such as the case of my friend. She is no ‘abomination', I assure you; she is one of the most kindhearted souls you would ever meet. What she feels and does as well is not an abomination, but is truly intimate and marriage-worthy.

And perhaps I did overanalyze the sentence, I apologize for misunderstanding. I do agree that there are those who are trying to change marriage. Homosexuals as a whole are not trying to change marriage though MrCarrol. The mass merely wish to express their love through marriage as they should. I would not doubt that there are those that believe there needs to be massive reform of the foundation of marriage as well. And no doubt, there are those that truly do wish to bring about the legalization of polygamy and zoophilia. A change of the structure of marriage does not need to be put into action though, for the most part anyway (wedding vows, etc). The fundamental structure on which it is based would still be in tact. A man and a woman feel love for one another, and for whatever reasons, born that way or otherwise, gays feel the same love as heterosexuals do. But those that cannot come to accept that this can be, that gays can truly love one another, naturally would see it immoral and tainting of what marriage stands for. Those that should not be wed will not be wed, and legalizing homosexuality does not undermine this. No evidence has been given as to how it undermines marriage.

Also, I do not believe that it affects gays only. It would affect our entire society! One could witness a gay couple cuddling in a park for example. It would become a common occurrence perhaps in life in time. But as to how it negatively affects society? Besides making those against gay marriage angry/unsettled such as yourself, you have failed to provide backed examples of how it would negatively affect society. I do acknowledge that there would be public backlash by the most fervent against gay marriage, however. There's no doubt there would be occurrences of violence, and this example of a negative affect on society that you stated legalizing gay marriage would have, would be caused by those against it.

As for ‘And legalized it wouldn't destroy it either.', I believe it stands until you refute it. I am new to debating, so forgive me if I am wrong.

II. First of all I only brought up the Bible to explain why that single view isn't correct anymore. One simply may not point to the Bible as proof of something, which is what you did. You could have used a different source to refute what I said, as I did not use the Bible as proof which is not allowed.

And I never stated that God changes, you misunderstand me. And again, I admit that homosexuality was wrong at the period of time the Bible was written. Looking at examples of homosexuality then, and cases of homosexuality today are oh so different. Homosexual rulers were often flamboyant, plunged their countries into debt, disregarded rules, killed their ‘lovers', and so on. And common homosexuals like Romans and Greeks, as I've stated before, were immoral through and through and arrogant. I just don't understand how you think gays today are still ‘abominations' as they mostly were before. It does not take long to see that gays are not how they used to often be, and that homosexuality, then a choice, can be embedded into who we are in today's times. Again though, I never stated that God changed. The moral code that was just at the time though, HAS changed, and the message is worldly and written by man. God is unchanging, as he is what he is, but all that is on Earth is worldly and thus affected by time and with that change. So my argument is not irrelevant, as you have constructed a straw man argument, misrepresenting what I said and refuting that instead of what I actually said. And I explained very briefly how it can, because that is not the topic of this debate.

III. And this situation is not dependent on her view, though I chose her as an example as to why gay marriage should be legalized. Do you think she is one of very few who is gay because of an instance like this? Do you believe most gays still are ‘abominations'? I ask more questions now, because the ones I have asked in my previous post have been ignored. The questions do apply to gay marriage, and I feel like you avoid them because you can't argue your case otherwise. Because if you acknowledge she should be allowed to marry, then you have to acknowledge that that means there are others who should be. The questions still stand. I am not trying to make you appear heartless though, I simply want to know how you can be against gay marriage if you agree with me on those questions, if you even do.

And I know you never said she was worth less, but she might think it because of the stigma against gays, and that's horrible. I was giving an example of how not legalizing gay marriage could negatively affect someone like her.

Homosexuality is right, as opposed to these examples, because again, as I've said before, homosexuals can truly love their spouse and these other examples cannot. The case is arguable with relatives, but it's just unnatural in that case as proved by genetics and as such should also be illegal. If you don't agree that gays can truly love and be intimate with their partners as heterosexuals can though, you simply won't agree on this, period. And you never disagreed that you think they are equal to pedophiles & zoophiliacs.

IV. Using the word ‘struggle' implied there was a conflict, so I felt like I had to address it. Sorry if I did take it out of context though.

V. There is nothing I'd like to say about this, unless you would like to bring forth an argument. I feel like if even gays chose to be gay of free will they should be allowed that right, so if they're born it it's all the same for me.

VI. It's wrong because they can't truly love, and vile. I've said it before. And even if they're not infertile, people don't always marry to reproduce. They can still have sex and use condoms so as to AVOID reproducing. As said before, reproduction and marriage are not unequivocally linked.

As for it being the main reason of sex, I'd say sex is mostly viewed for as pleasure and intimacy nowadays, and intimacy's not bad. You keep bringing up the meaning of sex, and every time I mention intimacy and you haven't said anything at all on that. You're asking me questions I've already answered.

VII. The first suggestion would be hard, considering

[1] Definition of intimate : having mutual interests or affections. As for your other example, seeing as how marriage is founded on trust and partnership, all of it!

[1] http://www.google.com...

VIII. I haven't dodged it, but it's very apparent, and I need more than 8,000 words! They can't love though because it's sexual perversions brought on by past experience, etc, such as becoming addicted to pornography and needing more to be aroused, whatever causes zoophilia, and while homosexuality may be brought on by unwilling past experience, it is between two fully willing and caring peoples.

X. There is wrong in believing homosexuality is wrong, because it isn't. It's wrong to believe blacks are inferior to whites as well. And when that belief leads to the destruction of families such as my example I gave that you still ignore, it is even more wrong. I don't understand what you don't get though, the stigma is how people view gays.

XI. I agree with THAT point. The popular opinion needs to be shifted first. And they're not irrelevant, they show that the mass isn't always right.
MrCarroll

Con

We are finally coming close to the heart of the matter.

I. Who decides the situations where homosexuality is wrong or right? You are saying there are exceptions or something. We are not talking about circumstances; we are talking about the act. Actually we are not even talking about that, we are talking about marriage. Whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to be married. Then, if gay marriage is legalized, exceptions or "cases" do not matter. Either gay marriage is legalized for everyone or no one. If it is legalized for everyone, I see issues with other groups of people. There is no reason they should be denied these rights, is there? And by the way, no one said a "person" is an abomination, but the act.

"Homosexuals as a whole are not trying to change marriage though MrCarrol." I thought this was what the whole debate was about! We are debating whether marriage should be changed, for the law states marriage is between a man and a woman. We are not talking about wedding vows or traditions, we are talking about the structure that is currently between a man and a woman. I accept that gay's can love each other, but that's beside the point.
"No evidence has been given as to how it undermines marriage." I did explain this and I think you argue this later. I explained that if there is love between two beings, they should be allowed marriage. This is the argument for gay marriage (remember, we are not talking about homosexuality). Why do polygamists and pedophiles not have this right? If gays get marriage so should they, but you object to this for some reason. I'll address it now.
========
III. Here's what you say in section III. "Homosexuality is right, as opposed to these examples, because again, as I've said before, homosexuals can truly love their spouse and these other examples cannot." Prove it. In another part, you even go so far as to say it is "vile." That is what they would say about homosexuality 200 years ago.
"If you don't agree that gays can truly love and be intimate with their partners as heterosexuals can though, you simply won't agree on this, period." I never argued this. I agree that they can love and be intimate with their partners. I still hold fast to my position. Other people, such as the previously mentioned can do the same.
"And you never disagreed that you think they are equal to pedophiles & zoophiliacs." Why would pedophiles not be equal to homosexuals? They all have equal rights. I have the same rights as a pedophile. Currently, no one has the right to marry whoever and whatever they wish. In fact, (depending on the state) a man has the right to marry ONLY woman and vice versa. But, if you change rights for gays, you must change the rights for everyone. This is not an arguable statement. Everyone in America has equal rights, that is the way it is set up.
========
VIII. Arg. Moved.
"They can't love though because it's sexual perversions brought on by past experience, etc," There is reason to believe homosexuality is also a sexual perversion as it is brought on by past experiences as well. You give an example. Another is boys having negative experiences with their fathers. But I can argue just as easily that polygamists, adults and children, and even animals and humans can be fully willing and have caring, intimate relationships.
========
"Besides making those against gay marriage angry/unsettled such as yourself, you have failed to provide backed examples of how it would negatively affect society." It is destroying marriage, that's how. I don't care if two gays are cuddling in the park. I won't get angry.

II. "I only brought up the Bible to explain why that single view isn't correct anymore." I don't think you succeeded in your point. Our culture has taught everyone that homosexuality is a good thing, and that believing otherwise is discriminating. Many churches, in order to be more "tolerant" now have conformed to society, something I personally think is ridiculous. I will no longer use the Bible as it is irrelevant to the debate.

III. This is not a relevant example. You're using a specific occurrence to justify gay marriage as a whole. It does not make it right. You could say, gay marriage should be made legal for anyone who is raped. Is that fair to others? Again, I never at all, not once said anyone was an abomination.
"if you acknowledge she should be allowed to marry, then you have to acknowledge that that means there are others who should be." I do not acknowledge she should be allowed to marry, and it does not mean there are other gays that should be allowed marriage, it means every gay should be allowed marriage.

"you never said she was worth less, but she might think it because of the stigma against gays" I have nothing against gays, but something against homosexuality. However, just because other people are jerks to gays does not justify gay marriage.

"The case is arguable with relatives, but it's just unnatural in that case as proved by genetics and as such should also be illegal." Wait, what if they don't reproduce? Then it should be legal, right?

VI, VII. "It's wrong because they can't truly love, and vile. I've said it before." (see first section)
"As said before, reproduction and marriage are not unequivocally linked." I will agree with you. Still, I think all this has ruined and will continue to ruin the meaning of sex. How many people have sex outside of marriage? People can just abort their child if they wish. This is our society today.
So now, I ask why can't we be 'intimate' and have sex with people we are not married to? Or can we?
I think you may have replied, but I don't understand what you mean. If you could just answer the question plainly.
"Why don't we be intimate with anyone whom we feel physically attracted to? And what is wrong with adultery then?" "The first suggestion would be hard, considering" Please explain.

VIII. Argument moved.

X. "There is wrong in believing homosexuality is wrong, because it isn't." We are not debating this, and there is no way you can say this either. If you are a moral relativist, (which in some of your arguments you act like one) then you can't say this to anyone. If you are a moral absolutist, then I need proof. I am a moral absolutist and go by the Bible, which says homosexuality is wrong. You don't have to believe this.

XI. True, the mass isn't always right, but since you agree that a law should only be allowed if the majority says so, and since the majority does not wish to legalize gay marriage,[1] then you agree that gay marriage should not be allowed. Since the debate was not wether gay marriage is "right" but rather should be allowed, I cheaply win the debate.

[1] http://articles.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 3
SpeakYourMind

Pro

I. You have a good point, who is to say? You said ‘the situations where homosexuality is wrong' though, so you agree then that it's not always wrong, but they still should not marry? Regardless of that though, people still argue over when murder is just, and some still believe violence is never justified at all. When you say who is to say what is right and wrong, true reason is who says, but there are those who disagree with what defines true reason. Basically the point I'm getting at is this. People have to use their rational minds to decide if it's right, because this isn't really a subject that can be proven or disproven. I can't be proven either, but for the most part reason wins out when people are faced with it, and that's the closest one can get to answering your question of ‘who is to say'. The most reasoned and logical people are who say, in the best case.

You are also right that if gay marriage is legalized, specific cases don't matter. I like your points thus far MrCarrol. But note that some heterosexual marriages are often very corrupt and immoral just as some gay marriages are, but the heterosexuals are not denied to be wed. But just because there are heterosexuals who shouldn't be wed, does not mean marriage should be banned, because that would be wrong for the majority. Unfortunately allowing all to be wed would have to be, as there is no efficient, just, and incorruptible way to manage marriage in such a way.

And sorry, I didn't mean to word the ‘abomination' sentence that way. Usually those who commit abominable acts are abominable people though, but I realize it's not always the case.

No; the debate is about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. As a result of that though yes, some things relating to marriage will have to change, that's true. But in the end marriage will hold true to what it's stood for, true willing loving marriages anyway, as gay marriage hold these same things dear as well.

And you stated that ‘gays can love each other', so I am glad that you at least acknowledge this. Tradition is not always right or good though, and I think that because marriage has always been between a man and a woman in the past, it helps with reaffirming your belief maybe. To me at least you seem to be a very traditional man, and perhaps I'm wrong, but sometimes it's better changing what a nation, or even the world has stuck to for a long while.

As for your comment of why pedophiles and polygamists should not have the right, I addressed the issue I thought well enough. You are right though, others clump homosexuals in with these other groups because they view them too as committing immoral acts. It does not have to be supporting homosexuals, pedophiles, etc, or being against them all. I simply believe that gays, at least for the most part, do not belong in such a category.

II. That's your opinion. And our culture hasn't taught us that, but to be tolerant. And if you say the Bible is irrelevant to this debate, you invalidate your post on Bible verses relating to gay marriage.

III1. I do not know of a way to prove that homosexuals can truly love. How could I even prove that heterosexuals truly love? We know it's true but proof? This article may provide you with some proof.

This article though, states that when one feels love (and I don't know if they're using the term loosely like it's often used) , dopamine, phenyl ethylamine, and norepinephrine, often called the ‘love hormones' are affected in heterosexuals and gays alike. Now, if the article is referring to love as attraction/pleasure, pedophiles probably have those same areas stimulated and this wouldn't mean anything. I'm not a scientist, so forgive me regarding this section.

The article also stated though that men may biologically have more estrogen than testosterone from birth, thus leading them to be more prone to become or be a homosexual, and with a female vice versa. If gays are in fact born that way, all the more justification for legalizing gay marriage. Other than by biological methods, and perhaps not even if all ‘love hormones' refer to are attraction and pleasure regardless of if they're right, I don't know how to prove gay marriage right, other than to explain why I think so and provide evidence where possible.

And I realize that's what everyone said about homosexuality back then, and even today! Little in life is unaffected by time.

And I've already stated my case on this, I defined intimate and pedophiles certainly are incapable of being intimate and I do not understand how you believe they can truly love a child. As for polygamists, I see how one can love multiple people, but you should go through life with one. I don't really know much about polygamy though honestly. In the end though this isn't even about polygamists and pedophiles though, it's whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. Regardless of if they should, it doesn't change the fact that gays should and is thus irrelevant to the debate.

I don't know what else to tell you, if you equate pedophiles with homosexuals after what I've said so far that's not going to change.

This argument is illogical. You stated that ‘everyone in America has equal rights', but sexual predators have many restrictions placed on them if they are out of jail, gays do not have the right to marry, and so on. Your argument is not true, and if it were it would be unjust, because some people don't deserve certain rights and some do, period. You can't function with the system you set forth in your paragraph, and you don't seem to understand what rights are or how they work.

Also, you still haven't stated why we'd have to give rights to pedophiles, etc, if we gave rights to gays. You don't have to change rights for everyone if it's unequal, because if it's fair it's fair. Some people deserve rights, other people don't, it's as simple as that. Some rights everyone is entitled to, some you have to gain, and some you can lose. Pedophiles, etc, have lost the right to marry as well as other things.

Define rights : Powers or privileges granted by an agreement or law

[1] http://hanyangian.com...
[2] http://www.library.yale.edu...

III2. I did not use the occurrence for that reason. Among other reasons, I said it because acknowledging there is one instance where gay marriage should be allowed means you must acknowledge other instances. I've addressed this before. And ok, so you do believe that she should not be allowed to wed. You never answered my questions.

And for the example no, if the universe was pro-incest it wouldn't have biological consequences, that's as surefire to a 100% wrong in these matters as you can get I imagine.

VI. With the first suggestion, you could just lust after someone, and thus it wouldn't be intimacy by definition. The definition refuted it alone. And my reason for adultery being wrong was separate.

VIII. You restated something I've already stated on the first sentence. But this entire segment is irrelevant, because all you've stated is say that you can easily argue that your examples can truly love. In the next round, please give me a full case of where an adult truly loved and cared for a child, and where it was mutual. On another point, you've again failed to demonstrate how gay marriage is destroying marriage. I asked for backed examples and got opinion.

XI. You are wrong that you win the debate. The title of the debate is "Gay marriage should be allowed", and no matter what the mass thinks this is the case. If I had said "Gay marriage should be allowed now", then you would've, but I didn't. I give you credit for trying to make a win out of that though, but my agreeing with you on that does not cause me to lose. And only on this law do I agree with that.

I wish my opponent luck, and I look forward to what the voters have to say :).
MrCarroll

Con

I. You misunderstand me. I meant in your case, who decides these situations? I still personally think homosexuality is always wrong. Then your answer is "pure reason." This falls apart because logically, I can come to a host of moral conclusions. Firstly, I can justify stealing quite easily. Redistribution of the wealth is a "justifiable" way of stealing from the rich and giving to those who didn't work for their money. I can justify stealing food if I have nothing to eat. I can justify stealing money if I am poor as long as I don't get caught. It is all done through reasoning, but that doesn't mean it's moral. You say yourself that "this isn't really a subject that can be proven or disproven." So how do we reason this if it can't be proven? You basically say, smart people are to say what is right or wrong. This doesn't make any sense.

a. "note that some heterosexual marriages are often very corrupt and immoral just as some gay marriages are, but the heterosexuals are not denied to be wed."
I'm not talking about "corrupt and immoral" marriages. In fact, we can trash the whole immoral argument because this debate is not about the morality of homosexuality, it is about whether gay marriage should be allowed. No one will come to agreement if morals are discussed logically, but we can come to an agreement if the structure of marriage is discussed logically.

b. We all commit abominable acts, I haven't met one person who hasn't.

c. People on this site call me very traditional, but I am always searching for the truth and ideas modern and old. I am not restrained by either. I think the ideal Christian must live in the "now," but that doesn't mean accepting every worldly idea going around.

d. "As for your comment of why pedophiles and polygamists should not have the right, I addressed the issue I thought well enough. " I disagree. I think the was the idea you touched on the least. You believe that two men can love each other, but you say it is impossible that a kid and an adult can love each other. Why? You give no sufficient response. You claim that two should be allowed to marry if they both love each other, but if an animal and a person, a child and adult, and polygamists can love each other, which you give no reason to believe they cannot, then those forms of marriage should be allowed.

II. Again, this debate is not about morality, we both got sidetracked here.

III.1. "I do not know of a way to prove that homosexuals can truly love." When I said, "'homosexuals can truly love their spouse and these other examples cannot.' Prove it, " I meant to prove that these other examples cannot truly love not gays. You never make an argument for this, but you say you do. Really, you assume these examples cannot love, and by doing so, you are making the mistake that you accuse others of making. The problem with your arguments is that they are riddled with inconsistencies.
"I don't know what else to tell you, if you equate pedophiles with homosexuals after what I've said so far that's not going to change." Are we equating acts or people? Not all acts are equal, but they are either wrong or right. I don't judge people because I believe we all do wrong and are all sinners. In that sense, we are all equal.
Also, we all have equal rights. We don't have rights to sexually abuse people, such as a predator. But I never even mentioned any "sexual predators." That is not what I mean by adults and children getting married. If the two both love each other, in your view they should be allowed marriage.
"Some rights everyone is entitled to, some you have to gain, and some you can lose." America is founded on the fact that every citizen has the SAME rights. We all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, because that is how the law defines marriage. The only time anyone loses rights is if they invade on the rights of others. Thus no one has the right to sexually abuse anyone else. Also, no one has the right to marry whoever they wish. No one gains rights unless the law accounts for it. If gays get rights to marry whoever they love, a child and adult, given they both love each other, should be allowed marriage as well. It's only fair. Its the same with animals and humans and polygamists and every other form of intimacy.

2. I do not acknowledge that there is any instance in which gays should be allowed marriage, or else I would lose the debate. I thought I was clear on this.

VI.
Definition of 'intimacy' –
familiarity: close or warm friendship; "the absence of fences created a mysterious intimacy in which no one knew privacy"
affair: a usually secretive or illicit sexual relationship
closeness: a feeling of being intimate and belonging together; "their closeness grew as the night wore on"

Ironically, one of the definitions is an affair. Anyway, I thought you said people should not be denied love and intimacy with each other.

XI. If we were not talking about "now" then what are we talking about? You basically argue that some things should be allowed depending on the circumstances. To put it plainly, this a very inconsistent worldview.

In conclusion, you fail to be coherent with regards to your beliefs in marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I have been consistent with this throughout the debate, but in your view it is between people who are intimate and loving with each other. You deny without reason that other marriages can uphold the same love and intimacy that homosexuals and heterosexuals can. You say there are "exceptions." I do not hold love and intimacy as a basis for marriage because it would be inconsistent. I think I put forth a case that my opponent could not properly answer. I will leave it to the voters.
Thank you for challenging me to this debate, I hope we both learned from it.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by MrCarroll 5 years ago
MrCarroll
Socialpinko please leave me alone and go bother someone else.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 5 years ago
SpeakYourMind
I do not doubt that that day will come, but it will be a longer and harder process.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
How can MrCarrol post his bigoted and fallacious aruments with a straight face? Hopefully one day, homophobia will become socially unacceptable like racism or sexism.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 5 years ago
SpeakYourMind
Last thing I'll say, near the end of your debate you defined intimacy, but I had already defined it and you never disagreed with my definition. You chose the definition of intimacy that would make pedophilia right, and you can't do that, as by not denying my definition of intimacy which pedophiles are incapable of feeling with a child, you accept it and many of your arguments are invalidated. You have broken quite a few rules of debate now.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 5 years ago
SpeakYourMind
You misrepresented what I said in your first paragraph of the last argument, but I'm sure it was just another misunderstanding. Good luck to you MrCarrol.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 5 years ago
SpeakYourMind
'I don't expect anyone to "change" like we would want them to.'

You said we, I never said I wanted gays to change who they are, if by we you were referring me you and I.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 5 years ago
SpeakYourMind
And good luck to you as well MrCarrol. I would've said this on the debate, though I lacked the space to write it!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by mandmandmbaby 5 years ago
mandmandmbaby
SpeakYourMindMrCarrollTied
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: Pro, i am with you all the way, and you did have better arguements than con, i believe gay marriage SHOULD be lagalized, its not fair to gays, lesbians, and bi-sexuals.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
SpeakYourMindMrCarrollTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was more cognizant of the realities of today's world, and Con was basing his opinions off of a flawed interpretation of the Bible.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
SpeakYourMindMrCarrollTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered rational reasons for his contention while Con just quoted verses and spoke as a rabid bigot.