Debate Rounds (3)
Now to my disagreement. Basically, the reason Christians are against gay marriage is because GOD says so, but I am willing to provide an additional argument as to why homosexual marriage is bad.
First off, the Christian perspective which is very easy to understand. GOD calls it an abomination, and is against it. It's that simple.
Now for a perspective that is more understanding as to why GOD calls it an abomination from my understanding, and as well as to a non-religious understanding as to why homosexual marriage is bad.
First off, I would like to ask you a question. Are you against people marrying animals? Or are you against people marrying pillows? [I am indeed being serious here]. The reason I post this question, is on the perspective of boundaries. Should there be any boundaries in regards to human marriage, let alone human nature? Keep your answer in mind as we continue.
Secondly, what is your belief on sexual relationships? Basically, do you think sex is for procreation or just for self enjoyment? As a Christian, I am going to say procreation obviously. In addition, if I take my cats for example who are in heat, they had sex when I wasn't paying attention and my female cat Smokey is now pregnant. Did they have sex just for enjoyment, or to procreate? Both. But when we look at a homosexual marriage, it is only taking the enjoyment factor into consideration. The same can be said for bestiality, or sex with a pillow, or even masturbation.
So why is homosexuality bad? Well, if we look at nature or just ourselves, the main way cat's have sex, or that most creatures have sex, causes procreation. Homosexual relationships do not cause any procreation whatsoever. The same is involved when there is other forms of sex [which GOD is also against to add]. Also, in addition, what is the limit? Should we allow humans to marry pigs, or inanimate objects? There has to be a moral boundary in which we set ourselves to as GOD has instructed, or even if you are a non-believer you have to give yourself a measure of moral standards. In addition, if even some animals did masturbate or etc., why shall we lower ourselves to their standards? Animals themselves also kill each other, but don't we find cannibalism wrong?
To sum up my argument, there are a few key reasons why homosexual marriage is wrong:
1) Homosexual relationships never produce any offspring and an unnatural way to have a sexual relationship
2) If we do not set a moral boundary for ourselves, then how far will we allow ourselves to change?
Lastly, I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate, I also thank GOD for allowing me to be able to accept this challenge [especially after reading when others couldn't join in, kind of interesting - I don't believe in coincidences]. Anyways, I will promptly be awaiting your next argument.
Korean man marries a body pillow:
Japanese man marries a videogame character:
Australian man marries his dog:
So even though you have stated that "They would be unable to wed even if some schizophrenic wanted to. " it is possible. Do you know why it is possible for things as such to happen? It is because the boundary has been pushed. When it was originally that men should marry women, this was not a problem. As soon as gay marriage is seen as okay, then why should bestiality marriage be bad? or why should marriage to a pillow be bad?
Let me give you an example. You tell a kid to not go into your bedroom. If when they go into your bedroom, you punish them, and they are never allowed in, they will eventually give up. They know it is bad. However, if you allow one time for them to enter you bedroom, what will they do? Never give up on trying to enter the bedroom. Then they might go further and try to hang out in the bedroom often, or play in there. As soon as you let it happen once, it opens up them the possibility to disobey other rules. The logic is this, "If they said that entering the bedroom was bad and they allowed me to do it, then what about jumping on the bed? They said it was bad, but they also said that entering the bedroom was bad...". All it does is open up a Pandora's box so to speak.
You make a very good point bringing up infertility. However, that is still natural. My main point earlier was how, from a biological perspective, we were designed to be men with women. Sex's main purpose is for child birth, but also for pleasure. So I disagree pertaining to infertile women being unable to marry. However, I will admit, that was a good question and I should have thought of addressing that previously.
As for what sex is used for, leaving it up to people, correlates with my previous topic. If people have sex in whatever way that want, and there is no boundary, then when does it end? Well, there is now BDSM, there is people who Rape or watch Rape porn just because they like it, there's pedophilia, there's adultery [basically, people who commit adultery for the fun of it], etc. etc. There is no boundary anymore. What I want to know from you is, would you think it's okay to have sex with a brick? Or a video game character? Also, what is the limit? Can we have sex with insects too or is that too far? Or is it too far for people to be raping others, or not? See, when there is no boundary, no set limits, people will keep pushing and pushing.
And why are the orphanages full? Is it because of the drastic rise in fornication and teen pregnancy?
Lastly, what if they all liked to have sex with dead bodies for example. The mother and father did it, and their children like it too. Does that make it right? No. Just because they love something, doesn't make it okay. Pedophiles really love young children, but it doesn't mean it's a good thing. There has to be moral standards.
Also, I shall provide my argument. Being LGBT is not a choice. (It's hard to argue with the APA.)      Therefore, it would be a civil rights issue to disallow their marriage. I patiently await your pseudological rebuttal.
 http://en.wikipedia.org... (Wikipedia)
 http://www.slate.com... (Slate magazine)
 http://www.apa.org... (The American Psychological Association)
 http://www.cnn.com... (CNN)
I clicked on your links and first of all, none of those people lived in America, and probably were only doing it for fame and publicity. To quote one of them, '"There's nothing sexual," he told the AFP, noting that the event was simply a lighthearted way to celebrate with friends. "You can't actually marry a dog"'. He admitted the marriage wasn't even that serious! Second, society won't make pedophilia okay because we do have moral standards. There is nothing wrong with being gay, so that isn't against them. And if you want to say being gay isn't natural, neither are glasses, polyester, air-conditioning, the internet, cars, books, medicine, etc. And according to these articles, it is. http://www.exposingthetruth.co... More than 1,500 different animal species, including chimpanzees, koalas, dolphins and apes engage in homosexual and bisexual acts, so you can't say it isn't the least bit natural. If we were also to argue that the sole natural purpose of sex is to reproduce, then are masturbation and oral sex also unnatural? Should we demonize condom use just as much? We could also argue, using another theory, that homosexuality and asexuality are natural methods of population control.
1) I will show the modern effects of what I warned about in round 2.
2) I will refute my opponents evidence, as well as show how her evidence itself claims there is no 100% evidence that homosexuality is natural.
To show the modern effects of what I was talking about in the previous round, I will need to cite from these two sources:
link 2) "The sexual revolution (also known as a time of "sexual liberation") was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the Western world from the 1960s to the 1980s. Sexual liberation included increased acceptance of sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships (primarily marriage). Contraception and the pill, public nudity, the normalization of premarital sex, homosexuality and alternative forms of sexuality, and the legalization of abortion all followed"
So when did this occur? The 1960s to the 1980s. Don't forget that, it will be very important.
link 1) "From the late 1950s to early 1990s, several pedophile membership organizations advocated age of consent reform to lower or abolish age of consent laws, and for the acceptance of pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a psychological disorder, and the legalization of child pornography. The efforts of pedophile advocacy groups did not gain any public support and today those few groups that have not dissolved have only minimal membership and have ceased their activities other than through a few websites."
1950s-1990s. Around the exact same time. What did I say earlier? If you allow them to break one rule, then where is the limit?
Now most of my characters will be taken up because of the second half of this argument, so I am going to cut this short because I outlined it a lot earlier. To sum it up, we have men who are marrying video game characters, pillows, and dogs. As stated, we have people claiming homosexuality is okay, and trying to make pedophilia a sexual orientation and not a crime. Where do we draw the line? When we don't set moral standards, people will keep pushing as I stated earlier. My opponent could of easily refuted my argument by citing an opposite claim showing how these trends were existent back hundreds of years ago, not recent. However, that has not happened. I have shown from a logical perspective, as well as with evidence, the consequences of allowing such things to progress. I will now address the evidence and claims proposed by my opponent.
[(links 1-5)Slippery Slope] First of all, I don't know why you posted 5 links about the same definition, I know what you meant after link #1. In addition, I thought I outlined the logical progression to my argument, I guess I did not. My argument was that if we allow homosexual marriage to occur and be deemed as normal, other things will inevitable be deemed as normal due to people pushing the boundaries. Like I stated previously with my analogy of the children.
[links 6-10)Choose to be Gay] I will go at these one at a time.
Link #6) I"m going to just post some quotes from the articles and comment on them.
"And although the scientific community hasn't yet settled on a precise explanation for sexual orientation, many biologists agree that the fraternal birth order effect is likely the cause of homosexuality in 15 to 30 percent of all gay men."
The quote says that they haven't specifically found a precise explanation, also it doesn't claim it's 100% guaranteed [15-30 percent of men]
"Ambrosino doesn't accept this. In his essay, he states that "I could, in fact, change [my orientation] if I tried, if I wanted to. I chose this."
A man who is a homosexual, is denying what the article is saying. If he has no choice, then why would he lie about this? He is a homosexual, he has nothing to gain from doing this.
"Bailey said: "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play and we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight."
The keywords are "suggest" and "may" have evidence, not 100% proof, but "may". It is not a fact.
"While the findings revealed genetics accounted for around 30% to 40% of a man's sexuality, the rest was based on social and environmental factors."
Notice the difference in numbers from the previous link. Also, it is not 100% guaranteed.
"However, there were no genes discovered to determine sexuality that were obvious among all the participants."
Above is the key quote. It speaks for itself. They found no complete, exact chromosome that proves their hypothesis.
Link #8) This link is in sections. Sections 1-3 contain no information on topic and just shows the PDF file. In addition, section 4 just has things such as homosexual conversion therapy and etc. Nothing to prove factually that homosexuality is natural.
The PDF file) This is on Page #2 "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors"
Just like every other article has claimed, there is no 100% guaranteed fact to prove it. Nothing. No concrete evidence saying homosexuality is natural.
I read the rest of the pages. They just have information of psychological effects on kids of homosexuals, places to find more information on homosexual effects, what age should homosexuals come out, etc.
"Scientists from San Francisco to Stockholm are finding evidence of what gay people know in their hearts: that sexual orientation is innate. Recent research in Sweden has identified differences in brain structure that may determine whether a person is gay or straight."
The article does not say that they have evidence, they are looking for it. The also say keywords such as "may".
Link 10) This is the one she posted mid-paragraph. It has no factual evidence. In addition, her last argument and arguments mid paragraph are what they argued in this link.
The difference between cars, air-conditioning, and etc. is that they accomplish their designed task. Air-conditioners do not create pizza, that would be unnatural for an air-conditioner to do. The same thing is with humans and homosexuality. It is not natural for humans to be homosexual, and nothing in the evidence that was posted proves that.
Also, I stated earlier my position on sodomy. Condoms themselves are unnatural and so is masturbation.
In conclusion, I have used logical statements as well as evidence to show how allowing things such as homosexual marriage can cause other problems in society. For example, to reiterate, the pedophiles who tried to make pedophilia as a sexual orientation instead of it being a psychological disorder. Why would they think it was even possible to accomplish this task? Well, when you know that homosexual was becoming more and more excepted, as well as the sexual revolution, of course they'd think they could accomplish it. It correlates with the logical progression I mentioned in round 2. Moreover, I disproved my opponents perspective that homosexuality is natural and therefore it should be okay to be married. In addition, my opponent brought up the argument about animals which I mentioned earlier in previous rounds. Animals eat each other, is cannibalism okay then too? Therefore, I would say to vote Con and agree that homosexual marriage is wrong.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.