Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Everywhere
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 1) acceptance & arguments
4) rhetorical statement of choosing.
Round 1) terms and conditions
May be done through religious, political, medical, economic, or philosophical arguments.
I accept. Thank you Pro for starting this debate and I hope for an interesting exchange.
Resolution: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Everywhere
Note that my opponent has the full Bop in this debate as he has made the claim. Therefore, I have no reason to post an argument this round because I have no Bop other than showing the resolution untrue. It is upon Pro to provide good reason why Gay marriage should be allowed everywhere and why it is not immoral. As it stands right now, gay marriage is not legal everywhere nor is it considered moral everywhere. Therefore, I have nothing to prove until my opponent gives us an argument for why gay marriage should be legal and moral everywhere. Until he opens up with an argument I have no need to show gay marriage should be illegal or immoral everywhere. But for the sake of this debate and rules mandated by Pro, I shall provide places where gay marriage is illegal and immoral. Let's first give some definitions.
Gay marriage (also known as same-sex marriage) - is the practice of marriage between two males or two females. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Should be - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Legal - conforming to or permitted by law or established rules. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Everywhere - in every place or part(of the world). http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I agree with Pros rules and regulations but he has forgotten the fifth round. Therefore I recommend that round 4 shall be for rebuttals and the fifth round shall be for conclusions.
Brief summary of gay-marriage
Nine states of the U.S. government prohibit same-sex marriage.
The constitution of Honduras was amended banning same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.
Latvian president Vaira Vike-Freiberga signed into law a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Legislation banning same-sex unions was signed by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. Penalties for gay marriage will be set in 2006. Under current law, homosexual acts are punishable by imprisonment from five years to life. https://christiangays.com...
We will get into why gay marriage is illegal but for immorality of gay marriage is predominately a religious belief. Therefore, I host the Bible as the source for its immorality. I also reserve the option to bring forth more evidence why it is considered immoral from other cultures in the next round.
I accept and I await my opponent's argument.
Now let's get into the arguments.
Gay Marriage/Gay Sex is gross.
This is a very common argument against homosexuality in general, and I believe this is one of the roots for opposing homosexuality after religious beliefs. This argument ultimately fails because it dictates that your personal tastes are more important than the happiness of others. It places more weight on personal preference than it does on the freedoms of other people. For example, if someone believes oral sex is the most horrendous and disgusting sexual act you can perform, then his personal tastes would outweigh the rights for other people to have oral sex. We can even apply this feature to smaller issues, consider someone who believes tomatoes are "gross" and no one should eat them. Again, his tastes would outweigh the freedoms for others to enjoy themselves, and therefore no one should be allowed to eat tomatoes. Ultimately personal tastes cannot logically override someone's the liberties of another.
The Definition of Marriage is a Union between a MAN and a WOMAN, period.
This argument fails mainly because words, languages, and cultural concepts are extremely susceptible to change. If the television show South Park is a reliable source, the derogatory word "faggot" originally meant a bundle of sticks, then an elderly women, and now to insult homosexuals. Therefore the definitions of words are subject to change.
Homosexuality is a Choice
The evidence to support this claim is controversial with studies pointing in both directions, however even if it's a choice it is not automatically an immoral choice. I will prove in later arguments that even under Divine Command Theory and Natural Law that homosexuality is not necessarily immoral.
Marriage is a sacred pact created under the eyes of God.
For all intensive purposes this fails because the federal government can issue marriage licenses. If it is truly meant to be a union under god, then marriage ceremonies must be conducted exclusively in churches. But this raises another practical problem, namely which churches have the proper authority to issue marriage licenses. Should it be left exclusively to the Catholics, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Baptists, or which church should give out licenses? If we recognize all of them, what if a particular sect of these religions permits homosexual marriage? Does this not circumvent the original point of exclusively permitting churches to conduct marriage ceremonies?
Marriage goes against the clear commands of God.
For this argument to have any merit, we must first assume God exists. After we assume there is a God, next follows what in philosophy is known as Divine Command Theory. This is theory itself isn't necessarily soundproof, if anyone wants to see why please watch the following videos.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Divine Command Theory is correct and whatever God says is moral is whats moral. Let us next assume, for simplicity's sake, that the true word of God is the King James Bible. We can now choose either a strict or loose interpretation of the Bible.
A strict interpretation entails we follow the bible to the letter of the word. This itself creates logical inconsistencies that make it difficult to follow (possibly due to language translations), such as
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Other implications of strict interpretations of the bible could include stoning women who were raped in the city who "did not scream loud enough" and stoning any man who looks at the wife of another man. However given my experience most religious believe we must seek the message underlying the words.
The loose interpretation is also present difficulties because it gives rise to many different interpretations and forces us to understand why God would say what he said. Most churches will agree that the bible was pretty straightforward with the message that homosexuality is a sin, but they glance over why God may have said what he did. I would argue that the original purpose of the immorality of homosexuality was because, at the time it was written, people were dying much more frequently (relative to the world's population) and in order to ensure the continuity of mankind, we needed to breed. Given that this is no longer the problem, rather we may even face potential overpopulation, it follows that homosexuality can no longer be deemed immoral since we do not need to rush to create more people.
Before I move to the next arguments, I believe I should also quickly point out that most churches do not follow Divine Command Theory, but the next ethical theory called Natural Law Theory.
Homosexuality isn't NATURAL.
This derives from the notion that whatever occurs naturally is what is moral. This raises some very disturbing problems, since under certain interpretations rape is morally justifiable and most modern medical practices would be immoral. In some cases, it could also contradict with biblical translations (it is natural for us to eat pigs, but many bibles forbid eating pigs) For a more detailed list of the aspects of Natural Law Theory, its implications, and its criticisms, see
For the sake of argument let's now assume that Natural Law Theory is correct. We now encounter very difficult question of determining what is and what is not natural. One could say, for example, that man (or woman, but I'll refer to man simply to adhere to traditional terms) cannot act outside his nature, thus nothing is moral or immoral. If we say only human beings can act outside their nature, then we have the ability to perform moral and immoral deeds. However this implies that animals can act only in accordance with nature because they cannot act outside of nature. If certain animals engage in homosexuality, then in accordance of this translation homosexuality is morally permissible.
In order to get around animals being homosexual and to still deem human homosexuality as immoral, homophobic proponents must somehow say that there is some defective characteristic, perhaps Satan influenced the minds to act this way. This argument simply fails because they would have to show that all these animals possessed some sort of free will to commit sins in the first place. This seems to contradict many of the fundamentals of religious doctirnes.
In conclusion, homosexuality is not a sin and it is not immoral even under Divine Command Theory and Natural Divine Theory. From conclusion I will counter the additional common arguments put forth against Gay Marriage.
It Denies the Child either a Father or a Mother:
The prospect of homosexuals legally marrying does not cover gay adoption rights, but nonetheless they should be addressed. I'm certain there are cases where the family dynamic could include two mothers and two fathers, raising a child, so assumption isn't assured in the first place. Next, we have to prove that the child is worse off not having either a father or a mother. Given that the subjective quality of parents varies so much, or that there are straight couples that are terrible parents and straight couples that are fantastic parents, it doesn't seem likely that children will be any better off having straight or gay parents. In fact, children growing up in a loving home is always preferable to foster homes, and gay adoption could reduce this problem.
Out of Room for Additional Argume
Pennington forfeited this round.
Pennington are you choosing to forfeit?
Pennington forfeited this round.
Pennington forfeited this round.
ufcryan forfeited this round.
Pennington forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: From pro "I believe my opponent's account is no longer working or active. Please do not vote one way or the other and allow the outcome to result in a tie."
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.