The Instigator
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RedAnarchist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 662 times Debate No: 67624
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

This debate is going to about whether gay marriage should be illegal or legal. Con takes the side of defending gay marriage and pro defends their own case about why it should be illegal. I, the con, will be fighting for gay marriage and the right gay couples have to marry, here is a lay out of the debate:

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Opening Statements

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Closing Statement

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Rules

1) No insulting.
2) Credible sources only, please.
3) Try to be as good with spelling and grammar as you can be, please.
RedAnarchist

Pro

I'll accept this debate as the devil's advocate.

I agree to the format and rules. Some definitions first:

Gay refers to homosexuality, that is one sex being sexually and/or emotionally attracted to the same sex.

Gay marriage is the lawful and religious bonding of a couple of the same sex.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

I would like to thank you for accepting to the debate and also for being brave enough to play Devil's advocate here. My arguments are as follows:

[1] Gay marriage has no negative effects on countries it is allowed in. Allow for a real country to be the first example:

United States of America, though not so united, the USA is a country that both permits and fails to permit gay marriage depending on the state in question. For the states that illegalised gay marriage, they are commonly Conservative states of which possess oppression of the people; religiously, financially (less likely to move from one financial status to another, because the poor are neglected) and not mention philosophically. Given that most Conservative states uphold the same right-wing beliefs that are carried out to their children, and thus generations of people raised in this states commonly withhold the beliefs that they were surrounded by. Now religion can be tied in with homophobic propaganda coming in from Conservative parties, organisations and states / provinces, but there are also just splotches of households here and there that are Conservative- and this can be for several reasons. None of which need mentioning.

[2] Homosexuality is natural, it is not something people can simply help, because it is out of their power. Homosexuality is actually within the genetic makeup of one's being, thus, illegalising gay marriage would be like killing Africans because they are black. Don't believe it? Humans are not the only species that experience homosexuality! In fact, over fifty different kinds of animals have experienced homosexuality. Dolphins, monkeys, birds, and more kinds of creatures have all experienced homosexuality. Further information on that will be cited in the citations section of this argument. But to say that homosexuality should be illegalised simply because the people are homosexual and that is considered 'sac-religious' or 'evil' is like saying having dark skin is evil or having blue eyes is a crime and thus you should be shot for it. It's not something within our control.

[3] Willing to admit it or not, homosexual humans are humans, too! Humans should not treat other humans like domesticated hounds or like they are inferior beings simply because they identify as a certain sexuality they have no control over. Now you could say this argument is a bit redundant, but there is nothing more to say other than homosexuality is not wrong and cannot be controlled. Maybe extremist right-wings or religious people take their God's words and shape them into an excuse to formulate a proper rhetoric to hate homosexuals for absolutely no justified reason.

[4] It is only ethical to legalise homosexuality; to quickly clarify and furthermore offer an elaboration, the definition of ethical:

eth"i"cal
G2;eTHək(ə)l/
adjective
1.
of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
"ethical issues in nursing"
synonyms:moral, social, behavioral

It would only be the humane thing to do to legalise gay marriage and let people who embrace those of the same sex. Illegalising gay marriage is practically implementing a dictatorship into the country and telling people they cannot live with something they cannot help. Legalising gay marriage is also just common sense, who someone wants to love is really their own business. It's up to you who you want to slip between the sheets with you, not the government's. Just like it's common sense to treat everyone equally regardless of race or ethnic background. If two gay men or women want to embrace each other in a chemically complex or intimate way, that's really their personal business as partners. Not only this, but it allows for them to be happy, it allows people to expand their minds on the homosexual community by understanding and experiencing interactions with homosexual people and it also helps to develop the better side of a child's mind as they grow up. People can learn to be homophobic from their parents, but they can also unlearn it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citations

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.bbc.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] N/A

[4] N/A
RedAnarchist

Pro

Oof, this is gonna be tough.

Homosexual marriage is not actually marriage. Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage is and always will be a covenant between a man and a woman by which its nature is ordered toward the procreation and education of the children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something different from that. They propose the union between two men or two women. This throws out the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women from which they find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children properly.

It also violates natural law. Marriage is not just any relationship between humans. It is a relationship that exists in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law's most basic rule is “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” Through natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. "Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality." ~ TFP Student Action (citations below)

Additionally, homosexual marriage denies the child either a father or a mother, depending on what sex is marrying each other. "It is in the child’s best interests that he/she be raised under the influence of his/her natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent." ~ TFP Student Action. WIthout a father or mother, the child will miss out on important life lessons and experiences that cannot be provided by a parent of the opposite sex that would provide that experience and/or lesson.

A few quotes (from TFP Student Action):
Death of marriage = "progress"
1. "Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."
-- Dr. Meagan Tyler,
Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University

Who needs marriage anymore
2. "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"
-- David Vakalis


Redefine the institution
3. "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
-- Michelangelo Signorile,
OUT magazine, December/January 1994

Citations:


    1. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
    1. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

I will now be introducing the rebuttals round with-*gasp*-a few rebuttals.

[1] "Homosexual marriage is not actually marriage. Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage is and always will be a covenant between a man and a woman by which its nature is ordered toward the procreation and education of the children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses."

mar"riage
G2;merij/
noun
1.
the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.
"a happy marriage"
synonyms:wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union
antonyms:divorce, separation

The actual definition of 'marriage' has been bent, shifted and twisted to satisfy the fact that people these days will tend to same-sex marry, not implying that homosexuality is new or anything (because it isn't), but simply implying that back then most people needed to be 'closet homosexuals' (secretively homosexual) because they were oppressed and their sexuality was both illegal and frowned upon.

Furthermore, nothing directly procreative is mentioned in the definition of marriage. If anything, that would be sexual intercourse with your partner. Marriage does not immediately equal sex, and thus making that assumption is, to be quaint, quite wrong.

sex
seks/Submit
noun
1.
(chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.
"he enjoyed talking about sex"
synonyms:sexual intercourse, intercourse, lovemaking, making love, sex act, (sexual) relations; More
euphemistic
a person's genitals.
2.
either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
"adults of both sexes"
synonyms:gender
"adults of both sexes"

Sex is more defined as two people of opposite sex being procreative, but even then, gay marriage is not at all directly related to marriage.

[2] "It also violates natural law. Marriage is not just any relationship between humans. It is a relationship that exists in human nature and thus governed by natural law."

at"u"ral law
noun
1.
a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
2.
an observable law relating to natural phenomena.

It's not written in the blood or genes of humans to be homophobic, and if you think that it is simply because back in the older days, homosexuality was viewed negatively upon, become educated in this rebuttal. First off, the only reason homosexuality was so frowned upon was because the Catholic Church had power and political influence in the church hierarchy, and people believed that God forbid homosexuality and its acts, thus, this was shared between the government (Monarch) and the Church (Influence). It was also said that monarchs had 'divine right', that they were sent to Earth from God to be kings, serving as mediums. And that they spoke through God and their authority was natural and was to last as long as God did- which was again, out of the question, given the Church had more influence than the government itself. So the church and organised religion in general was the cause of homophobia- the corrupt authority within the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church permitted the open hate of 'heretic' gays and thus, the homosexual populous needed to hide themselves as homosexuals from the rest of society to prevent persecution.

Natural law's most basic rule is "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." Through natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. "Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality." ~ TFP Student Action (citations below)

Humans were 'designed' to have a desire for sex. Nowhere in our genetic code does it specify whether to men or women having sex is good or bad, because you have to be taught that- and you can be untaught that, too. Not to mention that whether you are homosexual or not is a completely natural thing.

http://www.exposingtruth.com...

flagdetroit.org/WhoPage2.htm

I have finished my rebuttals, return yours.
RedAnarchist

Pro

"The actual definition of 'marriage' has been bent, shifted and twisted to satisfy the fact that people these days will tend to same-sex marry, not implying that homosexuality is new or anything (because it isn't), but simply implying that back then most people needed to be 'closet homosexuals' (secretively homosexual) because they were oppressed and their sexuality was both illegal and frowned upon."

Marriage, that is the commitment between man and woman that is everlasting, originates from the church, thus the church, whether the government is involved or not, has explicit control of the definition. The church says that homosexual marriage is not marriage, thus it is not.

"Furthermore, nothing directly procreative is mentioned in the definition of marriage. If anything, that would be sexual intercourse with your partner. Marriage does not immediately equal sex, and thus making that assumption is, to be quaint, quite wrong."

I refer you to my previous statement.

"Sex is more defined as two people of opposite sex being procreative, but even then, gay marriage is not at all directly related to marriage."

I do not find sense in this statement, so I will skip over it.

"It's not written in the blood or genes of humans to be homophobic, and if you think that it is simply because back in the older days, homosexuality was viewed negatively upon, become educated in this rebuttal. First off, the only reason homosexuality was so frowned upon was because the Catholic Church had power and political influence in the church hierarchy, and people believed that God forbid homosexuality and its acts, thus, this was shared between the government (Monarch) and the Church (Influence). It was also said that monarchs had 'divine right', that they were sent to Earth from God to be kings, serving as mediums. And that they spoke through God and their authority was natural and was to last as long as God did- which was again, out of the question, given the Church had more influence than the government itself. So the church and organised religion in general was the cause of homophobia- the corrupt authority within the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church permitted the open hate of 'heretic' gays and thus, the homosexual populous needed to hide themselves as homosexuals from the rest of society to prevent persecution."

Homosexuality is unnatural, granted that it is found in other species, other species also rape, cannabalize, and murder one another. Thus, humans do naturally avoid homosexuality because it is not intrinsic and harmful to one's own body.

"Humans were 'designed' to have a desire for sex. Nowhere in our genetic code does it specify whether to men or women having sex is good or bad, because you have to be taught that- and you can be untaught that, too. Not to mention that whether you are homosexual or not is a completely natural thing."

Humans were designed with a desire to procreate, plain sex (sex that is not procreative) is not relative to our nature and, in a word, unnatural as well.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

This argument was very informative for me personally. However, I would like to point that pro did not state why gay marriage should be illegal as he should have, he simply made the argument that according to the church it is not marriage, which does not explain how / why it should be illegal. All in all, this debate was quite a lot of fun. And I thank you for stepping up the plate here.
RedAnarchist

Pro

I enjoyed the debate as well, and for my first time playing Devil's Advocate, this went better than expected. I do acknowledge that I failed to explain that and to that I say "Many GGs."
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.