The Instigator
ResilientKeii
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Robikan
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Gay Marriage harms the U.S

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 1 vote the winner is...
Robikan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,321 times Debate No: 13370
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

ResilientKeii

Con

I will basically give some reasons why gay marriage is bad

1.It spreads diease. Diease leads to deaths which leads to a decrease in population which leads to less people working which harms the U.S

2. Cannot Reproduce. Cant have kids which decreases population
Robikan

Pro

I welcome this debate, although must state that I am not American. I am Canadian, but I feel I can still adequately defend the position that gay marriage would not harm the U.S. It appears my opponent may not have completed their argument in their initial post, so I will address the 2 points made and allow them to continue their argument in their next round.

1. Gay marriage does not in any way spread disease. I believe what my opponent is suggesting is that *homosexuality* spreads disease. There are several problems with this argument. First, it is untrue that homosexuality spreads disease any more than heterosexuality. Second, gay marriage and gay sex, while related, are not the same thing. Sex spreads diseases, marriage does not. In fact, it likely decreases the spreading of them.

2. Homosexuals can and do have children, and are able to adopt children. Furthermore, marriage has never been denied on the basis of fertility. Infertile people can marry, people who do not want children can marry, people who plan to adopt can marry, the elderly can marry -- in short, every heterosexual, whether they intend to breed or not, has the option of marrying.
Debate Round No. 1
ResilientKeii

Con

I will begin my argument by apologizing. I meant to say homosexuality.

Anyways to defend my case
Starting with the fact that gay marriage still spreads diease. Gay people that are married most likely have sex therefore it does cause diease. It doesnt matter if heterosexuality causes diease. With all of the diease in the world we must prevent even more diease. Heterosexuality is perfectly fine in this world. Every1 is ok with it.

Next my opponent hasnt shown any evidence for homosexuality producing children. Adopting kids is completely irrelavent. We are talking about the reproduction of the U.S or even the world. I will agree that homosexuality isnt harmful if my opponent can prove that you can still reproduce.
Robikan

Pro

I will be quoting my opponent to clearly refute their claims:

"Starting with the fact that gay marriage still spreads diease. Gay people that are married most likely have sex therefore it does cause diease. It doesnt matter if heterosexuality causes diease. With all of the diease in the world we must prevent even more diease."

You have not shown that marriage spreads disease, so I believe this point is moot, but to be sure, I will refute this anyway. Marriage implies fidelity. While there is no guarantee that a married couple will remain faithful to one another, many studies (as well as common sense) show that married people sleep around less than unmarried people, therefore *preventing* the spread of disease rather than perpetuating it. Banning gay marriage will not, in any way, prevent the spread of disease -- there is, in fact, a case to be made that it would do the opposite Furthermore, you are making a rather large leap by implying that, simply because a person is homosexual, they are spreading disease. Please back up both of the claims you have made here, or concede that they are unfounded.

"Heterosexuality is perfectly fine in this world. Every1 is ok with it."

This is a personal opinion, and does not further your case at all. As well, it is untrue. I doubt that homosexuals are OK with pretending to be heterosexual.

"Next my opponent hasnt shown any evidence for homosexuality producing children. Adopting kids is completely irrelavent. We are talking about the reproduction of the U.S or even the world. I will agree that homosexuality isnt harmful if my opponent can prove that you can still reproduce."

Homosexual couples cannot reproduce themselves, but each homosexual *individual* is still capable of reproduction. Also, you seem to have ignored the point -- other people that are either incapable or uninterested in reproduction are still allowed to marry. Reproduction is not a requirement for the ability to wed. Why would you apply this standard only to homosexuals?
Debate Round No. 2
ResilientKeii

Con

I will be quoting my opponent to clearly refute their claims:

"You have not shown that marriage spreads disease, so I believe this point is moot, but to be sure, I will refute this anyway."

I stated I meant something else in the previous rebuttal. Not gay marriage which means ur argument aganist it is dropped and irrelavent.

"Heterosexuality is perfectly fine in this world. Every1 is ok with it."

"This is a personal opinion, and does not further your case at all. As well, it is untrue. I doubt that homosexuals are OK with pretending to be heterosexual."

It is a personal opinion but every country is perfectly fine with it. If it is untrue where are your sources? You "doubt" Homosexuals are PERFECTLY fine with heterosexuals. For instance the woman on CNN being a lesbian christian. She had no problem with the straight pastor. Your claim is flawed.

"Homosexual couples cannot reproduce themselves, but each homosexual *individual* is still capable of reproduction. Also, you seem to have ignored the point -- other people that are either incapable or uninterested in reproduction are still allowed to marry. Reproduction is not a requirement for the ability to wed. Why would you apply this standard only to homosexuals?"

Each homosexual is capable of reproduction but they simply choose not to which means they do not reproduce Reproduction is beneficial to the world which my opponent has seem to avoid. By agreeing with my opponent you are saying not reproducing isnt harmful.

I am applying the fact that Homosexuality is harmful.
Robikan

Pro

"I stated I meant something else in the previous rebuttal. Not gay marriage which means ur argument aganist it is dropped and irrelavent."

Correction accepted. Still, I asked for you to back up your claim that homosexuality in and of itself spreads disease, which you have failed to do.

"It is a personal opinion but every country is perfectly fine with it."

Apparently not. Several countries have now granted homosexuals the right to marry, so clearly they were not "fine with" only heterosexuals having that right.

"If it is untrue where are your sources? You "doubt" Homosexuals are PERFECTLY fine with heterosexuals. For instance the woman on CNN being a lesbian christian. She had no problem with the straight pastor. Your claim is flawed."

You are misunderstanding your own claims. What you originally claimed was that everyone was fine with marriage remaining the way it was (opposite sex only). Now you are claiming everyone is fine with heterosexuality. Which is it? If your claim is that everyone is fine with heterosexuality, this is irrelevant to your other claim, which is that homosexuality is harmful. If your claim is that everyone is fine with hetero-only marriage, this is obviously incorrect.

"Each homosexual is capable of reproduction but they simply choose not to which means they do not reproduce Reproduction is beneficial to the world which my opponent has seem to avoid. By agreeing with my opponent you are saying not reproducing isnt harmful."

Plenty of homosexuals choose to reproduce. Invalid argument. Also, many heterosexuals choose not to, so this makes your argument even more invalid. If your argument is that choosing not to reproduce is wrong, feel free to start a new debate on that topic, but it is irrelevant to this one.

"I am applying the fact that Homosexuality is harmful."

And you have yet to give one logical reason to defend that position.
Debate Round No. 3
ResilientKeii

Con

ResilientKeii forfeited this round.
Robikan

Pro

As my opponent forfeited the right to defend their case, I presume I have made the stronger case. To be sure, however, I will state my reasoning one more time, so as to allow a final opportunity to my opponent.

Homosexuality does not harm the US (or any other nation):

1. Disease is spread through unprotected or promiscuous sexual practices, not via homosexuality. Many studies have been done on the subject, and the result is *always* that homosexuals engaging in unprotected sex are more likely to get *certain* diseases, and that heterosexuals engaging in unprotected sex are more likely to get *certain* diseases, but that the rates of infection are very similar.

2. Sexual and romantic behavior between two people has little to no effect on those not involved. Simply put, whether I am involved with a man or a woman, your life is not being effected.

3. Reproduction is not a qualifier for being in a romantic relationship. Whether or not homosexuals can or will reproduce has no moral impact.

If my opponent wishes to address any of these points, I welcome a continuance of this debate. If not, I must presume I have won.
Debate Round No. 4
ResilientKeii

Con

ResilientKeii forfeited this round.
Robikan

Pro

As my opponent forfeited their final opportunity for rebuttal, I assume I have made the stronger argument.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
You're on the wrong side again. Change your position to Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
ResilientKeiiRobikanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01