The Instigator
thanavy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CriticalThinkingMachine
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Gay Marriage should be Legalized

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 2 votes the winner is...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 585 times Debate No: 34502
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

thanavy

Pro

gay marriage is something that should be legalized. you cannot put a barrier infront of someone who wishes to marry their same sex partner. gay marriage is just 2 same sex people who wish to spend their lives together. they have been prohibited for many centuries but this is the 21st century so we must not live on old beliefs. many say it is the act of the devil while it is only the mere act of love for another. it is wrong for people to try and control another's life. it is a discrimination to humans and destroys equality in life.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Thank you to thanavy for instigating this controversial debate. I assume that what he said in round one was just an introductory remark since it consisted of unargued assertions, and I expect him to make a more substantial case for the legalization of gay marriage in round two, where I will respond and then present my own case against gay marriage. But in the meantime, I will briefly respond to his opening statement.

My argumentation style is very organized. Pro’s points are in font arial and mine are in times new roman. The bold term for Pro’s points and the underlined term for my text are tag words for what follows.

[1] Living Together Gay marriage is just 2 same sex people who wish to spend their lives together.

Definition of Marriage No it’s not. Gay marriage is marriage. It is more than just spending time together. By allowing gay marriage, we are not just letting gay people be together, we are defining marriage in a particular way. The public has an interest and a right to say what marriage is and is not since marriage itself is a public thing.

[2] Old Beliefs Gay marriages have been prohibited for many centuries, but this is the 21st century so we must not live on old beliefs.

Irrelevance My opponent is right that gay marriage should be opposed just because the opposition to it has grass roots, but that observation does not entail the opposite conclusion, that we should support gay marriage, either. The mere fact that a belief is old does not make it wrong.

[3] Love It is only the mere act of love for another.

Categories of Love Again, it is more than that. It is a specific use of love, but there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of using love. There are different categories of love. Saying that gay marriage involves love does not mean it is not immoral, for it may involve an inappropriate use of love.

[4] Control It is wrong for people to try and control another's life.

Ethics and Law So if someone commits a murder, it is wrong for society to control his life by putting him in prison? That doesn’t make sense. In a civilized, democratic country, we control other people’s lives all the time. We have a legal system which allows people to do certain things and disallows them from doing others, and if they break the law, they have to face the punishment. The bare fact that disallowing certain things, including gay marriage, is controlling people does not automatically make it wrong. My opponent has to explain why this instance of controlling people is wrong but that other instance of controlling people is right.

[5] Discrimination It is discriminatory to humans and destroys equality in life.

Misunderstanding Equality The idea that there is equality in life is unclear. Most people believe that we are created equally, which usually means that as human beings, we are equal in that no one is superhuman and no one is sub-human. One person’s life is not intrinsically more valuable than another person’s. That is the typical understanding of equality in people. But beyond that, there is tremendous inequality in life. Some people are better looking than others. Some are smarter than other, some are more athletic, more talented, more whatever. Beyond our basic humanhood, we certainly are not equal. We don’t treat two criminals equally if one of them stole and the other murdered. We treat people proportionally. Pro must explain why homosexual relationships deserve equal rights as heterosexual relationships.

With that out of the way, I accept this debate and I look forward to a good one. On to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
thanavy

Pro

thanavy forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Thanavy has forfeited and closed his account.
Debate Round No. 2
thanavy

Pro

thanavy forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

I will present my own argument against gay marriage. There are three main reasons why gay marriage should not be legalized:

[1] reductio ad absurdum
A logical argument form called reductio ad absurdum points out how a belief leads to absurdities, then the belief should be rejected. We can make this kind of argument regarding gay marriage. If we change the definition of marriage to appease gay people, then we have to be fair and change it for all other groups. We have to allow people who engage in bestiality to marry animals. We have to allow incestuous family members to marry each other. We have to allow pedophiliac adults to marry children. We would also have to allow people to marry inanimate objects (not that it would happen, but the principle remains). But allowing these is absurd, so we should not allow gay marriage either. If gay marriage supporters believe that the law should be changed for people who want to enter into gay marriages but not changed for people who want to marry their pets, their spouses, children, or objects, they have to explain why. Until then, support for gay marriage remains absurd.

[2] inequality
The reason why gay relationships should not be given equal marital rights as heterosexual relationships is because gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. This country was founded on the principle that we are all born equal (that as citizens we are all equal, no one is superhuman or sub-human) , not that we should always treat people equally regardless of the circumstances. Do we give the same punishment to someone who stole something as we do to someone who is a mass murderer? Of course not. We give proportional treatment, not equal treatment.

There are several facts that reveal to us the conclusion that homosexuality is not simply an equal alternative to heterosexuality and therefore should not be treated with equal rights.

(a) biology: Heterosexual relationships can produce offspring while homosexual ones cannot. Procreation is essential for the survival of the human race. If you gave gay people their own country (a country in which only gay people lived and had only homosexual relationships), in a century it would be empty because there would be no way to reproduce. Homosexual relationships depend on heterosexual relationships for their very existence.

Now of course there are cases in which people cannot conceive. But this does not refute my argument. It does not mean that these people are immoral. It is recognized as a biological mistake that they cannot conceive. Their bodies normally would conceive if an error had not occurred, but a homosexual biological union was never meant to procreate. Procreation is not the only purpose of sex, but it is one of the purposes in healthy sexual union.

Why should homosexual unions be legitimized if they cannot even meet one of the key purposes of sexual union? Biology is on the side of gay marriage opponents.

(b) sexual anatomy: Even aside from biology, there is anatomical inequality. Penises and vaginas fit together like hands and gloves, or keys and locks. They compliment each other. There is balance. You can’t fit a penis into a penis or a vagina into a vagina, and anal intercourse is unsanitary and unhealthy. Why should we legitimize an imbalanced a and non-complimentary union?

(c) holistic anatomy: Men and women’s bodies as wholes also compliment each other. Men’s bodies are larger, more muscular and rugged than women’s, which are softer, smaller, and suppler. A man’s ruggedness is supposed to complete a woman’s tenderness, and vice versa. Again, there is balance and symmetry in heterosexual unions, but this is missing from homosexual unions. A male homosexual relationship is missing the tenderness, and a female homosexual relationship is missing the ruggedness.

(d) spirit: The same principle of manliness and womanliness applies to men and women’s mind and spirits as well. Men, in having a rugged personality, are complementary to the tender personalities of women, and vice versa. Homosexual relationships lack either one of these, or only have both because one or both of the individuals in the relationship are trying to play both the male and female role, and hence are not being fully male or fully female.

[3] low percentage
If homosexuality were an equal alternative to heterosexuality, then we would expect that there would be an equal amount of homosexuality and heterosexuality, but that is not the case. Less than five percent of the population is gay. (1) This adds to the reasons to believe that homosexuality is a kind of biological mistake.

Because homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, it does not deserve equal rights in cases where sexuality is involved, such as marriage. We should only treat homosexuality with equal rights when the homosexuality is not relevant to the case at hand, which is true in most cases. In marriage, however, it is relevant because it marriage involves sexuality, and because homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, it does not deserve equal rights.

(1)
http://www.theatlantic.com...
Debate Round No. 3
thanavy

Pro

thanavy forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Thanavy has forfeited the entire debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
thanavyCriticalThinkingMachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dominated, Pro F.F.'d
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
thanavyCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff