The Instigator
Krookednook
Pro (for)
The Contender
mbrownie
Con (against)

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
mbrownie has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 614 times Debate No: 97651
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Krookednook

Pro

'Why would you want to get in the way of people loving each other marrying each other? Anybody who wants to be able to get married to anybody else should be able to.'

These are the words of Ben Affleck, and in my opinion they are some of the most truthful words I have read. Why would you hate on gays? They are just normal people who happen to be attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite. If two heterosexual people wished to be married, would you stop them? Then why would you stop two men or two women being married? It isn't their fault that they are homosexual. They just want to marry the person they love. But you think that they shouldn't marry, that they should just never properly connect and that their love is 'unnatural'. However, I am sure that you would happily attend a wedding with a bride and a groom. Do you realize how hypocritical that is?

So, lets set the scene. Assuming you are female, you meet a handsome young man who you instantly fall for. You begin chatting, and soon after a few months you fall in love and want to marry. You live happily ever after with your new husband. Now, lets say that instead of a man, you fell for a pretty woman. Instead of marrying, though, you are frowned upon by peers and not allowed to marry. People regularly call you and the woman disgusting and think you are sinners. The pressure is so much that you forget each other.

Sound terrible? That is basically what you are wishing for.
mbrownie

Con

(I know what I'm doing this time)
The institution of marrige has been traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman.
In upholding gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee on Nov. 6, 2014, 6th US District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote that "marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world." [117] In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." [49] John F. Harvey, MA, STL, late Catholic priest, wrote in July 2009 that "Throughout the history of the human race the institution of marriage has been understood as the complete spiritual and bodily communion of one man and one woman." [18] [109]

Another reason would be that marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-sex couples beause they cannot produce children together.
Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. [19] A California Supreme Court ruling from 1859 stated that "the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation." [90] Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Bertrand Russell stated that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution." [91] Court papers filed in July 2014 by attorneys defending Arizona's gay marriage ban stated that "the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their father... Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father." Contrary to the pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex couples cannot have children or don't want them, even in those cases there is still the potential to produce children. Seemingly infertile heterosexual couples sometimes produce children, and medical advances may allow others to procreate in the future. Heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children are still biologically capable of having them, and may change their minds. [98]

Children need both a mother and a father.
Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. [52] Children without a mother are deprived of the emotional security and unique advice that mothers provide. A 2012 study by Mark Regnerus, PhD, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by parents who had same-sex relationships suffered more difficulties in life (including sexual abuse and unemployment in later life) than children raised by "intact biological famil[ies]." [133] Doug Mainwaring, the openly gay co-founder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots, stated that "it became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom... I don't want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing." [53]

CON (no)

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) said in a June 26, 2015 statement posted on its website titled "God Defined Marriage":

"God designed marriage for humanity. As first described in Genesis and later affirmed by Jesus, marriage is a God-ordained, covenant relationship between a man and a woman. This lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship brings children into the world and thus sustains the stewardship of the earth. Biblical marriage """ marked by faithfulness, sacrificial love and joy " displays the relationship between God and his people...

Nothing in the Supreme Court"s Obergefell v. Hodges opinion changes the truth about marriage. What has changed is the legal definition of marriage, which is now at variance with orthodox biblical faith as it has been affirmed across the centuries and as it is embraced today by nearly two billion Christians in every nation on earth.

In its role as a moral teacher, the law now misleads Americans about the true nature of marriage. Evangelicals and other followers of the Bible have a heightened opportunity to demonstrate the attractiveness of loving Christian marriages and families. Evangelicals should renew their commitment to the sacrificial love and covenantal faithfulness to which Jesus calls all husbands and wives."

My last example example would be that legalizing gay marriage could lead down a "slippery slope," giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry.
Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times op-ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." [11] In Apr. 2013 Slate writer Jillian Keenan wrote: "Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults." [71] James C. Dobson, Founder and Chairman of Focus on the Family, predicted in 2005 that legalizing same-sex marriage will enable "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," and "marriage between a man and his donkey." [136]

Sources:
http://www.allaboutlove.org...
http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)
Debate Round No. 1
Krookednook

Pro

First, I would like to point out that you are comparing homosexuality to bestiality and incest. This is a ridiculous comparison, as liking someone of the same gender is not like loving your mother or your pet cat. And if that is the case, then heterosexuality can be compared to these sexual tendencies as well. After all, homosexuality in animals has been sighted many times, meaning it IS natural. Also, many of your statements refer to Christianity, and in my opinion it isn't factual enough to display as an argument. After all, we do not know how the world begun. It would be absurd to say that homosexuality is disgusting because god made us as heterosexuals, as we don`t have any evidence.

Back to my first statement, homosexuality has been sighted in many animals, including dogs, rams and other common creatures. They naturally are happy to mate with any sex, so a male cat would happily mate with another male cat. This is a factual piece of evidence that can explain how humans may have developed the trait to be sexually attracted to the same sex, as this behavior is shown in apes including our ancestor the chimpanzee.
mbrownie

Con

Just because you call it 'marriage' doesn't make it actually marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, so gay marriage would actually, legally, not be marriage. It would even deny the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Gay marriage always denies children a father or mother. "It is in the child's best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother." Gay marriage actually created a naturally sterile union, instead of a family like how marriage between a man and woman should actually be.

Gay marriage defeats the State's Purpose of Marriage. "The State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State." So gay 'marriage' doesn't provide the conditions. The primary purpose is the gratification personally of two people whose union is sterile by nature.

For those who don't know, sterile means to not be able to produce children or young.

By letting gay marriage be legal, the Stat becomes the official and active promoter. It calls on public officials to officiate at a new ceremony, and even orders public schools to teach the acceptability to children, and also "punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval." Objecting parents would see their children exposed to more things about this new 'morality', because of businesses offering wedding services forcing them to provide them for gay or lesbian unions, and rental property owners would have to agree to accept gay or lesbian couples as tenants.

"In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex "marriage.""
"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

Sources:
www.dictionary.com/browse/sterile
https://www.researchgate.net...
http://family.findlaw.com...
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Krookednook

Pro

Gay marriage, although it may not be `correct` in your standards, is helpful. It reduces the overpopulation problem, even if only minimal.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
sboss18
Look back at your Round 1 post. You did not quote your posts properly, that is plagiarization. You copy-pasted the entire argument from another source, and simply pasted the link at the end. Debating is not about who can copy-paste the most information from other sources. It's about using that information to form your own ideas and opinions.
I'm curious, how do you not see that as copying?
Posted by mbrownie 1 year ago
mbrownie
@sboss18 no I am not but I did quote my source and added quotations.
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
sboss18
I may have misunderstood. Were you the original poster on gaymarriage.procon.org?
Posted by mbrownie 1 year ago
mbrownie
@sboss18 AGAIN, I AM NOT PLAGIARIZING. I AM ONLY USING THE INFORMATION I WROTE DOWN PREVIOUSLY FOR EACH OF MY DIFFERENT DEBATE PIECES. I AM NOT COPYING.
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
sboss18
Con has plagiarized their argument from http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.