Debate Rounds (5)
Round 1- Short Introduction to Both Sides
Round 2- Arguments
Rounds 3-5- Rebuttals
While I would appreciate observing the spiritual side, I would like to keep main argument points purely secular. Spiritual arguments can play a part, but I don't want them to be the basis of our debate.
My only definition to be used here is this:
Same-gender marriage: A gender- and sexuality-inclusive term for "gay marriage". Basically, the marriage of two people of the same gender identity.
And as for my opening statement, I believe same-gender marriage should be accepted and legal. The right to love is one that should be protected, as it can be included in the pursuit of happiness, for those to whom it applies. Spiritual beliefs, as well as personal beliefs, should not infringe upon this. Love is a beautiful thing which should be encouraged with open arms, not shunned and spurned. I also believe people in same-gender relationships should not be discriminated against, and over half of the US seems to agree (https://en.wikipedia.org...).
So, I would like to start out by saying that calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.
Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose.
Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.
Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)
It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex "marriage." A child of a same-sex "marriage" will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Same-sex "marriage" ignores a child"s best interests.
Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing
The problem involving heterosexuality being the norm is the fault of our society. We push heterosexuality onto our children from an early age, for one thing. Such an example is young children being called "flirts" and "ladies' men" from early ages, thus not only ingraining heteronormative ideas, but also hypersexualizing them.
I also wish to bring up that homosexuality is present in over 100 species, but homophobia is only present in one: humans. And as such, I ask you: which is more unnatural?
Marriage was not constructed by any divine force, but by humans themselves.
God doesn't condemn anyone for who he is; so if you're attracted to the same sex, that absolutely, unconditionally doesn't make you bad, evil or "un-Christian." On the other hand, let me note that I do consider hating, tormenting, or bullying people because of their sexual orientation to be distinctively "un-Christian" behavior. As Billy Graham has said, "God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings." However, God has drawn a clear line in the sand when it comes to homosexual acts. If you're gay, you're not allowed to act on it. If that seems harsh or unfair to you, well, sorry, but you'll have to take it up with God. It's His rule.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." -- Leviticus 18:22
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah could tell you how serious God is about that -- if there were any of them left. So as a Christian, you can no more condone gay marriage than you could give the thumbs up to prostitution or wife swapping. That means if you're a Christian standing in favor of gay marriage, then you're a Christian who's standing directly in opposition to the God whom you claim to worship.
2) Gay marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom. The moment gay marriage becomes the law of the land, all sorts of First Amendment freedoms involving the free exercise of people's religion will likely be infringed upon as a consequence. No pastor should be forced to marry a gay couple. No wedding photographer, cake maker, caterer, or wedding planner should be forced to be involved in these weddings. No church or any other location should be forced to be the site of a gay wedding. Children will be taught in schools that gay marriage is normal, legal, and moral -- and it directly contradicts the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. To create this special privilege for gay Americans would mean impinging on the First Amendment rights of more than 200 million Americans.
3) Civil unions could confer every "right" that marriage does. Gay marriage is not about "rights;" it's about special privileges. After all, every right conferred upon a couple via marriage could be just as easily conferred on a gay couple via a civil union, which is a compromise that could probably be had if gay activists wanted it. In fact, the biggest objection conservatives have had to civil unions is that there's a fear they'd be used as a stepping stone to gay marriage. So, let's be clear: there are actually no "rights" whatsoever at stake in the push for gay marriage.
Instead, what gay activists are looking for is a special privilege of the worst sort because it's as much about dragging everyone else down as it is about raising everyone up. To accommodate gay marriage, the whole meaning of marriage has to be warped and twisted. The religious content has to be taken out and marriage has to become just one more reason to file paperwork with the government.
So, this isn't really so much about marriage per se as it is an attempt to force society and religion to accept gay unions as every bit as normal and healthy as straight relationships, which will never truly happen. You might be able to intimidate some people into silence with political correctness, but the truth is still there and people know it, even if they don't want to be screamed at and accused of being bigots for pointing out the obvious.
4) Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn't be where it ends. Once the definition of marriage is arbitrarily transformed to make gay activists happy, there's no chance it's going to stop there. For example, you could make a much better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. It has a much more robust historical tradition, it's more consistent with religious values, it produces children -- there simply is no compelling, logical reason why gay marriage should become the law of the land without also granting polygamy the same legal status.
I thought I already mentioned I didn't want to argue spirituality with you, which seems to be what your entire Round Two argument consists of. If you want to talk Leviticus, have you worn jeans or eaten shellfish recently? If you have periods, have you talked to men while you are on them? And do you have or desire to have any tattoos? These are all against Leviticus, but they're ridiculous, as is the ban on love that you wish to impose.
I agree that people have no obligation to participate in any service they do not wish to be a part of. Are they homophobic? Certainly. But I will fight to the death for their right to exercise (peaceful) freedom of religion, just as I will fight to the death for my right to marry a woman.
I'm glad children would be taught gay marriage is "legal, normal, and moral". If I'd learned that as a kid, instead of having the bible and heterosexuality as the norm shoved down my throat, I wouldn't have spent so long denying my identity.
Gay marriage is about the RIGHT for me to walk down the aisle and marry the woman of my dreams, just as a man could do the same.
Also, straight people's relationships are not always healthy. There are plenty of abusive straight relationships, just as there are abusive same-gender relationships. The relationships are equal in healthiness, and they should be now in normality.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PossieTV 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||2|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
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.