The Instigator
ReeThoughts
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Losing
0 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 1 vote the winner is...
ReeThoughts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 323 times Debate No: 82515
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

ReeThoughts

Pro

Love is love. Marry who/how many people you want as long as you're all happy and consent to it.
harrytruman

Con

A liberal I can see, well I will have you know that there is a difference between love, and- that.
Love is a conviction which causes you to have concern for another human.
Gay Marriage is not that, it is "ooh that guy's hot", this is just vulgar, not love.
They cannot just be perverts and pass it off as marriage, it is not marriage, it is sexual perversion and the is a difference.
As far as political correctness goes, I couldn't care less if they are offended, this is expected whenever you offend peoples pride. Plato's story of the cave.
Debate Round No. 1
ReeThoughts

Pro

You justify your argument by stating that homosexuality is 'perverse', yet you fail to expand on this issue. How, exactly, is it perverse? Because of what the Bible said it is (not Christian but, from my interpretation, yes; the Bible is homophobic)? The Bible is an ancient text written by humans which, as Christianity states, are imperfect. How can we rely on this information from a book written by imperfect, presumably heterosexual men? If we look at the argument of the four law arguement developed by Aquinas, we can assume that the Bible is not an entirely true representation of God's ideals as the Bible is only Divine Law, noot quite the same as God's eternal law. The Bible is just not reliable.

Homosexuality is natural and actually beneficial to the survival of the human race; it has been found in 1,000+ species and gay couples are much more likely to adopt than straight couple,s because why would a fertile heterosexual couple go through the strain and emotional turmoil of adoption? Not many. A recent study even suggests that gay men are better parents than both straight and lesbian couples. Straight couples can conceive without meaning to, leaving them only 9 months to prepare physically, emotionally and financially for the arrival of their child. Lesbians, too, can conceive fairly quickly through the use of Artificial Insemination by Donor, and can rush into parenthood as well. However, gay men have to get past all sorts of obstacles to become fathers from screening to finding a surrogate mother. This means they get plenty of planning and preparation before actually being responsible for a child.

As for marriage, I see little point in it anymore- so many people are atheistic or take a liberal stance on their religion, I don't see why it's still so common. If your religious and you want to be united in God's prescence, go ahead; I just don't understand why people who don't believe in a god get married because they really don't need to. Marriage is a religious ceremony, so why is marriage so important to atheists too? You can still love each other and be together- a wedding is just a waste of money. If you don't need to united by God, why bother?

That leads me on to my last point. If atheists can marry, why not two Christian lesbians or gay guys? They have more of a need to be joined in matrimony than atheists, don't they? It's important to them.

Sources:

harrytruman

Con

"You justify your argument by stating that homosexuality is 'perverse', yet you fail to expand on this issue. How, exactly, is it perverse? Because of what the Bible said it is (not Christian but, from my interpretation, yes; the Bible is homophobic)? The Bible is an ancient text written by humans which, as Christianity states, are imperfect. How can we rely on this information from a book written by imperfect, presumably heterosexual men? If we look at the argument of the four law argument developed by Aquinas, we can assume that the Bible is not an entirely true representation of God's ideals as the Bible is only Divine Law, not quite the same as God's eternal law. The Bible is just not reliable."

This is, in the debating world, referred to as a straw-man, the old testament laws are unreasonable yes, the New Testament calls it "a cruel school teacher which taught you that you cannot achieve grace through works". I am agreeing with you there, but I am not going off of the Old Testament, I am going off of the new testament, both the verse in Romans and the one in revelation. Though I was not initially referring to the bible, you brought t to mind. I was going off of the fact that it is unnatural. You do know what happened to Victor Frankenstein when he interfered with the natural order of things?

"Homosexuality is natural and actually beneficial to the survival of the human race; it has been found in 1,000+ species and gay couples are much more likely to adopt than straight couple,s because why would a fertile heterosexual couple go through the strain and emotional turmoil of adoption? Not many. A recent study even suggests that gay men are better parents than both straight and lesbian couples. Straight couples can conceive without meaning to, leaving them only 9 months to prepare physically, emotionally and financially for the arrival of their child. Lesbians, too, can conceive fairly quickly through the use of Artificial Insemination by Donor, and can rush into parenthood as well. However, gay men have to get past all sorts of obstacles to become fathers from screening to finding a surrogate mother. This means they get plenty of planning and preparation before actually being responsible for a child."

Not true, gay people are incapable of reproducing as this can only occur between two of opposite genders. Further adding to the point that it is unnatural, and that it is a choice, because if they where born that way, they would not pass on that inherent trait, so gay people would go extinct. But this is not what we see, instead they increase. Now we move back to why they would be bad parents, this is because parents naturally have more affection for their own children than other peoples, this is innate.

"As for marriage, I see little point in it anymore- so many people are atheistic or take a liberal stance on their religion, I don't see why it's still so common. If your religious and you want to be united in God's presence, go ahead; I just don't understand why people who don't believe in a god get married because they really don't need to. Marriage is a religious ceremony, so why is marriage so important to atheists too? You can still love each other and be together- a wedding is just a waste of money. If you don't need to united by God, why bother?"

They can marry, marriage was invented by god, but you can still use it if you do not believe in god. For example; god made the air, but atheists are capable of breathing.

"That leads me on to my last point. If atheists can marry, why not two Christian lesbians or gay guys? They have more of a need to be joined in matrimony than atheists, don't they? It's important to them."

No, gay marriage, is not marriage, it would be like someone drinking illegal moonshine and saying "but everyone has the right to water", well guess what, MOONSHINE IS NOT WATER! No more than gay "marriage" is marriage. So, OK, if they want the right to marriage, fine, i will defend their right to marriage, they just go and find someone of the OPPOSITE GENDER and we can fill out the paperwork.
Debate Round No. 2
ReeThoughts

Pro

You're saying that gay people make bad parents because they're incapable of naturally producing a child. Good parenting is not something inherent to only fertile hetrosexual couples. Many more fertile heterosexual couples are awful parents in comparrison to gay/lesbian/infertile couples because they can suddenly be in the situation that the woman is pregnant and not be prepared for parenthood.

You're basically saying that adoption/surrogacy is not the same as being a parent, no matter the sexual orientation of the mother(s)/father(s). By saying that gay couples make bad/less-loving parents because they cannot reproduce, you are saying this is true for infertile hetrosexual couples too.

Quite frankly, I think that is very sad.

Hetrosexual marriage is the union of a man and a woman in love.

Gay marriage is the union between two men/women in love.

Hetrosexual marriage is the union between a man and a woman who find each other attractive.

Gay marriage is the union between two men/women who find each other attractive.

Hetrosexual marriage is the union between a man and a wife who feel they want to be together for the rest of their lives.

Gay marriage is the union between two men/women who feel they want to be together for the rest of their lives.

All that is different is the amount of brides and grooms that attend that wedding. A gay wedding will have 2 grooms or 2 brides. A hetrosexualwedding will have one of each. That's it.
harrytruman

Con

"You're saying that gay people make bad parents because they're incapable of naturally producing a child. Good parenting is not something inherent to only fertile heterosexual couples. Many more fertile heterosexual couples are awful parents in comparison to gay/lesbian/infertile couples because they can suddenly be in the situation that the woman is pregnant and not be prepared for parenthood."

No, they are naturally worse parents because it is not their child so they do not have any Oxyyocin directed toward said child.

"You're basically saying that adoption/surrogacy is not the same as being a parent, no matter the sexual orientation of the mother(s)/father(s). By saying that gay couples make bad/less-loving parents because they cannot reproduce, you are saying this is true for infertile heterosexual couples too."

No, you are straw-manning me again, if it is their child, they ave Oxytocin directed toward said child, if it is not, there is none.

"Quite frankly, I think that is very sad.

Hetrosexual marriage is the union of a man and a woman in love.

Gay marriage is the union between two men/women in love.

Hetrosexual marriage is the union between a man and a woman who find each other attractive.

Gay marriage is the union between two men/women who find each other attractive.

Hetrosexual marriage is the union between a man and a wife who feel they want to be together for the rest of their lives.

Gay marriage is the union between two men/women who feel they want to be together for the rest of their lives."

No, it s not in "love", heterosexual marriage is a natural thing, and it is in love. Homosexual marriage is unnatural, it is simply a vulgar distorted version of marriage, it is corrupt, and perverse, it is done over nothing more than perverse lust which they develop out of habit.

"All that is different is the amount of brides and grooms that attend that wedding. A gay wedding will have 2 grooms or 2 brides. A hetrosexualwedding will have one of each. That's it."

Reasoning, hetrosexual mairrage is actual marriage, homosexual marriage is a corrupt, perverse, distorted version of marriage which they are passing off as ACTUAL MARRIAGE.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Conduct and S&G were equal, in my eyes.

As far as sources are concerned, Pro is the only one who had any.

Arguments: This debate ultimately went to Pro because of the impact the sources presented has and because of the quality of their arguments. I'll briefly discuss each argument and who won that argument.

1. Gays make better parents.

Pro had evidence backing this up, Con did not. Briefly, in the final round, Con brought up Oxytocin but provided no evidence as to why it affects the argument. Too little, too late for Con gives this argument to Pro.

2. Homosexuality is natural.

Pro again had evidence for this while Con did not. Con repeatedly asserted that homosexuality was "perverse and unnatural", but I must prefer Pro's evidence over these assertions.

3. The Bible

Pro made an excellent point regarding the entire Bible and how it cannot be trusted as inerrant, to which Con strawman-ed the argument implying that it was an issue of Old vs New testament, when Pro's argument was regarding the entire Bible.

4. Gay Marriage as opposed to Atheist Marriage.

Pro comments that since we allow atheist marriage (a Biblically sinful union) why should we disallow gay marriage. Con's response just states that gay marriage isn't real marriage, citing that homosexuality is perverse and unnatural, which Pro refuted with evidence regarding it being natural and the Aquinas argument, which refuted the idea that it is perverse.

Conclusion:

Both sides left me wanting more evidence. The slim evidence by Pro was only as effective as it was due to the fact that Con presented none. Pro nearly lost the whole thing when she started talking about he non-necessity of marriage, but recovered. Con could have been more effective by demonstrating "how/why" gay marriage is perverse/not real/etc. with some evidence behind it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
ReeThoughtsharrytrumanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.