The Instigator
xXCryptoXx
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Luggs
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Gay Marriage should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
Luggs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,996 times Debate No: 30636
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

xXCryptoXx

Pro

First round is for acceptance. This is my first debate, so I might make some mistakes.

Definitions;

Illegal - not according to or authorized by law
Luggs

Con

I accept. Present your case.
Debate Round No. 1
xXCryptoXx

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate Con and good luck! :D
I will be arguing against Gay Marriage and you will be supporting it.

Now on to my arguments.

Government has a role in marriage, but the role should be limited

- “There is a limited role for Government in marriage, but it needs to draw the line somewhere. Drawing the line, at the union of a man and a women is a common sense place to draw this line”

We cannot now, or in the future to continually change the definition of marriage. Through absoute human logic and reason, we can see that the utmost basic defition of marriage, would be between a man and woman. Imagine what the next push would be after gay marriage were to be legalized; people would start pushing for polyamy, bestiality, pedophilia, ect.

- “the state's granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination.”

There is no discrimination against gays when only having marriage between a man and a women, just as there is no discrimination against a man who wts to have multiple wives and ect.

- “The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X. It is no more unjust discrimination to deny marriage licenses to couples of the same sex than to twelve-year olds, to those already married, or to poly amorous groups of three or more sexual partners: in each case, the license is denied simply because the individuals in question are unable to form with each other the kind of union that marriage is." “This is because marriage, properly understood, is between one man and one woman. As I have argued, only the conjugal conception of marriage is able to justify the state's involvement in marriage.”

"Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights.
"
What are the benefits? They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need marriage to be happy, comfortable, and free."

The Moral Arguement



Natural Law
:


"When the term 'natural' is used it means the proper function for a given being. Natural law dictates morality based on what is natural for beings capable of reason and rationality. I contend that homosexual actions are immoral because they do not correspond with the proper function of the sexual organs being used."

Just to get it out of the way, many responses to natural law go along the lines of, "Well airplanes are against natural law because if humans were supposed to fly they would have been born with wings."

The reason the above statement does not apply is because it is not a moral issue. Natural law goes more along the lines of human reasoning being able to know what is "right" and is "wrong".

Natal law does not apply to being that cannot reason or rationalize, because one must be able to reason for Natural Law to truly exist.

The purpose of sexual organs is to procreate and we know their existance is explained by their purpose.

"Homosexual actions are immoral because they are contrary to our nature and are associated with physical and mental illnesses that one has control over with the establishment of the framework."


I look forward to my opponents response!


Luggs

Con

"There is a limited role for Government in marriage, but it needs to draw the line somewhere. Drawing the line, at the union of a man and a women is a common sense place to draw this line"

We cannot now, or in the future to continually change the definition of marriage. Through absoute human logic and reason, we can see that the utmost basic defition of marriage, would be between a man and woman. Imagine what the next push would be after gay marriage were to be legalized; people would start pushing for polyamy, bestiality, pedophilia, ect."

Regarding the first paragraph:
In what way is drawing the line at the union between a man and a woman common sense? This is a baseless assertion.

Regarding the second:
The definition of marriage has been already changed. In the past, segregated marriage was not considered actual marriage, as is gay marriage today. Pro then proceeds to claim again what is shown in the first paragraph. After this, Pro makes a slippery slope argument. The difference between gay marriage and bestiality and/or pedophilia is that children and animals don't have the same legal standing as an adult human, nor can they give consent or sign a marriage contract. As for polygamy, that would possibly lead to a surplus of births by a married group. However, the sheer amount of births could overwhelm the parents, and they might turn to putting their children for adoption. In any case, this is irrelevant to the debate, for we are solely arguing about gay marriage.

"The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X. It is no more unjust discrimination to deny marriage licenses to couples of the same sex than to twelve-year olds, to those already married, or to poly amorous groups of three or more sexual partners: in each case, the license is denied simply because the individuals in question are unable to form with each other the kind of union that marriage is." "This is because marriage, properly understood, is between one man and one woman. As I have argued, only the conjugal conception of marriage is able to justify the state's involvement in marriage."

In this paragraph, it is claimed that the reason gay couples are denied a mariage license is because they are incapable of getting married, because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Look back to my previous rebuttal of the fact that marriage has always been "one man, one woman", and has, in the past been "... of the same skin colour". Also, marriage is not exclusively between a man and a woman because it has been legalized in other countries/states.

"Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights.

What are the benefits? They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need marriage to be happy, comfortable, and free."

Regarding first paragraph:
A right that heterosexual couples have that gay couples do not: marry the person you love. As for the civil union, that is a "separate, but equal" argument. Civil unions do not give all the benefits of marriage, like visiting your partner when sick in a hospital, or the financial benefits of marriage.

Regarding second paragraph:
What is so special about the name? If you bring up the "religious aspect" argument, then there shoud be no martiage in law to begin with. Should you say there is nothing special about it, then why deny gay couples the name?

"When the term 'natural' is used it means the proper function for a given being. Natural law dictates morality based on what is natural for beings capable of reason and rationality. I contend that homosexual actions are immoral because they do not correspond with the proper function of the sexual organs being used."

Not necessarily. Natural can mean anything that goes on in nature. It is well observed that creatures that live in the wild practice homosexuality [1]. If homosexuality is unnatural, then these wild animals would not practice it.

I won't respond to the next three paragraphs because I did not bring up the argument that Pro mentioned.

"The purpose of sexual organs is to procreate and we know their existence is explained by their purpose.

Homosexual actions are immoral because they are contrary to our nature and are associated with physical and mental illnesses that one has control over with the establishment of the framework."

Regarding the first paragraph:
Procreation doesn't have anything to do with marriage. If it did, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Even if marriage did have something to do with procreation, there are simple ways to go through it, even as a homosexual couple: surrogacy, adoption and sperm donations. Each of these are ways that homosexual coples would end up raising children.

Regarding the second paragraph:
How is homosexuality contrary to our nature? If it occurs, no matter how rare, naturally, then it is part of our nature. Even if something is contrary to our nature, that doesn't make it immoral. Morality is a subjective concept. One may choose what they perceive as moral or immoral. Now, what physical and mental illnesses is homosexuality associated with? This a baseless assertion.

I await my opponent's rebuttals and other arguments.

-=Sources=-
1. http://www.news-medical.net...
Debate Round No. 2
xXCryptoXx

Pro

Contention 1


"In what way is drawing the line at the union between a man and a woman common sense? This is a baseless assertion."

We can all see that in the very basic example of marriage, that it is between man and woman. A marriage between man and woman is the most common marriage, is the original marriage, and is the most acceptable form of a marriage. We can obviously see that trying to put marriage past just a heterosexual couple, moral conflict between many people arises. Just through the fact that people object it, we can see that through human reasoning and logic, people find it morally wrong.

It is common sense to end the definition of marriage at heterosexual couples because it is also the only marriage where procreation is possible. "It is by nature oriented to procreation, and so defining marriage as a male-female union is not unjust discrimination."


Contention 2

"The definition of marriage has been already changed. In the past, segregated marriage was not considered actual marriage, as is gay marriage today"

Segregated marriage is irrelevant, it is still the only marriage where procreation is possible with your mate. it was unjust not counting segregated marriage because it is not a moral issue; It was discrimination against another race, not something that goes against the nature of your sexual organs itself.


Contention 3


"The difference between gay marriage and bestiality and/or pedophilia is that children and animals don't have the same legal standing as an adult human, nor can they give consent or sign a marriage contract. As for polygamy, that would possibly lead to a surplus of births by a married group. However, the sheer amount of births could overwhelm the parents, and they might turn to putting their children for adoption. In any case, this is irrelevant to the debate, for we are solely arguing about gay marriage."


I'm not talking about the difference between gay marriage, I think we can both see that gay marriage isn't as harmful to society as the above mentioned things. What I am saying, is that gay marriage would be the "gateway drug" into other morally harmful things.

The real reason people like me argue against gay marriage, isn't because gay marriage in itself is per say, terrible, but it is so we can keep from other morally terrible things happening in the future. We cannot continually redefine marriage until it means nothing and anyone can marry anything at any age. If we continue to tear down the walls that keep us from immoral chaos then we will eventually find ourselves at the brink of it.

People would never stop redefining marriage to how they want it to be unless we keep the most basic definition of marriage, and keep it at only that.


Contention 4


"In this paragraph, it is claimed that the reason gay couples are denied a mariage license is because they are incapable of getting married, because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman."

It is not that they are incapable of getting married, because they have gotten married. It is that they are incapable of procreation.


"Look back to my previous rebuttal of the fact that marriage has always been "one man, one woman", and has, in the past been "... of the same skin colour"."

I did not understand what you meant here, so I would like to ask for clarification.


"Also, marriage is not exclusively between a man and a woman because it has been legalized in other countries/states."

If you look at the title of the debate, it states that "Gay Marriage should be Illegal" It does not matter if it has already been legalized in other places, as I am arguing that it should be illegal in all places.


Contention 5
"A right that heterosexual couples have that gay couples do
not: marry the person you love. As for the civil union, that is a "separate, but equal" argument. Civil unions do not give all the benefits of marriage, like visiting your partner when sick in a hospital, or the financial benefits of marriage."

False, heterosexuals do not specifically have that right. That is a right granted to everyone. Homosexuals simply do not fulfill the definition of marriage, so they cannot get married. That does not mean they are lacking any rights at all. It just means that a homosexual person would have to marry someone of the opposite sex to be married. We literally have the exact same rights as homosexuals.

"Civil unions do not give all the benefits of marriage, like visiting your partner when sick in a hospital, or the financial benefits of marriage."

Whether you are married or not, you can always visit someone in the hospital. I'll give the financial benefits to you, but we can both agree that couples don't get married because of the benefits. This is also very small seeing that the main reason gay marriage should be illegal is the moral argument and gay marriage being the "gateway drug".


"Should you say there is nothing special about it, then why deny gay couples the name?"

The name is very special, and that is why gay couples are denied the name. I'm saying gays just want the name so they can be called a married couple and be recognized by the state, not for financial benefits ect.


Contention 5

"Not necessarily. Natural can mean anything that goes on in nature. It is well observed that creatures that live in the wild practice homosexuality [1]. If homosexuality is unnatural, then these wild animals would not practice it."

I gave the definition of Natural Law, not natural. They are two different things. Natural means what you have stated, Natural Law means the humans ability to judge and reason what is moral and what is immoral.

"It is well observed that creatures that live in the wild practice homosexuality"

I already stated in my opening argument that only beings that can rationalize and reason are subject to natural law. Animals cannot reason and are therefore no subject to natural law.

Contention 6

"Procreation doesn't have anything to do with marriage. If it did, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Even if marriage did have something to do with procreation, there are simple ways to go through it, even as a homosexual couple: surrogacy, adoption and sperm donations. Each of these are ways that homosexual couples would end up raising children."

If marriage is not about procreation, then what is marriage about? It's obviously not about benefits you will receive. It is about showing your love for your partner, in turn, you have sexual intercourse with your partner which results in procreation.

Infertility among heterosexual couples is "countered by arguing that marriage relationships are based on procreation in type, not effect." and

"Marriage is about the sexual act not the result. Whether or not spouses choose to have children is irrelevant."

My opponent states:

"even as a homosexual couple: surrogacy, adoption and sperm donations. Each of these are ways that homosexual couples would end up raising children."

The fact is though, homosexual couples themselves cannot procreate. Even so, it is not healthy for a child o be raised by a homosexual couple, however, this is irrelevant to the actual debate.

Contention 7

"How is homosexuality contrary to our nature? If it occurs, no matter how rare, naturally, then it is part of our nature. Even if something is contrary to our nature, that doesn't make it immoral. Morality is a subjective concept. One may choose what they perceive as moral or immoral."

It is contrary to our nature because humans were not "built" to use their sexual organs in a way that nature does not intend. No matter what, through human reasoning certain things will always be wrong. People can say "No, I don't think that is wrong" That doesn't mean it isn't wrong in nature though.

"Now, what physical and mental illnesses is homosexuality associated with?"

I will provide you with links below.

http://www.catholiceducation.org...


Luggs

Con

Luggs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
xXCryptoXx

Pro

Luggs has forfeited the round and has failed to refute my arguments. He therefore loses many points for either lack of participation in the debate, or not being able to find a sound argument against my points.

I have no further arguments to make, I shall only defend against any contentions Luggs may have.

Luggs

Con

Contention 1
This implies that procreation is needed in order for marriage to be allowed. By this logic, wouldn't infertile couples be incapable of marriage, as well as couples that don't want to have children? What about if they put all their children up for adoption? Refer to my 2nd round argument regarding surrogates adoption, etc.

Contention 2
How is segregated martiage irrelevant? It was denying couples who wanted to marry the right to marry, just as is being done now, and just like segregated marriage, they have the legal standings to do so. This is no different, it's discriminating against people of a different sexual orientation. As I said earlier, homosexuality is not against our nature, as if it was, we wouldn't be practicing it.

Contention 3
Once again, you repeat the Slippery Slope argument. We will get to the issue of the aforementioned things when people want to legalize it. Marijuana was legalized in two states recently, but it doesn't seem like people want to legalize cocaine there.

You later say that this will lead to the attempt to legalize other "morally terrible things" (again), but I have already addressed the Slippery Slope argument. I guess I must explain that Gay Marriage will have no effect on the age of consent for marriage. Essentially, your second paragraph is a rewording of the Slippery Slope argument.

In your third paragraph, you mentioned the basic definition, but it was never really established what this is. If you are refferring to the original one, then I guess you refer to "one man, one woman, of the same race".

Contention 4
First paragraph: so are infertile couples, but I don't see you trying to stop them from marrying.

Second paragraph: I was refferring to that it used to be "one man, one woman, of the same skin color". That is why I put the ellipsis.

Contention 5
First paragraph: "visitation rights and can make medical decisions".[1] See first source for marriage benefits.

Second paragraph: see first paragraph response about benefits. It doesn't matter why, it matters that they don't receive equal treatment. The Slippery Slope argument is then brought back.

Third paragraph: how so? Is it just a religious institution, then? Clearly not. This is a "separate but equal" argument.

Contention 5 (6?)
Yes, and thefore many humans have judged that denying martiage to gay couples is wrong. I see no need to address the other paragraph.

Contention 6 (7?i
First paragraph: it's a union between two people that is used to signify their love to one another. The sex part is not mandatory. Married couples may stay celibate, if they choose.

Second paragraph: your response it too vague. Unfortunately, you will not be able to explain as this is the last round.

Response to quote: how is it irrelevant? It is perfectly relevant if marriage is about procreation.

Fourth paragraph: I explained already that they do not need to procreate through direct sexual intercouse with one another, but with indirect methods. Also, how is it not healthy? The only health danger is depression which can be attributed to bullying at schools.

Contention 7 (8?)
It doesn't matter what we were intended to do with them. This is irrelevant to marriage.

Yu didn't really say what the illnesses are, you can't expect us to actually read it all. You have to quote it.

-=Sources=-
1. http://people.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PonyGirl 3 years ago
PonyGirl
For a first debate you're good
Posted by darksky.kristine26 3 years ago
darksky.kristine26
I have read this debate, thank you very much, and I still don't get where you are coming from. From what I've seen and read (not just from here, I've read other debates and articles too), all I see is that previous generations are stubbornly sticking to either tradition or the Bible (or both), which I see as hopeless. This world-and culture-is changing, and that's not going to change (kinda a contradicting sentence....).

"...as long as you are not hurting anyone else, or hurting society in the long run. Gay Marriage affects and hurts society in the long run..."

...

From what you've said, I've seen it as you grasping at straws to get another reason. You are basically assume that if gay marriage is legalized, then other things (bad things) will occur afterwards. As "Con" says, that argument is what my English says a "Slippery Slope." Those types of arguments don't go anywhere really. It is mere assumptions that could possible happen, but then again, possibly not happen.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Luggs:

I apologize for not being able to place quotes on illnesses attribute to homosexuality, I was down to about my last 50 characters and couldn't fit anymore so I just provided a link.
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
Also, posted with a minute left.
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
So many times where I could have said [sic].
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
"I'm rather pissed at how you are saying that being gay is "unnatural." In case it hasn't occurred to you "Pro", each person is their own individual."

Before you show such an attitude toward perhaps you should hear my reasoning for what I say. :P
I would honestly think that from your comment you have not read this debate.
Now then, what you say is correct. Each person IS their own individual. However, unnatural simply implies that it is not the norm. Homosexuality is unnatural because only a mere 2% of the population is homosexual; this means that homosexuality is not within the majority of people meaning it is not the norm, meaning it can be considered unnatural.

"By saying that something is "natural" is saying that everything should be the "same.""

F-F-F-F-ALSE! Natural simply means "Present in or produced by nature". I am implying in any way, shape, or form that everyone should be the exact same person, that does the exact same things. I am all for being your own individual as long as y are not hurting anyone else, or hurting society in the long run. Gay Marriage affects and hurts society in the long run therefore I am against it.

You don't have to be married to "be yourself". I don't even understand what your point was getting to. Gays can be themselves, and they don't have to be married to do so. You don't have to be married to show your love for one another.

I am well aware how hard it is for gays to show their true selves to other people. That is because of bullying and being worried abot what others think about them. I care about gay people as much as a heterosexual person, I simply thing gay marriage will be bad for society as a whole.
Posted by darksky.kristine26 3 years ago
darksky.kristine26
You know, I'm rather pissed at how you are saying that being gay is "unnatural." In case it hasn't occurred to you "Pro", each person is their own individual. By saying that something is "natural" is saying that everything should be the "same." By saying that gay marriage is unnatural is saying that you don't believe that everyone should be their own person. You are saying that because being gay is not natural, so you are saying that homosexuals should not be granted the right to be themselves in life. Do you know how hard it is to hide a part of yourself simply because others are so close-minded on a not-that-big-of-a-deal issue? So what if you are gay? Why should it matter?
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
I find that that it is very difficult to win the Gay Marriage argument and at even the best don't win their debates, but i believe that is usually due to biasness and vote bombs.

As to changing it the Gay Life Style being unhealthy thing; you would have to be an idiot to take that debate. There is SO much scientific evidence in support of it being both physically, and mentally unhealthy.

I don't care so much about winning as I do having a good debate. :D
Posted by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
I'm taking this, guys. No sweat.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
I recommend changing the resolution to something more winnable, like, Gay life (style) is more unhealthy.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
xXCryptoXxLuggsTied
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: CVB Xboy. Conduct would be the only lost point, unless full FF
Vote Placed by Xboy57 3 years ago
Xboy57
xXCryptoXxLuggsTied
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 forfeited.
Vote Placed by Marauder 3 years ago
Marauder
xXCryptoXxLuggsTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I give conduct to Pro because of the forfiet, and I give arguments to Con purely because Pro pretty much conceaded in his first Contention labled 5 so key points his argument stood on. However this is not to say I was exceptionally impressed by either side when it came to the final round. the final round is for summary there should be no asking questions as a rebuttal. Its like demanding a response you know your opponent cant give. I do feel Con dropped one of Pro's stronger building cases in the second contention labeled 5 but he did not concead any like Pro did so I still give arguments to Luggs.
Vote Placed by Archangel35 3 years ago
Archangel35
xXCryptoXxLuggsTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave conduct to pro as con forfeited. But others go to com. Nice debate.
Vote Placed by DanT 3 years ago
DanT
xXCryptoXxLuggsTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff cost con conduct, but even with the ff pro was lacking in his BOP. Pro didn't provide any sources, and relied heavily on arbitrary and subjective reasoning. He also misused the term "natural law", but that did not weigh into my decision. As con pointed out Marriage is unrelated to procreation.