Gay Marriage is Harmful and Must be Opposed
Debate Rounds (5)
burden of proof rests on Pro to prove that homosexual marriage is harmful and must be opposed.
The reason for marriage is for the procreation of children which is a foundation of society. How can two men make children? Gay "marriage" is just a miss use of marriage. It is harmful because first off it is not marriage, it violates natural law, it always denies a child either a father or a mother, it validates and promotes the homosexual life style, it turns a moral wrong into a civil right, it does not create a family but a naturally sterile union, it defeat's the states purpose of benefiting marriage, it imposes it's acceptance on all society, it is cutting the edge of the sexual revolution, and not only all of the but it mainly offends god. I can keep going on and if you want we can bring sodomy into this and I can tell you how many health risks it has.
You argue that gay marriage is harmful because they've no capacity to procreate? Am I to understand that heterosexual relationships where a partner is sterile for some medical reason should be denied as well? More importantly, the inability to procreate does not make a marriage harmful to any party.
You claim that some "natural law" is being broken by a homosexual marriage, you must prove this natural law's existence and more importantly that the breaking of this natural law will cause harm.
Regarding you're claim about a male father and female mother, I would argue that considering there is no evidence that a child
1) Needs two parents to be healthy mentally and physically. (damage from divorce is not a relevant argument).
2) Needs those parents to be specifically male and female and will otherwise sustain damage to their physical or mental health.
A side note regarding procreation:
We have more children needing parents than the reverse, as is evident by the existence of orphanages (apx 153 million ). (1) Homosexuals could give a great many of these children a home due to their lack of ability to procreate that you claim is damaging, quite the opposite it seems.
Proving sodomy has health risks does nothing for your argument. Staring at this computer screen arguing against the rights of homosexuals has proven health risks to your eyes, we would prohibit 95% of human activity if we did so based on health risks.
There are risks to heterosexual intercourse including but not limited to heat attack, stroke, sexual headaches, urinary tract infection, and STD's, should it too be banned? (2)
Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man.
(Romans. 2:14-15) 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.
It can be harmful since gays can't procreate because instead they will likely adopt a child. It is essential that a child must have both a father and a mother to be raised properly. Men and women think very differently. Men are more simple and to the point. Women are more emotional and complicated.
Studies have found that girls with homes without a father are more likely to be sexually active and start sexual activity early. Also another study shows that girls raised by lone parents are twice as likely to leave home by the age of 18 as girls with intact homes were 3 times likely to. Other areas of evidence can include a child's education performance, committing suicide, etc. A house divided will not stand.
Two men instead of a man and a women? A child will not likely receive emotional support due to the fact that both men are still men. Again men aren't as emotional as women are. Just because they automatically choose to be gay doesn't mean they are going to start "thinking" like a women.
The reason of bringing in sodomy is because if a gay person was a virgin then he would most likely have sex when he got married. Gay people tend to use sodomy has a form of pleasure. In this case it will be harmful due to health risks.
Rebuttal 1: Natural Law
Pro mentions again a "natural law", goes on to say that it "universal and immutable" and "applies to the entire human race".
Pro must define and prove the existence of said "natural law". More importantly, Pro must identify how the breaking of this "natural law" will cause harm. The only evidence presented is the Bible, even if we considered religious text scientific truth the only harm to speak of is damnation to the Judeo Christian Hell which must be proven if sought to be used in this debate.
Rebuttal 2: Man & Woman
Readers will find that Pro's citation (http://billmuehlenberg.com...) references many studies but provides but one citation, a telegraph.co.uk article. Upon reading this article you will find that Bill Muehlenberg seems to have misled us.
You will find that the telegraph article argues that children raised by single parents have double the chance for behavioral problems. This claim be it true or not, sheds no light on the topic of our debate.
As for Pro's claim "A child will not likely receive emotional support due to the fact that both men are still men.", without reliable scientific sources (or any source) this statement is meaningless.
Rebuttal 3: Anal Intercourse
First, I'd like to say that our argument is that Homosexual Marriage is not harmful. Whether or not anal intercourse is harmful excedes the scope of this debate. Pro indicates that he understands this is irrelevant in his attempt to justify sodomy's mention at his last paragraph with "because if a gay person was a virgin then he would most likely have sex when he got married". Nonetheless, for arguments sake I will indulge...
The WebMD article Pro linked outlines the health risks of Anal Sex. ironically, the article itself presents common remedies.
Here are problems and their solutions:
A1) The Anus lacks natural lubrication ergo vulnerability to tears ergo more risk of infection.
S1) Safe artificial lubricants are cheap and very easily accessible.
S2) Condoms in conjuction with lubricant will even further protect participants.
S3) Take a bath prior
S4) Lie on your stomach during.
A2) Anal sex may loosens the sphincter, possibly leading to incontinence.
S1) Kegel excersizes are not only known to rehibilitate a loose sphincter but even the far more profound trauma of child birth to the vagina, anus and general pelvic area.
A3) The anus is full of bacteria
S1) Use a condom and water based lubricant.
S2) Preform an enima, use of baking soda and mild hand soap disolved within water.
S3) Clean your penis before and after.
As an fun side note, I will compare the negative effects of homsexual intercourse to that of heterosexual intercourse:
A1) The vagina is full of bacteria, therefore, vaginal penetration can lead to UTI's and vaginal infections.
A2) In heterosexual relationships HPV (Human Papiloma Virus), can cause cervical cancer, prostate cancer, penile cancer, genital warts and if the heterosexual couple should so engage, anal cancer[2, 3]
A3) Vaginal cuts and tears are a common problem in women who are sexually active, according to an article reveiwed by Pat F. Bass III, MD, MPH
A hint of hypocracy reveals itself when we make this contrast, though it doesnt serve my argument, it's certainly an interesting thought.
I observe Pro's attempts to establish the harm of gay marriage as refuted and or largely not evidence based to begin with, BoP remains on Pro.
In the name of the "family"... "same-sex "marriage serves to validate the homosexual lifestyle in all of its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles that guide society. Laws shape the life of society, and as such can mold the perception of right and wrong. That is why I oppose the legal recognition of homosexual "marriage", because it obscures basic moral values, devalues natural marriage and weakens public morality.
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.
Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: "God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."" (Gen. 1:28-29)
The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: "From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife." (Mark 10:6-7).
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: "The Lord rained down sulfurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil." (Gen. 19:24-25)
You can't say it is not harmful to Christians when it offends god. God does not hate homosexuals themselves just the act.
Rebuttal 1: The Suffering of Orphans
The only thing to be concluded from orphans suffering is that orphans suffer. You conclude that the lack of specifically two parents and especially two 'natural' parents of opposite genders is the reason, your conclusion is not substantiated by the presented evidence. I would suggest their suffering is more likely do to the mere fact of abandonment and has nothing to do with the quantity, gender or DNA similarity of the parents.
Rebuttal 2: The Parent Trap
Repeated with the same neglect of a need for evidence before, Pro claims that the lack of a specific male father and female mother will deal harm to a child. We cannot accept this conclusion without evidence supporting it.
Rebuttal 3: For God's Sake
The scope of this debate is that homosexual marriage is harmful, if one wishes to include religious text they must:
1) Prove the existence of God.
2) Prove that the existing God is the Judeo Christian God.
3) Once one and two are proven, then the presenter could demonstrate how Judeo Christian texts show homosexuality as harmful.
I observe Pro's attempts to establish the harm of gay marriage as refuted, BoP remains on Pro.
An Irrelevant but Interesting Side Note:
Since Pro insists on stressing the importance of following Bible, I thought it'd be fun to present a list of verses and commandments for us to ponder:
1) Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19
2) "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11
3) Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Exodus 23:19
4) When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Deuteronomy 25:11-12
5) Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 2 Kings 2:23-25 NIV
6) Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-22 NIV
7) Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18
8) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT
9) If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
10) No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV
11) Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Leviticus 19:27
Fathers and mothers teach respect to the opposite gender. A married father is substantially less likely to abuse his wife or children than men in any other category. This means that boys and girls with married fathers in the home learn, by observation, how men should treat women.
There are centuries of proof that a child should be raised by a man and a women. Yet there is merely a few years of unreliable evidence to show that a same-sex couple can raise a child.
May I include that statistics show...
60 percent of America's rapists came from fatherless homes
72 percent of adolescent murderers grew up without a father
70 percent of long-term prison inmates are fatherless
Gay marriage or same-sex marriage is in fact harmful and must be opposed.
Rebuttal 1: Damage to Religious Folk
Pro argues that homosexual marriage 'may cause harm to those who believe in God'. If Pro were able to establish damage done to religious folk of half the argument would be there. Not only has Pro neglected to give us citation as to how it does, but Pro hasn't even offered a hypothetical as to how religious folk may be harmed by homosexual marriage.
Rubuttal 2: Unsubstantiated Speculation
1) "Same-sex couples will cause stress and conflict to a child."
2) Opposite sex arguments are "not the same as a man and a man arguing or a women and a women arguing."
3) "Fathers and mothers teach respect to the opposite gender."
4) "A married father is substantially less likely to abuse his wife or children than men in any other category."
5) "Boys and girls with married fathers in the home learn, by observation, how men should treat women."
6) "There are centuries of proof that a child should be raised by a man and a women."
7) "Single parent statistics count for dual same sex parent statistics" (may be paraphrased)
Rebuttal 3: The Parent Trap... 2?
Pro argues yet again that children grown up in the context of single parent home may suffer harm. This fact even if true does not prove harm is caused by two same sex parents. Pro would need to prove that the lack of a specific male father and female mother is harmful to children.
Pro has failed to provide any substantiated scenario where harm was caused by a same sex marriage. Vote Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 1 year 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had 3 major flaws in his argument. 1) Continually made bare assertions, his list in Round 2 was never really fleshed out or proven true. For example how does a sterile union constitute societal harm? Gays could adopt as Con points out. 2) Bible quotes; these are utterly unconvincing and Con showed how the bible is not a moral authority. 3) Single parent house holds have nothing to do with gay marriage; it's a pointless argument. Sources go to Con as well, Pro used biased sources and sexist stereotypes to make his reasoning as to why children need need a mother and a father. All in all Pro failed to show why gay marriage is harmful enough to be opposed by society.
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.