The Instigator
coexist702
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GOP
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Gay Marriage

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 3 votes the winner is...
GOP
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 893 times Debate No: 35379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

coexist702

Pro

I believe that people who take an extremist stance against a group of people who have done absolutely nothing to them is some what mentally demented and incapable of reasoning. Christianity considers homosexuality a sin which I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) is the only reason that you, GOP, are against gay marriage; because of your faith. But let's put religion aside for a moment and think of the actual consequences of a homosexual couple getting married. If you think about it, it's very similar to a heterosexual marriage. The only difference is that two people of the same gender are getting married rather than a man and a woman. Love is love and can come in all shapes and forms. It has in fact been scientifically proven that people who are gay were born that way and that it is in their genetics. Psychologists also report that therapy to try and convert a gay person into being straight only makes the patient feel even more insecure about their sexuality and does more bad than good. Gay marriage being legalized only has one significant consequence; gay people getting married and being happy. And isn't that what God wants? For us to be happy?
GOP

Con

Greetings. I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate too.

I would like to begin this debate by pointing out that Pro exaggerated his stance by saying that "people who take an extremist stance against a group of people who have done absolutely nothing to them is some what mentally demented and incapable of reasoning." Christianity does consider homosexuality a sin, and I am against gay marriage because of my faith. However, I must say that the Christian faith condemns it for a good reason. In fact, I think gay marriage should be condemned even in the secular perspective. Regardless, I hope my opponent tries his best in his debate.

Pro says that the only difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage is that "two people of the same gender are getting married rather than a man and a woman." Here, my opponent makes a straw man argument, because there are more differences than that. One key differences would be reproduction. Can a homosexual couple have children? No, but on the other hand, a heterosexual couple can. "If we produce no children, our society will die. There won't be enough people to support the infrastructure, medical needs, economic development, etc. That is a fact. So, common sense would tell us that homosexuality is a danger to society since it cannot produce children to further the society" (1).

Moving on, gay marriage opens more pathways for health-related issues by endorsing the homosexual lifestyle in a larger scale. "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com....the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle...the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual...While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark - the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality - both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s" (2).
Furthermore, smoking issues are higher among lesbian and bisexual women. "Tobacco use is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in women in the United States, and evidence from studies with adults suggests that the prevalence of smoking may be higher among lesbian and bisexual women than among heterosexual women" (3). So, I would like to ask you, is gay marriage really okay? Homosexual lifestyle in itself causes depression, let alone gay marriages.

Also, Pro says that gay people were born that way. On the contrary, "If genetic influence were expressed in these data, MZ twins should have the highest concordance for same-sex erotic preference, and unrelated and half-siblings the lowest. Table 5 is based on pairs in which at least one respondent reports a same-sex romantic attraction (N=527 pairs)...there is no evidence for strong genetic influence on same-sex preference in this sample. Among MZ [monozygotic] twins, 6.7 % are concordant. DZ [dizygotic] twin pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5 % concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between MZ twins and others in table 5 are even remotely significant 17. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors. As argued above, it is more likely that any genetic influence, if present, can only be expressed in specific and circumscribed social structures" (4). Here, we see that genetic influence (if it is present, though there is no evidence), can be displayed in specific and circumscribed or restricted social structures. Some of those "social structures" could include the types of environments that people grew up in. For example, a person (of either gender) who grew up without much interaction from the opposite gender could end up having homosexual tendencies. So, it can be safely concluded that it is a choice; it is a choice based on faulty, limited perception.

Furthermore, my opponent states,"Love is love and can come in all shapes and forms." If this is true, then is pedophilia (with mutual consent) acceptable? Remember, Pro said that love can come in ALL shapes and forms. "Or, are we to say that only homosexual attraction is genetic and morally good where pedophilia is not? If so, why the double standard?" (5).

To sum it up, gay marriage being legalized only has one significant consequence: gay people getting married and increasing the rates of depression. Once again, we should remember that homosexual lifestyle in itself is harmful, let alone the legalization of gay marriage. My opponent also said that love is love and can come in all shapes and forms, which unfortunately includes pedophilia. Pro, are you trying to say that pedophilia is okay, too? I would also like to repeat that gay marriages can potentially lead to under-population, meaning that our societies would eventually not be able to operate properly. Finally, God wants us to be happy, but He certainly does not want us to try and become happy through the wrong ways. On Genesis 1:28, God told us to be fruitful and multiply, and I repeat that we would be going to the opposite direction if we increased rates of depression and the abuse of items like tobacco.

Your turn, Pro.

Sources:

1. http://carm.org...
2. http://www.lifesitenews.com...
3. http://glma.org...:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt
4. http://iserp.columbia.edu...
5. http://carm.org...


Debate Round No. 1
coexist702

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his response

My opponent states "homosexuality is a danger to society since it cannot produce children to further the society". This is a false statement. Although homosexual couples are unable to reproduce, not all couples on Earth are homosexual. Lesbian couples can get a sperm donation if they choose which still isn't killing society because a male produces roughly 525 billion sperm over a lifetime; more than the worlds population. He also says "Christianity does consider homosexuality a sin, and I am against gay marriage because of my faith. However, I must say that the Christian faith condemns it for a good reason." yet he doesn't state the actual reason...

Moving on, he also states "homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population". Depression is a condition of mental disturbance, typically with lack of energy and difficulty in maintaining concentration or interest in life (says dictionary.com). Being someone who has suffered from depression, I know for a fact that depression is caused by either a chemical unbalance in the body or having very negative surroundings. So a logical reason as to why homosexuals are 50% more likely to have depression is their surroundings because people like my opponent continue to not accept them, causing them to question their purpose here. And as for substance abuse, people who feel worthless, are depressed, suicidal, etc. will very often abuse substances such as marijuana, acid, alcohol, etc. to "feel alive" as the effects of the substance remove the feeling of worthlessness, depression, etc. Next, he states "Homosexual lifestyle in itself causes depression, let alone gay marriages." if you refer to my last statements in this paragraph, homosexuals may feel worthless because they are often not accepted by society. If they are allowed to marry, wouldn't that give them a feeling of worth as they now feel accepted? And how does it feel to know that you may be causing people to feel worthless?

Con also says "a person (of either gender) who grew up without much interaction from the opposite gender could end up having homosexual tendencies. So, it can be safely concluded that it is a choice; it is a choice based on faulty, limited perception." also a partially false statement. I grew up with three older sisters who used to dress me up like a princess and force me to participate in tea parties. However, I am a heterosexual male. So how does your statement make sense?

Moreover, con refers to my statement "love is love and comes in all shapes are forms" and took it completely out of proportion. He said in response "then is pedophilia (with mutual consent) acceptable?". The definition of love (noun form) is an intense feeling of deep affection. So, although pedophilia is illegal, it technically still is considered love (with mutual consent).

Lastly, I would like to ask Con this (hoping for a response). Picture your best friend, the one you've known since you were kids. Now, he just came out to you. What do you do? Do you accept him? Or do you disown him despite the fact that he has been your best friend for many years and has always been there for you?

Good Luck, Con
GOP

Con

I would like to thank Pro for his response, too.

Firstly, my opponent attempts to refute my argument by saying, "Although homosexual couples are unable to reproduce, not all couples on Earth are homosexual." True, not all couples are homosexual, but unless gay marriage (or homosexuality in general) is carefully dealt with, then we could end up having a predominantly homosexual society (sure, our society today is predominantly heterosexual, but that does not have to remain the same way forever) in the future. . So, I would like to ask you, Pro, would it not be better if we were a bit diligent by dealing with any potential sources of societal dangers, or would you simply remain cool with the fact that not every couple is a gay/lesbian to justify the homosexuals' inability to reproduce? Also, lesbians can get sperm donation, but Pro also fails to see that one would be hard-pressed to get sperm from the semen banks. The entire process of getting sperm specimen is difficult, as the sperm banks check many requirements to see if the donors meet the criteria. According to an article from Stanford.edu, "Only 5 percent of all male applicants who apply to be a sperm donor meet the criteria to donate sperm". The article also says that if the potential applicant has had a history of certain diseases in the family, had used drugs, visited areas with many cases of AIDS, then that would mean he would be disqualified. Likewise, if he is not intelligent (these banks are often near universities because there are many young, smart men) enough, or physically fit enough, then he would be disqualified as well. Moreover, the potential applicant undergoes thorough interviews regarding sexual behaviors, family backgrounds, blood screening, semen screening, and so on (1). To slow down the population process even more, this process takes eight weeks to six months depending on the bank. Lastly, there are not too many sperm banks in this world (USA has only 700 as of now [2], and remember that they are near universities to attract young, intelligent men). Considering all these factors, Pro, would it not be impractical for lesbians to get sperm donations? How is it logical for millions of lesbians to go and get sperm donations, especially considering that there are not too many banks in the entire world? How is it logical for a lot of lesbians to wait for the screening processes that could eventually take months? These factors would only slow down the population, and we have already established that if there are not enough children, then our society would die. If we restrict marriages to the traditional heterosexual ways, then we could proceed to having a normally booming population (this is because there are no health restrictions for married couples to have children). I would also like to add that there are many legal risks for sperm donations, which makes the lesbians' desire more impractical and inefficient population-wise (3). Even if the donor has no responsibilities regarding the child, the woman could still file a case against him regarding child support. Finally, I have stated multiple reasons in the paragraphs on round one, but it appears that my opponent missed that.

Moving on, I have already stated a source that says their depression issues have nothing to do with social "intolerance." However, I will repeat that one part again for the sake of convenience. "..While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment" (4). So, I would agree that issues about substance abuse constitute signs of depression and suicidal behaviors, but I would also add that these signs are not connected to the level of tolerance. So, my argument "Homosexual lifestyle in itself causes depression, let alone gay marriages" still stands. Furthermore, I would repeat that if they are allowed to marry, then that would not help at all. The statistics I have cited shows that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse, and that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if one engaged in a homosexual lifestyle. I understand that it may look like I am causing people to feel worthless, but one of the most crucial points here is to prevent homosexuals from becoming depressed even more. So, in the long run, opposing gay marriage is beneficial not only to homosexuals themselves, but also the rest of the society as a whole.

Also, notice that I said, "a person (of either gender) who grew up without much interaction from the opposite gender could end up having homosexual tendencies. So, it can be safely concluded that it is a choice; it is a choice based on faulty, limited perception." Although you grew up with three older sisters who used to dress you up like a princess and force you to participate in tea parties, you should have noticed that you still spent time with the opposite gender. Once again, I was talking about the case of a faulty, limited perception. Also, I would like to say that I did not take it out of proportion at all, because you said that "love is love and comes in all shapes and forms." Here, the word "all" includes everything, so this was a matter of carefully choosing the right words. Besides, you did not answer my question. I asked you if pedophilia with mutual consent is acceptable. You told me that pedophilia with mutual consent is still love, but is love truly what makes something acceptable? Would you want a child to experience sexual contacts at a young age and have his/her childhood ruined?

Lastly, I would still accept him. I would not disown him at all. Although I am against gay marriage and homosexuality in general because of their dangers, please do keep in mind that I would still continue to love homosexual people. Once again, what I want to do here is to fight the dangers of homosexuality for the betterment of homosexuals and the rest of the society in its entirety.

Your turn, Pro.

Sources:

1. http://www.stanford.edu...
2. http://www.cbsnews.com...
3. http://www.theafa.org...
4. http://www.lifesitenews.com...


Debate Round No. 2
coexist702

Pro

I would like to thank Con for his response.

First, my opponent says "Pro also fails to see that one would be hard-pressed to get sperm from the semen banks." and explains how difficult it is for a male to donate sperm and refers to one of his sources that says "Only 5 percent of all male applicants who apply to be a sperm donor meet the criteria to donate sperm". He also says that there are not many sperm banks (only 700 in the USA alone). All these facts are true, but 5 percent of male applicants being able to donate sperm is still plenty of sperm for the small amount of women who are lesbian/bisexual (2%). For example, if 5 out of 100 men were able to donate sperm, although it seems like a very small amount, that's still about 2,625,000,000,000 billion sperm. Now compare that number to the 2% of women who are lesbian/bisexual. Yeah, Con, I don't think there's going to be a "shortage" of sperm anytime soon.

Second, Con states "in the long run, opposing gay marriage is beneficial not only to homosexuals themselves, but also the rest of the society as a whole". So, Con, are you saying that preventing people from getting married benefits them? Do you think that it's absolutely okay for you to be saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry when they have done NOTHING to hurt you? I said in round, 1 "I believe that people who take an extremist stance against a group of people who have done absolutely nothing to them is some what mentally demented and incapable of reasoning" and I am still sticking to that opinion.

Lastly, Con responds to my question: "Picture your best friend, the one you've known since you were kids. Now, he just came out to you. What do you do? Do you accept him? Or do you disown him despite the fact that he has been your best friend for many years and has always been there for you?" with "I would still accept him. I would not disown him at all. Although I am against gay marriage and homosexuality in general because of their dangers, please do keep in mind that I would still continue to love homosexual people. Once again, what I want to do here is to fight the dangers of homosexuality for the betterment of homosexuals and the rest of the society in its entirety". This response make no sense at all considering throughout this entire debate, Con has said multiple times that homosexuality is a danger to society. Con, how could you truly accept your homosexual friend if you consider homosexuality to be slowing down the population?

So before I let Con conclude, I would like to tell the voters this (Con may also say something to the voters as well if he desires). Why hate homosexuality? Are people walking around the streets having butt sex in front of you? No. Are gay guys breaking into your house and butt raping you until you admit you like it? NO. Gays aren't messing with you so why mess with them? Why mess with their right to marry? What would you do if someone wouldn't let you get married because you're different? Oh and quick question to anyone that believes God is against homosexuality, if he's so against it then why did he put G-Spots in the anus' of men?

I would like to thank Con for this amazing debate. I consider him a very civilized and sophisticated debater and I like the way he used evidence to support almost all of his statements.

Thank You, Con
GOP

Con

Thank you for your response, Pro.

Firstly, I would like to point out that these hypothetical five men would be producing that much sperm over a lifetime. A lifetime is a very long time. Would it not be problematic if there are more lesbians/bisexuals overwhelming the number of sperm that men produce over a few months? There are about 158.3 million women in the United States (1), and like you said, Pro, 2% of the women are lesbian/bisexual. However, this 2% is still too large for the very few numbers of men all around the sperm banks. Let me just set up a mathematical proportion to display the problem of the sperm donation argument.



So, how would 5 out of 100 men (counting all the sperm banks) be able to satisfy the demands of about this many women in the entire nation? Remember, this is considering that 5 out of 100 men only make 2,625,000,000,000 sperm over a lifetime. I repeat, would it not be problematic if the number of lesbians/bisexuals wanting sperm donations overwhelm the number of sperm cells (keep in mind that it takes many sperm cells to penetrate an egg)? As I previously said, the screening process could take from weeks to months for the donors to pass the test. Are the lesbians going to wait for the 5% of the applicants to donate more sperm?

Yes, Pro, I am saying that preventing homosexuals from gay marriage benefits them. This is because gay marriage would open up the pathway for more depression, regardless of the levels of tolerance in the social environments. I think it is absolutely okay for me to be saying that they should not be allowed to marry. I know they have done nothing to hurt me, but that is not relevant. The point here is that our society should not be brought down because of their "love" concerns. If you are still sticking to that opinion, then again, I say that you are exaggerating your stance. Are they somewhat mentally demented and incapable of reasoning? Also, I have indeed said that homosexuality is a danger to society. However, not tolerating a lifestyle is different from not tolerating a person. One could tolerate a drug addict, but still hate the drug-addict lifestyle.

To sum it up, homosexuality must be dispproved (not homosexual people, but the lifestyle) because of the increased depression, substance abuse, and the potential danger it poses to society. I must point out that Con has dropped a lot of points. In fact, he never answered my question about the validity of pedophilia. The G-spots are there in the anuses of males for the purpose of stimulation. However, that does not have to lead to anal sex. A man could have his spouse stimulate the spot by fingering it to intensify sexual activities (2). Please do keep in mind that I did not answer the previous questions because they were directed to the voters, not me.

Once again, I would like to thank Con for this debate.

Sources:

1. http://www.infoplease.com...
2. http://www.askmen.com...



Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
@redwings17

Heterosexual people who marry and don't have kids still hold the possibility that they can reproduce eventually. Homosexuals don't have that possibility at all.

Adoption is a difficult process. Adoption in itself is a good thing, but it's the actual reproduction that keeps the population going.

Also, you referenced me citing a source. When you did that, you only quoted one part of it. If you read the entire thing, you would have seen the part that says "there is no empirical evidence"
Posted by redwings17 3 years ago
redwings17
The Contender in this argument is completely delusional. Being married has nothing to do with kids and reproduction. NOTHING. Plenty of people get married and don't have kids, it is not an obligation, yet your argument is that gay people can't get married because they can't have kids together? So what? They can still adopt, they can still provide a good life and love a child who would otherwise be a ward of the state. If you want to be consistent with this idiotic argument then why not condemn people who marry and don't have kids?

All of your arguments are absurd and unsupported but the one that stood out to me as the most ignorant and hilariously idiotic is the one about homosexuals being more prone to depression. Your argument is that because they are gay that means they are more likely to be depressed but only because homosexuality is some sort of brain disorder that affects you negatively. Then you cite a source that literally says:

"the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures"

EXACTLY! That, if any reason would be why a homosexual would be more prone to depression, because they are bullied and hated on and beaten up and murdered and condemned and treated like absolute sgarbage by religious scumbags like you, I think if you went through all that you would be more prone to depression too wouldn't you? But no, you still say that it is because of the fact that they are homosexual. Lol, basic psychology tells you that clinical depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain and in no way does it (chemically) have to do with sexual orientation. I suggest you put down your ignorant, hate filled bible and learn some science and critical thinking skills before you engage in debates because you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
coexist702GOPTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: The debate had no clear resolution (pro's responsibility) so it was difficult to give any points to pro. equal conduct for no FF or bad behavior. Con gets grammar points for paragraphs and readability as well as grammar. Con used more sources. I was a little baffled on how to give argument points. Since there was no clear resolution it was hard to define a clear victory. Pro seemed to go often to a vague emotional appeal to fairness, while con was more fact / objective based.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
coexist702GOPTied
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: CON argued his case better than PRO.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
coexist702GOPTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Conduct- Be careful Pro. Calling people, or even groups, mentally demented can lose you conduct points. Especially when you infer that your opponent is one of those you're referring to. (You can also lose voters) However, you never quite crossed the line. Staying in the third person is imperative though, when dealing with discrediting a person or group. S/G- Nothing too bad on either side. Args- Pro didn't refute Con's arguments very well. He merely kept asking questions and, in fact, even ignored most of Con's arguments for the sake of his beliefs. Please, Pro, if you're going to be brave enough to debate your ideas. Maybe you're right, and you need to do more research. (I personally side with GOP, but that's beside the point) Come back stronger next time. That's what makes debate educational and fun! Sources- Con used them, and Pro didn't