The Instigator
PirateLord
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
phantom
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

Gay Marriage is Morally wrong and should not be Legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 11 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 16,502 times Debate No: 32521
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (11)

 

PirateLord

Pro

The topic at hand is that we should not legalize gay marriage. (1) traditional Marriage in its sense, is defined as a bonding between one man and one woman. Not marrying in the same-sex. (2) Same-Sex marriage is morally wrong.

(1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

round 1 counts as accepting the argument and making your opening statements
phantom

Con

I accept the debate. My opponent has the burden of proof in this debate. My burden is to negate.

My stance is that same sex marriage is not morally wrong and should be legal, and that even if it were morally wrong, that would not be sufficient reason to make it illegal.
Debate Round No. 1
PirateLord

Pro

Thank you for your retort

>>"Same sex marriage is not morally wrong and should be legal"

To begin with, Let"s look at issues the way they should be looked at; is what a person doing morally right or morally wrong, sinful or not sinful.

We"re not supposed to or are we capable of making internal judgement, but we are expected to make external ones. And when two women or two men want to "marry" each other we know, or should know, it"s morally wrong. It"s unnatural. out of place. Statistics show that between ages of 18-44 who reported that they were either homosexual or heterosexual, 96% of men and 94% of women said they were heterosexual, and 1.7% of men and 1.1% of women said they were homosexual or gay.

(1) http://www.robgagnon.net...

Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. This will be forcing the practices and morals of the "minority" on the "majority" --How in any way is this not harmful to society.

We know that they (Homosexual) don"t have a "right" to get married, but an obligation to do what is morally right by not getting married. That obligation is based on a strict moral code that in turn is based on God"s Ten Commandments (in the Bible) Which is also a reliable source for condemning homosexuality wrong.

: : : : :Things to think about: : : : : :

Homosexuality goes against everything God has created marriage to be. God has created the male and female species for pro creation. He gave the human race marriage between one woman and one man to have a strong healthy family. To lead on the next generation, and the next generation after that.

Thank you, i look forward to my opponents next argument.
phantom

Con

Pro's first argument attempts to prove homosexuality is unnatural by citing statistics that show that homosexuals are a small minority. I will summarize his argument like this. In one study, of those who reported, 96% males and 94% women were heterosexual with only 1.7% homosexual men and 1.1% homosexual women. Therefore, homosexuality is unnatural. So pro's position is that homosexuality being uncommon makes it also unnatural. I'd like pro to define what he means by "unnatural", because either he's using a very backwards definition and/or he's using very backwards reasoning to link the two facts. In a society where homosexuals were the majority, I'm sure pro wouldn't favor this argument. That's because the argument itself is absurd. Albino's are also a minority. Would pro say they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Why can't minorities have equal benefits as majorities? What makes them so inferior? Just because one sexual orientation is uncommon, does not mean there is anything wrong with that orientation.


Pro says legalizing gay marriage will be "forcing the practices and morals of the minority on the majority" and asks us how is that not an immoral society. Personally, as a member of the "majority" heterosexuals, I have no idea what pro is talking about. I don't find any morals or practices being pushed on me by gay marriage. Just because heterosexuals are more common than homosexuals, does not mean homosexual marriage is undermining heterosexuals and especially not in any unfair way. In what way, I would ask, are gays forcing their practices and morals on the majority? Just because heterosexuals aren't homosexual, doesn't mean they don't share the same beliefs. I may not follow the same sexual practices as homosexuals, but I have no problem with consensual homosexual behavior anymore than interracial sexual behavior. Both are an individual right. Pro's correct that heterosexuals are a majority, but the conclusions he derives from this are wild and indefensible.

Pro also says that two men or two women cannot become "one flesh". For one, I don't really see how it's relevant that the "pieces don't fit", so to speak, but if this is really so important, wouldn't butt sex or the use of dildos make it up for pro? It's hard to take this argument seriously.

Pro then goes on to reference the "ten commandments" (who would have known the Bible would be referenced?) Firstly, I don't actually see any homophobia mentioned in the ten commandments [1]. Yes indeed, unless Moses did some editing on the way down from mount Sinai, this particular phobia the God of the old testament has, does not filter into the "big ten" (why anyone who can see anywhere he wishes would condemn lesbian sex is beyond me). It's improbable but perhaps pro's taking this from the commandment that says not to covet your neighbors @ss? Well "@ss" here means "donkey", and "covet" isn't used in the sexual tense. So pro's mistaken about the ten commandments. But don't worry, there's plenty of the usual radical homophobia in rest of the old testament that pro could find easily if he looks a bit more! While he's at it, he might as well start advocating sexism and slavery, seeing as he derives his morals from the old testament.

If pro's going to use his God as the basis of his argument, he's going to have to do a lot more. 1) He has to give sound evidence for God. 2) He has to prove his God is against gay marriage and homosexuality. 3) He has to show that his God is morally good and that there is such a thing as objective morality. And 4) he has to show why we would give a sh!t seeing as our government is founded on secularism. Long way to go :P

Also, if God created humans for procreation, does that mean those who can't give birth shouldn't be allowed to marry? Should we prevent old people from marrying and those with physical disabilities? I'd like to see why procreation is so important to marriage.

Pro also hasn't made any argument for his natural theory of morality, nor explained it in any detail. Why does what is unnatural equate to being immoral? Besides the fact that pro has in no way proven homosexuality is unnatural, I see no explanation from pro for why what is unnatural is immoral, nor anything intuitively obvious that says so. I'm wandering what pro wants homosexuals to do. For what he is essentially asking is for them to repress their sexual inclinations, which are nothing but natural. Homosexuals are naturally inclined towards their same sex. If anything, it would be unnatural for them to marry the opposite sex and also unnatural for them to repress their desire for sex altogether. There's nothing wrong with celibacy, but it is no more natural than homosexuality. Living a life without sex is a perfectly fine thing to do but also differs from our natural desires, so by pro's standards, it's also unnatural and thus immoral. So if we want to take pro's argument, anything a homosexual can do is unnatural and thus immoral. So what does pro want of them? They can't have sexual intercourse with each other, according to him, doing so with the opposite sex would go against their natural inclinations, and reclining from sex would also go against their natural desires. Pro hasn't made an argument for why homosexuality is unnatural, nor why even it were unnatural, that it is immoral.

As of yet, pro hasn't made any reasonable argument.
Debate Round No. 2
PirateLord

Pro

Thank you for you response

First of all, my opponent spends almost all of his argument "criticizing" and stating why my reasons aren't "Good enough" Con fails to use any facts or statistics by only giving his own opinion of the topic at hand. Con also seems to believe that the Bible is not a reliable source for deeming homosexuality as wrong. That's also his opinion.

>>"I'd like pro to define what he means by "unnatural", because either he's using a very backwards definition or hes using very backwards reasoning to link the two facts"

My opponent seems to think that I'm using the word unnatural wrong. So let me define it for him: "Unnatural: contrary to the laws or course of nature" lacking human qualities." (http://www.definitions.net...) --What does this mean? it seems very obvious to me. -- A common and simplistic meaning is that heterosexual relationships are "natural" because that is what we find in nature, whereas we don"t find homosexual relationships. The latter are therefore unnatural and should not be validated by society. So if con thinks this has nothing to do with the argument i'm making, then my opponent has some serious thinking to do. For if an average of 97% are heterosexual and an average of 3% are homosexual, then being homosexual by fact, is UNNATURAL!

In effect, his sources are hardly unbiased, and show his lack of research on this matter.

*************************************************

My opponent seems to think that the bible says nothing about homosexuality. I can spend days studying and researching on why the bible is a reliable source for condemning homosexuality as wrong. But i'm not going to do that, for my opponent wants me to answer some question. So i will. In Gen. 2, 23-24, God makes a women, and Adam Says: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. --This is what becoming one flesh really is.

Not "Good Enough"?

When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve"not another Adam! This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity. For if God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural.

the image of God is both male and female and is reflected in a godly union between male and female where the creative power of God, His life-giving, His self-giving and His moral nature are perfectly expressed. this can only happen in a heterosexual relationship.

:::Other argument against Gay Marriage:::

>> "If God created humans for procreation, does that mean those who can't give birth shouldn't be allowed to marry?" First off this is immature and childish reasoning. My opponent took my words way out of hand. He know it. Yes, some women won't be able to have children, but some couples don't want children either. God gave the human race marriage between one woman and one man to have a family. With that gives companionship, security, and a healthy loving relationship that RESULTS in training and prepares their offspring to be positive influence and to contribute to their society. Yes there will be times when people don't want children. But its stupid to think that people can't get married just because they can't have children!

Any time we intentionally remove an essential part of humanity from the family, (male or female) we have a family that will fail to function as society and children need it to. Allowing this shift to occur, we will fail our children and coming generation. Its always about the next generation!

>>"I'd like to see why procreation is so important to marriage."

Let me ask my opponent a question:

1) How were you born?

To my knowledge, from saying "as a member of the "majority" heterosexuals," Con indeed came from a man and a women. And they were married. Well what if they decided procreation was not important in marriage? What if everyone thinks that? Then you won't have any children. How would we create the next "healthy" generation if procreation was not important in marriage? To my knowledge, you would of never had been born.

*******************************************

A kid needs a father and a mother. Not a family in confusion and chaos. For the morals and practices of the homosexuality life will be passed on to their children and will be not counted as ever being wrong. This creates not a healthy generation. The "public purpose" of marriage is primary to take children from childhood to "Healthy" adulthood. This can only be "successful" when men and women join together to parent a child.

>>"Pro also hasn't made any argument for his natural theory of morality, nor explained it in any detail."

My opponent seems to reason that i haven't gave any arguments for natural theory of morality. Well let me ask him something: Where are yours? Con has not given any statistics nor facts to support why homosexual relationships are good. --Oh wait, there is none. All my opponent can do is give his own opinion.

:::Other facts about the children of homosexuals:::

What we know, beyond any doubt, is that children from single gender homes ar much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble (depression), commit suicide and live in poverty. Name the social problem, and its tied to family dissolution.

Work cited:
http://www.frc.org...
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com...

Thank you

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
phantom

Con

Pro points out that I haven't spent much time presenting a case of my own. I agree. But as stated in the first round, pro has the burden of proof (he never contended that). Therefore, my only burden is to negate so I don't need a case of my own. Pro's merely pointing out that I haven't gone beyond what's required. I don't feel like going beyond my requirements though. It is sufficient that I negate since pro has the burden of proof.

Pro says it's just my opinion that the bible isn't a reliable source for determining the morality of homosexuality. From what I recall, the single defense pro gave in favor of the bibles reliability was merely his statement that it is "a reliable source for condemning homosexuality wrong." Doesn't that sound like pure opinion? Pro gave no defense whatsoever. Actually, last round he didn't even show the bible was against homosexuality. He only stated that the ten commandments condemned it, but they didn't. I'm content with pointing out that pro hasn't given a minuscule amount of proof for God or the authority of the bible. But as stated, if pro's going to base his morals off the old testament, he might as well advocate genocide/infanticide (1 Samuel 15:2-3) and slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) too.


Pro's kind enough to give us a definition of "unnatural", which states, "Unnatural: contrary to the laws or course of nature" lacking human qualities." I wander how on earth anything in the definition implies that what is unnatural is immoral, but let's first move to pro's statistics argument. Pro says we don't find homosexual relationships in nature though we do with heterosexual ones. I don't even know what this means. Maybe I could grasp it if pro provided an argument to go along. Perhaps, but we'll never know. Maybe pro will clarify next round.


Anyways pro still states that because homosexuals are less common (by a large degree) homosexuality is unnatural. Well he says the figures add up to 3% homosexual. I'd just like to contend that quickly, not that it's crucial to my side. Gallup, a much more reliable source than pro's "Why Gay Marriage is Wrong" article (or his other incredibally bias sources), states, "most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less"[1]. So pro's statistics don't seem extremely reliable.


But even if we did accept pro's stats, (or if he's good with Gallup's), it does nothing to prove homosexuality immoral. As stated, pro would never advance this argument in a society where homosexuals were dominant. If pro seriously takes this line of reasoning, I question why he doesn't argue against interracial relationships, for the majority are attracted to their race. So why does it matter that heterosexuals are the majority when minorities exist everywhere? Let's look at pro's definition. The statistics do not show that homosexuality is contrary to the laws of nature. What law has pro appealed to? And it does not show that homosexuals lack human qualities. Though I dearly hope pro isn't saying homosexuals aren't humans. All I can do is speculate with bewilderment as to how pro's making these conclusions.

Pro also says my sources are biased but all this serves to do is show pro is just throwing around baseless accusations. It amused me when I first saw it since my only source last round was the ten commandments. My opponent's correct that the ten commandments are a terrible source to use in a debate as evidence. There we can certainly agree. But I was only referencing them to show they didn't say anything about homosexuality. So viewers can take pro's claim that I use biased sources as just cheap, invalid accusations.


I never said the bible didn't say anything against homosexuality. Pro's just ignoring me. I said the ten commandments didn't, because they don't. As a secularist, my main problem is that pro has not provided one ounce of evidence for why on earth the bible is a reliable source or for why we should believe his God exists. It would be wonderful if pro could give us a shred of incite into the matter seeing as his whole case rests on it, but he continually refrains from doing so. And again, if pro's so keen on everything fitting together, anal's the way to go bro. Though I still can't believe we're debating this. If we're going to base our moral beliefs off of some primitive goats herder (or whoever it was) saying "the two must become one flesh", I have no idea what the concept of reliable sources even means.


Pro states, "But its stupid to think that people can't get married just because they can't have children!" Yes, I agree! However, pro has already used the argument that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because procreation is essential to marriage. So what is pro doing here? First he says homosexuals can't marry because they can't have children. Then he says it's stupid to prevent people from getting married just because they can't have children. Something's clearly wrong here. Pro's contradicting himself.


Procreation is important for the next generation, not marriage. I'd like to see where pro finds his view that the purpose of marriage is to give us the next generation. Sex gives us children, not marriage. Sex just often takes place in, or as the result of, marriage. There wouldn't have been anything wrong with my parents abstaining from sex. I prefer to live, so I'm glad they didn't, but not having kids is perfectly okay (at least with this populated society). In fact, every time you abstain from having unprotected sex with the potential for impregnation, you're disallowing a potential life. So pro might as well be saying my parents should have kept having kids instead of stopping. Procreation doesn't need to be important for marriage in order for the next generation to come about. Procreation need only be something that happens with or without marriage. Currently, procreation is important to many people, but that importance exists whether marriage exists or not.


Last round I questioned why pro provided no scrap of evidence for his natural theory of morality. Unfortunately his only response is, "well what's yours?" Does pro not understand that when the basis of his case rests on a theory, he has to defend that theory? I thought this was common sense. As for my theory, I already stated, our government is not religious and individuals have rights. There's no reason to disallow homosexuals from marrying and there's good reason to given the reasons we allow heterosexual marriage. After all, they're no better than you and me.


Pro tries to discredit homosexual families but child adoption by homosexuals is not an issue of this debate. The issue is marriage, not adoption. While I'd love to engage pro on that issue, I fear I have already gone over my character limit so I'll leave it as it is; irrelevant to whether gays can marry.

Conclusion

Pro refuses to give any argument for God or any argument for the authority of the bible. He also refuses to defend his natural theory of morality. All he argues is that homosexuality is unnatural but never does he make the link between unnatural and immoral. Furthermore, his only non-religious argument for homosexuality being immoral is that homosexuals are a minority. Pro has far from explained how homosexuality being less common makes it unnatural. Minorities exist everywhere. He might as well be arguing interracial marriages shouldn't take place since those types of relationships aren't as common. He also shifts around with his procreation argument. First he says procreation is essential to marriage but turns right around and claims it's stupid to not allow people to marry just because they can't have kids. However his whole argument was that homosexuals can't marry for the precise reason because they can't have kids, so he's contradicting himself.

I respect religion but not the type of senseless dogma pro is arguing on.

[1] http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 3
PirateLord

Pro

I appreciate your response

>>"it is sufficient that I negate since pro has the burden of proof."

My opponent seems to thing that all he has to do is negate. Well i would say there is so much more thing you have to do then just negate my responses to win this debate. But that is what Con said in the first round. (was not what i intended)

:::What the Bible says:::

The Books and Chapters my opponent states: "(1 Samuel 15:2-3) and slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)", have nothing to do with what i am arguing in the old testament. I simply stated what God created marriage to really be. What it should be. I am not sure on where my opponent was going with this statement.

My opponent says i have not gave any reasons on why the Bible condemns homosexuality as wrong. He states that he feels like that's my "own opinion". Well let me put this in a delicate way...Its not my opinion.

Leviticus 18:22, "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." New Living Translation (NLT). I Believe that is straight out. For you can't turn around what God says, and try to make it mean something else. But since my opponent wants reasons, ill, give him more.

Leviticus 20:13, " "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act."

But i won't just stay in Leviticus, simply because the old testament is not the only part of the Bible its in. 1 Timothy 1:10
"The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, [ Or kidnappers.] liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching"

There is plenty more...But i won't waste all my time proving my opponent wrong. (Sources: "The Bible")

My Opponent states that my statistics are not reliable. Well neither is his...for no one knows the exact amount of % of people who are homosexual or gay. But what we do know for a fact is that homosexuality is unnatural.

>>"First he says homosexuals can't marry because they can't have children. Then he says it's stupid to prevent people from getting married just because they can't have children"

Once again my opponent is doing what he loves doing best...TWISTING MY WORDS AROUND. He know i didn't say that. I never said anything about that being the reason homosexual can not marry! The closest i ever got was..."Any time we intentionally remove an essential part of humanity from the family, (male or female) we have a family that will fail to function as society and children need it to." Apparently my opponent took that wrong. There is none, and i repeat "NO PLACE" where i am contrasting myself whatsoever. I am more so confused on where my opponent is seeing this.

>>"Procreation is important for the next generation, not marriage"

Do i really have to clear this up again? It comes through marriage! My opponent states that sex gives us children not marriage. Well consider this. Who would parent the child if no one got married? That's where it comes in. The next generation is created through marriage, through a strong home, who has a mother and a father to parent the child. Teaching him/her the right paths to take in life. Everyone should know this.

>>" every time you abstain from having unprotected sex with the potential for impregnation, you're disallowing a potential life"

--No you're not!? Where does my opponent get this from? I'm confused where Con is getting this information from. A child isn't even created yet. And why would you keep having kids? Not unless you're a billion air. There is a reason why married couples stop having kids on the average of 2-3. The kids cost money to raise.

**********************************************************************

My opponent seems to think this argument is based off of that "homosexuals cant marry for the precise reason because they cant have kids." Once again never said they can't have kids, and secondly my opponent knows fairly well that this argument is far beyond that. My op penning statement was: "Gay marriage is morally wrong and should not be legalized.

I have proven why it is morally wrong. So why should it not be legalized in the states? i have also given many reasons why...but lets try this topic in a more different approach. . Does Gay marriage really benefit the state itself? Why do the states want to legalize it so bad? Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the "costly" benefits of marriage. Some people will argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. Well still, there is nothing that prevents homosexuals from living in these kinds of relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim that they need marriage so they can have "hospital visitation and inheritance rights," but they can obtain this right by writing a living will and having each partner designate other as "trustee" and "heir." To get deeper into this, there is nothing stopping gay couples from owning their own house.

:::Conclusion:::
Besides the fact that that homosexuality isn't just a moral issue...for it is, but also effects the society greatly. People don't see that. They just worry about "rights" and what the person himself/herself wants to do. But is that really how it should be? People say God has nothing to do with homosexuality, i can disagree, but please answer the following questions

1.) Does one have to believe in God to live moral lives?
2.) How do you determine morals?

Work sited:

http://www.biblegateway.com...

Thank you
phantom

Con

BoP

Pro apparently doesn't know what the burden of proof is. Pro, by stating the resolution, and affirming it, has the burden of proof to support it. My burden is to negate pro's arguments, thus rendering the resolution, insufficiently supported. I noted that he had the burden of proof at the beginning and he didn't object so he can't complain now. Most would agree anyway. There's no reason I would have a partial burden of proof unless pro precisely said so in the first round, so pro's complaints have no warrant anyway.

Credibility/Relevancy of the Bible and God


Pro doesn't contend that the old testament supports genocide, infanticide and slavery. He neither makes an argument against it or even denies it. So he clearly accepts it. This was rather surprising. We have a person who seriously derives his morals from a book which advances genocide, infanticide and slavery and he accepts it. Somehow he thinks this issue is irrelevant. The fact that pro doesn't know where I was going with that statement is equally astounding. He doesn't even see a problem with it. No conflict in his eyes. Considering that pro's God is a genocidal, infanticidal, discriminatory oppressor, I don't know how he thinks he's going to convince us that the fact that he's also a homophobe matters in regards to what is moral and immoral. His God's opinion does not make anything moral or immoral.

Pro continues to ignore everything I write. Not surprisingly, he, on his profile, states that, "reading sucks". Well unfortunately pro's reading skills also suck because he still derives things out of thin air that he thinks I said. For starters, he again asserts that I don't think the old testament expresses an anti homosexual stance. I clearly admitted to this and never denied it. I only ever denied that the ten commandments says anything against homosexuality (which it doesn't), not that the bible does. The issue is just that pro hasn't given any reason at all to believe in the bible or God. If he wants us to base our moral on such sources, he must actually present an argument for them.

I also never said it was "just pro's opinion" that the bible is anti homosexual. For starters, I again never claimed the bible wasn't against homosexuality. Secondly, what pro is referring to is my claim that pro has not given a single ounce of evidence in favor of the authority of the bible or existence of God. Just because the bible is against homosexuality, doesn't mean we need give any credibility to it. Pro hasn't established any reason to base our stance on the bible, or why religion matters in regards to the laws our secular government makes. He even astoundingly accepts that God favors slavery, genocide and infanticide but still thinks his God's opinion on the matter makes it moral or not.
Natural Morality

Pro admits that his statistics are inaccurate. His only counter is that mine are as well since no one actual knows. I don't think anyone's claiming to know though. Studies result in estimations, not knowledge. Experts, as I cited in the Gallup poll, estimate around 10% or less of society are homosexual. Pro's statistics, which were derived from an anti gay article, said 3%. This was the point of my counter since I think statistics are irrelevant.

Other than that, pro has entirely dropped his natural morality argument. He claimed that since homosexuals were a small minority, homosexuality was unnatural. Now, after I strongly disputed such backward reasoning, he hasn't made any continuation of that line of reasoning. So his natural morality argument, is entirely refuted. His only basis left for morality therefore is the bible and God. Pro however fully accepts that the bible and God advocate genocide, infanticide and slavery, so I'm not sure how he thinks he can get away with his argument. From a purely rational standpoint however, pro has literally no evidence for why we should accept God as real or the bible as a true. He assumes it throughout the entire debate to my utter frustration. He's never answered my appeal to evidence leading me to believe he has none...None presented here for sure.

Procreation

Let's get this issue settled. Pro first uses procreation as an argument against homosexuality, saying it is essential to marriage. I counter that procreation is entirely irrelevant to marriage and is not even possible many times. Pro admits that procreation is not an issue many times for whether individuals can marry. Since he hasn't explained what distinguishes same sex marriage from other marriages where one or both members are physically unable to perform the necessary functions for procreation, his entire procreation argument is irrelevant due to unreconciled reasoning. Why is it important that those of the same sex cannot procreate together when it's entirely insignificant in any other case? Pro's only said I twisted my words, but he hasn't responded to any of my reasoning.
Purpose of Marriage


Pro thinks parental relationships stem solely from marriage. That makes no sense whatsoever. A mother and father (parents) can perform the exact functions in or out of marriage. Pro hasn't given a single reason why marriage is so important for the next generation. Everything required for forming the next generation can be done in or out of marriage and there's no reason to believe those of the same cannot perform those functions anyway. But it's insignificant whether they can because pro hasn't offered any reason to suggest why those functions are required or necessary in marriage.
Pro doesn't understand the word "potential". I stated that abstaining from sexual intercourse with the potential for impregnation, is disallowing one more potential life to exist. Viewers may wonder why I raise this obvious point. It's because pro thought it so relevant that if my parents hadn't had sex, I wouldn't have been born, as if it's so important that I am alive and that it would have been immoral for my parents not to have had me. There would have been no problem with my parents not having me and pro's whole question is moot and almost entirely dropped. Asking, "why are you here" is a fallacious appeal to emotion, though I doubt many people would be taken in by it.
Pro asks if gay marriage benefits the state but in no way gives any reasons as to why it wouldn't that wouldn't apply to heterosexual marriage. The main reason to allow homosexual marriage is for society and individuals. If pro were questioning slavery in the 1800's he would have been met with the same retort that he's making. However, gay marriage does nothing to harm anyone. Disallowing it is infringing upon basic rights of individuals. There's literally no reason to give the right of marriage to heterosexuals but not homosexuals. Pro has given arguments but all of them rest upon completely undefended sources, the bible and God. Furthermore, he hasn't given any reason why the state should favor conservative Christianity, let alone any type of religion. Pro never contended that the state was secular, so I'm not sure how he even thinks his argument stands. So we have no reason to value the rights of heterosexuals over homosexuals. Furthermore, literally every single thing he said against same sex marriage could be applied to heterosexual marriage...There's literally no difference. In the end, the only reason pro has given to recognize heterosexual rights and not gay rights is his religious argument, so his entire case still rests on his completely undefended argument from religion.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thg 3 years ago
thg
While I believe CON clearly won the debate, I believe neither side was that convincing. I've posted in a number of other places on DDO, but I'll go ahead here as well: I am frustrated by what I believe are very weak lines of reasoning on BOTH sides of this larger, ongoing debate on homosexual behavior and lifestyle. I'd be happy to debate anyone on any number of the common arguments ("from nature"--that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, or OK because it IS natural; that homosexuality is wrong because it's "harmful", or OK because it's NOT harmful...and on and on...).

While I believe CON clearly won this particular debate, I believe one of his weakest lines of argument was to attack PRO's appeal to God and the Bible. I agree PRO should either have not appealed to God and the Bible, or should have been more careful in how he made that appeal, but CON's insistence that PRO "prove" the existence of God or explain why PRO was using the same Bible that also condones slavery, etc., is misplaced and weak. If I were debating CON about this particular topic (that the Bible "condones" slavery, etc.), I would challenge him to find me passages that do this. I believe the Bible NEVER condones slavery and lots of other things that are commonly "blamed" on the Bible. This is a cheap shot and exposes complete ignorance of the Bible. Just because something is IN the Bible doesn't mean the Bible condones it. But this is another topic altogether (I'd be happy to debate anyone on this topic as well...).

Just once I'd like to see a debate about homosexuality where both sides were more careful and accurate with their arguments and where neither side resorted to name-calling and sarcasm. Or maybe I'm hoping for the impossible......?
Posted by retroman000 3 years ago
retroman000
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Timothy 1:10/11 "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

Come on, Pro. At least use the original versions of the "evidence". Using the biased New Living Translation version does nothing but reduce your creditability.
Posted by Jessigrad 3 years ago
Jessigrad
Somebody else's marriage should not be anyone else's business no matter what. Whether its with a man or woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Who somebody else loves and wants to spend their life with does not affect anyone else and if they are going to be together anyway let it be legal for them to happily married.
Posted by nerdygirl188 3 years ago
nerdygirl188
Maybe it's all you hear because it's true! If they're not affecting your life, stop trying to affect theirs. Just let them have the same rights as you and leave it alone. Heterosexuals are not any better then someone who is homosexual, so they deserve the same rights. Also, they're not trying to change anything about marriage, just allow it to be legal for them, too. They're not redefining anything, except the part where it's a union between a man and a woman. But that shouldn't be the most important part anyway, it should be about who you love and finalizing that love, and the government side of marriage is about taxes anyway. In religion nothing will change. And people do insult gays, not on this particular forum but each and every day. And you just said this was just about the effects of gay marriage on society, yet the first part of the topic is that "it is morally wrong". So accept responsibility for that too.
Get YOUR facts straight before you insult mine, "bro".
Posted by PirateLord 3 years ago
PirateLord
no one says anything about gays bro, or disgusting, no awful things are said, just the way it effects society. We are also not trying to control anything either. If two people are gay, so be it, its their life..but when they want to go into marriage and trying to redefine it. that's where the trouble comes in. Get your fats straight bro. And plus that's everyone's arguments..."Its their life" so out-raided! thats all i here now days
Posted by nerdygirl188 3 years ago
nerdygirl188
People are saying being gay is disgusting because it's not what everyone does and they're forcing their beliefs on society, yet they're doing the same thing by saying such awful things about gays. It's not your life, quit trying to control it.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
I'm going to go with drhead's solution, and vote source points to Con for Pro's plagiarism. But this is a one-time thing. If Pro doesn't learn to cite and use quote marks, it will be a FF from now on.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Pro's spelling was almost bad enough for me to vote points on that. Con had some problem with this too.

I'm troubled by the plagiarism. If I thought it deliberate rather than as a result of ignorance, I would do a full forfeit (7 points). Plagiarism is intolerable on a debate site, or in real life. Pro needs to put quoted material in quotes, and cite his sources.
Posted by toolpot462 3 years ago
toolpot462
God, somebody KILL this BRO!
Posted by PirateLord 3 years ago
PirateLord
GeekiTheGreat; I hope you know that non-Christians, and many other professors who don't even believe in God know what is morally wrong and what is not. Its hurtful to the society "Children" BTW its a debate bro...respect that!
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 3 years ago
Nyx999
PirateLordphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pirate Lord, I advise that you don't bring God into the debate since not everybody believes in your God. And God is not a reason. And how is creating gay marriage forcing something the minority wants on the majority? Why should you care that two people of the same sex are getting married, it has absolutely nothing to do with you.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
PirateLordphantomTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB (by forum request) Kicker_Swag, whose RFD I do not feel expressed any opinions on matters other than argument itself.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
PirateLordphantomTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct, because of Pro's sneering belittling tone. Persuasion because Pro's arguments (uncommon is unnatural) (marriage is for procreation only) were refuted by Con and repudiated by Pro. ETA: I'm adding source points to Con, since Pro plagiarized. (Plagiarism is normally a FF (7 points), but I'm hoping Pro just doesn't know how to do quotations.)
Vote Placed by Kicker_Swag 3 years ago
Kicker_Swag
PirateLordphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the worst debate skils I have ever seen.
Vote Placed by drhead 3 years ago
drhead
PirateLordphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized, so conduct to Con. I saw quite a few spelling/grammar mistakes in Pro's writing (and I am a total grammar nazi). Pro's arguments were mostly assertions or founded on assertions, and Con refuted them all quite well, thus winning as far as the set BoP is concerned. Sources should go to Con as well in light of the plagiarism.
Vote Placed by medv4380 3 years ago
medv4380
PirateLordphantomTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the better argument overall. I would have preferred if ether side would have addressed why does homosexuality exist to support their argument. Pro utilized the Ten Commandments improperly, and didn't counter it when Con brought it up. There is a way using the "You shall not commit adultery" by going back to a more abstract "no sexual immorality", but that would still require why would homosexuality be immoral, and why does it exist. Since the 10 commandments never directly addresses homosexuality it it becomes too convoluted, and would have been better avoided as a supporting argument.
Vote Placed by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
PirateLordphantomTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: phantom did very well
Vote Placed by JonMilne 3 years ago
JonMilne
PirateLordphantomTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con in light of the news that PirateLord plagiarised. Arguments also goes to Con because he successfully refuted everything Pro threw at him, and Pro also dropped numerous arguments including his natural law one and he failed to clarify why exactly a minority should not be allowed equal rights, as Con put it very well with his interracial example. Furthermore, Con also exposed Pro's double standard of using the Bible to call Same Sex Marriage wrong and yet having no problem with his same source of morality advocating slavery and genocide. I'll also give sources to Con as pro used websites that presuppose Biblical Inerrancy (when Inerrancy has never been demonstrated).
Vote Placed by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
PirateLordphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Please see comments! Pro plagiarized at least one argument word for word!
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 3 years ago
Sola.Gratia
PirateLordphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's conduct was more appropriate and clearly reasonable. Pro also made good points in his rebuttals to Con. So because of this, Pro gets the points for better conduct and for making convincing arguments.