The Instigator
missbailey8
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Teekee
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
missbailey8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 353 times Debate No: 90586
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

missbailey8

Pro

I'll be arguing for gay marriage, while my opponent must argue against gay marriage.

Structure:
Round 1 - Opening Statements from Pro
Round 2 - Rebuttals from Con, Defense from Pro
Round 3 - Opening Statements from Con, Rebuttals from Pro
Round 4 - Defense from Con, Pro Must Waive

Rules:
1) No hate speech/ slander
2) No kritkiks
3) No plagiarism
4) No new arguments in final round
5) Please use citations
6) No forfeiture
7) No trolls

Voting Rules:
1) Vote Convincing Arguments
2) Only vote conduct if plagiarism, forfeiture, and/or slander is present
3) Only vote spelling and grammar if it's so poor it detracts from the arguments at hand

Thank you
Teekee

Con

I shall argue against gay marriage:

1) Gay Marriage is not marriage
Simply calling a marriage a marriage does not mean it is a marriage. Marriage always has been a covenant between man and woman. It is by nature that a marriage is to unify a man and a woman, not a woman and a woman or a man and a man.

2) Gay Marriage goes against nature.
Marriage serves two purposes: to unify and to procreate. A man and a man cannot create another human. Only a man and a woman can do that. Let me give you an analogy: say I have a chair. A chair, defined in a dictionary, is something used to sit on. That is the chair's nature. Not to stand on or throw. Standing on the chair or throwing the chair defeats the chair's purpose. You see, if you do anything else other than sit on the chair, you have a risk of breaking the chair or harming yourself. In a way, this chair is marriage. A marriage by nature is man and woman. Anything other than that defeats its purpose and risks to damage the beauty of marriage.

3) Gay Marriage, even if right in society's eyes, are wrong morally.
From a religious standpoint, it is morally wrong and against God's will to support gay marriage. This is not saying that being gay is wrong, in fact, it might a good thing. However, the gay ACTS are not.

Thank you for your time. This is all I will support for now.
Debate Round No. 1
missbailey8

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate! Here are my rebuttals of your arguments.

1) Gay Marriage is not marriage

While marriage used to exclusively be between a man and a woman, now, in some parts of the world, marriage is available for same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples alike. Here's the definition of marriage:

Marriage - : the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
: a similar relationship between people of the same sex
: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other [1]

Do you notice how it acknowledges both? Marriage is less exclusive now, hence the literal dictionary definition changing. Our world changes everyday, whether we like it or not. People's views change with the world. The way we define something shouldn't stay static, sometimes it needs to evolve.

2) Gay Marriage goes against nature

To start, marriage isn't a natural is you consider that we created it.

Natural - existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature [2]

By definition, marriage isn't natural in the first place. But let's assume it is indeed natural. You say that there are two purposes of marriage: to unify and to procreate. The first purposes is definitely true, no arguing with that. But the second purpose seems to fall about when you imagine these scenarios. What if the couple have kids before marriage? What if you're infertile? What if you get married at an older age? What if you simply don't want children? Are these people not allowed to marry sense they can't have children naturally together?

Sure, a same-sex couple can't have a child the exact same way a straight couple can, but there are methods like adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, etc. [3] Would you shame a straight couple for going to these routes to have children?

And to add another point to my argument, homosexuality isn't unique to humans. According to Yale, plenty of animals show homosexual and bisexual patterns in terms of mating and partnerships.

"Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide. For instance, observations indicate that Humboldt, King, Gentoo, and Ad"lie penguins of the same sex engage in 'mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another.' In addition, male giraffes have also been observed engaging in homosexual behavior by rubbing their necks against each others" bodies while ignoring the females. Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates." [4]

There was also a famous case of gay penguins named Roy and Silo. They even raised an egg together and the story is told in a children's book called "And Tango Makes Three". [5, 6]

3) Gay Marriage, even if right in society's eyes, are wrong morally

You're right, on a religious standpoint, homosexuality is morally wrong, but morality is subjective. What's good or bad isn't so black-and-white, there's a definite grey area in between. For example, some people may say grape juice is bad, others may say it's good. There's no telling what other people may think about the issue, even other religious people.

And here are two questions I'd like you to answer in the next round for your defense:

1) Just because something may be morally wrong to some people, does that automatically make it bad?

2) Why is actually being gay okay but not the "gay acts"?

Thank you. I look forward to your defense.

Citations
[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]http://www.economist.com...
[4]http://www.yalescientific.org...
[5]https://www.thedodo.com...
[6]http://www.amazon.com...
Teekee

Con

Hello,
1) I would like to go back on your comment about marriage's nature. You quoted, "But the second purpose seems to fall about when you imagine these scenarios. What if the couple have kids before marriage? What if you're infertile? What if you get married at an older age? What if you simply don't want children? Are these people not allowed to marry sense they can't have children naturally together?"
I apologize, I wasn't clear when I talked about procreation in marriage. Procreation applies not just to create children but applies to the upbringing of children as well. Let's assume for the debate's purpose that we were all created at the beginning. In order to keep evolving, we must keep delivering offspring. In a world where gay marriage is legal, let's just pretend a lot of everyone is homosexual. What happens when same sexes marry? There will come a time where there is no more offspring. Bad.
2) The definition of marriage
From the article (1).
"Society does not just want acceptance for same sex marriage, they want to redefine marriage. Should it not seem odd that the definition of the institution of marriage, as being between a man and woman, for the past 6000 years is being thrown out for something less than what is natural and stable? The agenda of same sex marriage proponents is to redefine marriage altogether which undermines the most stable form of marriage as being between one man and one woman."
Redefining marriage gives way for new definitions of marriage to exist in the future. I like how the author of article 3 states this, "...suppose I were to come along and say: 'My uncle and I [or my aunt and I, or my sister and I, or my mother and I, or my father and I, or my friend and I] live together. We are devoted to each other, but we don"t engage in mutual sexual conduct. We want to get married in order to get the legal benefits of marriage that affect property rights, taxes, insurance and the like.' (Article 3) It might come quite negative at first, but eventually the government might allow a law that newly defines marriage as any type of bond that benefits both partners legal stuff, insurance, and etc. Later, one could marry their father or mother. Once this law is passed, what might happen to society's view on polygamy? Later on, marriage might be defined as a union between three or MORE people.

The last point the author made, "Proponents of same-sex marriages want to un-link marriage from reproduction and have the laws legalize their friendship because it is a friendship, not because it is procreative. But once the state legalizes one kind of friendship, it cannot stop at that; it will have to legalize any and all friendships for which legalization is sought."
^ this also contradicts what you said about marriage and procreation.

3) Homosexuality does not offer the stability of a traditional family (1)
Children need the stability of a traditional family. Research has been proven that children develop healthier when growing up with a Father and a Mother.
Contradicting your research on homosexual behavior as natural, according to the American Physiological Association, "There is no consensus among scientists
about the exact reasons that an individual
develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or
lesbian orientation."

Important: Other research shows that children raised by homosexual families are seven times more likely to be homosexual (2).
This proves that homosexuality might also be because of influences and the environment one grows up in.

Next point: You asked just because something may be morally wrong to some people, does that automatically make it bad?
Well, that's a good question. I guess it would have to depend on what moral it is. Say for instance. one thinks it was morally right for Hitler to kill the Jews. First of all, that's just absurd. Second of all, that should be morally wrong for everyone (except maybe Hitler and the people at that time). You can't agree that what Hitler did was right. I mean it wasn't. Anyways, I do agree with you partially on that, it depends on more of what that moral is.

2) Why is actually being gay okay but not the "gay acts"?

Again, as I said about children being influenced by homosexuality acts. Homosexual acts serve as bad examples to children.

I look forward to your next argument, my friend.

Cited Sources:
1) http://unsettledchristianity.com...
2) http://www.wnd.com...
3) http://americamagazine.org...
Debate Round No. 2
missbailey8

Pro

Here are my opening statements.

A. It's Not A Choice
B. Equality
C. Separation of Church and State
D. Adoption Increase

Here we go!

A. It's Not A Choice

I'll start with the actual science and statistics, then I'll talk about the "choice" of being gay with hypothetical situations and questions.

"Biological gender is set in the first trimester of pregnancy; psychological gender is set in the second, when the child in the womb is exposed to varying levels of testosterone. It"s not a mutation; it"s very much like the genetic regions that determine whether you will have black or brown hair, whether you"ll be tall or short, have dark or light skin, have broad or narrow hips" in other words, it is part of the normal range of normal human sexuality. And across all societies, the percentage of people who are gay remains about the same, at between 5-8% (although there is a difference between the incidence for men and women)." [1]

If homosexuality was a choice then why would the percentage around the world be so similar? Because this is something that is predetermined, just like you gender, hair color, eye color, so on.

Now for the hypothetical situations and questions. Say you were a man in love with women. Most other people in the world are gay or lesbian. You can't help it. You can't choose to love another man the same way. Just like you can't pick your race, you can't just pick and choose your sexuality.

I'm actually a gay woman and if I could, I'd most definitely decide to be straight. But why is that? The prejudice and discrimination against LGBT+ people is unbelievable!

"Nearly a fifth of students are physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth because of their gender expression.

"About two-thirds of LGBT students reported having ever been sexually harassed (e.g., sexual remarks made, being touched inappropriately) in school in the past year."

"The average GPA for students who were frequently physically harassed because of their sexual orientation was half a grade lower than that of other students." [2]

Would someone really want to be embarrassed, condemned, and harassed due to their sexuality?

B. Equality

The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [3] So why don't we grant these unalienable rights? For this part, I'll focus on liberty.

Liberty- the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. [4]

Should gay couples be barred from marriage? If they are then that's oppression by authority on one's way of life and behavior. Straight couples are allowed to marry freely, so what makes people think that gay couples should be treated as lesser and unable to marry in some parts of the world?

C. Separation of Church and State

A common argument of religious people against gay marriage is that it's a sin and The Bible condemns it, so it shouldn't be permitted. But we have the separation of church and state, which is where religious beliefs can't define the government.

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [5]

Yes, this amendment prohibits the restriction of religion, but it's also for separation of church and state.

"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the 'separation of church and state.' Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of 'blue laws' is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion." [6]

So why did the U.S. prohibit gay marriage in all 50 states up until summer of 2015? It's unconstitutional to do this, as we have separation of church and state.

D. Adoption Increase

"In 2009, 69,947 children had parental rights terminated by the courts, yet only 57,466 were adopted... Last year, 29,741 children turned 18 and left the foster care system without being adopted... Nearly 40 percent of American adults, or 81.5 million people, have considered adopting a child, according to the National Adoption Attitudes Survey. If just one in 500 of these adults adopted, every waiting child in foster care would have a permanent family." [7]

With the rapid increase of gay marriages, don't you think that more children could find a loving family to care for them? Studies show that same-sex parent as no effects or even positive effects on the child's well-being. [8, 9, 10] A child needs love and if they're able to be given love from capable parents then they should adopt children.

In conclusion, gay marriage is perfectly fine as shown by the points above. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttals. Peace.

Citations
[1]http://www.health24.com......
[2]http://www.pflagnyc.org......
[3]http://www.archives.gov......
[4]http://www.google.com......
[5]https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[6]https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[7]https://davethomasfoundation.org......
[8]http://www.sciencedirect.com......
[9]http://www.medicaldaily.com......
[10]http://www.medicaldaily.com......

Teekee

Con

Again, I would like to counter your following points, which I have already done so in the post above.

A. It's Not a Choice
Being born gay just doesn't make sense. Although there is scientific proof that homosexuality can be seen in nature, there is no "homosexual gene." There are also many accounts of people who happen to "turn gay." Simply put, there is no organic base for homosexuality (Article 1).
However, I would also like to add that it is just WRONG to harass or judge anyone based on their sexual preferences. I respect all people. For the purpose of this debate, I am going against homosexuality.

B. Equality (also I'm going to talk a bit about marriage, which I basically copied form my last post)
"Society does not just want acceptance for same sex marriage, they want to redefine marriage. Should it not seem odd that the definition of the institution of marriage, as being between a man and woman, for the past 6000 years is being thrown out for something less than what is natural and stable? The agenda of same sex marriage proponents is to redefine marriage altogether which undermines the most stable form of marriage as being between one man and one woman."
Redefining marriage gives way for new definitions of marriage to exist in the future. I like how the author of article 3 states this, "...suppose I were to come along and say: 'My uncle and I [or my aunt and I, or my sister and I, or my mother and I, or my father and I, or my friend and I] live together. We are devoted to each other, but we don"t engage in mutual sexual conduct. We want to get married in order to get the legal benefits of marriage that affect property rights, taxes, insurance and the like.' (Article 3) It might come quite negative at first, but eventually the government might allow a law that newly defines marriage as any type of bond that benefits both partners legal stuff, insurance, and etc. Later, one could marry their father or mother. Once this law is passed, what might happen to society's view on polygamy? Later on, marriage might be defined as a union between three or MORE people.

The last point the author made, "Proponents of same-sex marriages want to unlink marriage from reproduction and have the laws legalize their friendship because it is a friendship, not because it is procreative. But once the state legalizes one kind of friendship, it cannot stop at that; it will have to legalize any and all friendships for which legalization is sought."
^ this also contradicts what you said about marriage and procreation.

C. Separation of Church and State

Yes, there is a separation of Church and State. Yes, the Church and the State will have different laws. However, both agree on one thing: the laws of nature. Going back on what I said about marriage, marriage IS a bond between man and woman and has been like that for over 6000 years.

D. Adoption Increase
Homosexuality does not offer the stability of a traditional family (2). Adoption increase in homosexual relationships is actually extremely rare. Also, another point I would like to add is research has proved that in gay relationships, there is a stronger chance of infidelity against their other partner.
Eight Outcomes from children being raised in homosexual families:
-Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
-Have lower educational attainment
-Report less safety and security in their family of origin
-Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
-Are more likely to suffer from depression
-Have been arrested more often
-If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
(article 2)

Well, this concludes by rebuttals.

Citations:
1) http://www.wnd.com...
2) http://www.frc.org...
3)http://americamagazine.org...
Debate Round No. 3
missbailey8

Pro

Here's my defense against my opponent's rebuttals.

A. It's Not A Choice

My opponent never explains why it doesn't make sense to be born gay or the exact scientific proof that supposedly states that there is no "gay gene". However, studies on twins show opposite results.

"Evidence from independent research groups who studied twins shows that genetic factors explain about 25-30% of the differences between people in sexual orientation (heterosexual, gay, lesbian, and bisexual). Twin studies are a first look into the genetics of a trait and tell us that there are such things as 'genes for sexual orientation'... Three gene finding studies showed that gay brothers share genetic markers on the X chromosome; the most recent study also found shared markers on chromosome 8. This latest research overcomes the problems of three prior studies which did not find the same results." [1]

As for "turning gay", we have no idea what that person has gone through, their psyche, their external struggles, etc. They could be hiding it from their family or maybe they just don't want to accept it until much later.

B. Equality

Just because the definition of marriage has limited exclusively to a man and woman for years, that doesn't mean that it should stay the same forever. For example, in 2013 the FBI expanded the definition of rape to apply to men and women. [2] But we have to keep the outdated definition, right? Times change and sometimes we need to redefine terms to fit the way we live today.

Actually, there are very few negative effects of polyamory, besides jealousy between partners. [3] As long as all parties consent and it's a happy and healthy relationship, then it should be fine. Then again, this isn't an argument about polygamist, so I'll move on.

Believe it or not, not all couples can or want to have children, regardless of orientation. Show is a straight relationship "a friendship" if they don't have children? How is this different from a gay couple who don't have kids?

C. Separation of Church and State

This argument is a bare assertion. Is there a little check list of everything natural and unnatural as far as marriage is concerned? We have no way of enforcing "nature's law" to the fullest. For example:

"When Thomas Jefferson wrote:"Laws of Nature" into the Declaration of independence, he was referring to an Enlightenment concept deeply rooted in Western philosophy. In later writings, Jefferson elaborated:

'Nature has written her moral laws on the head and heart of every rational and honest man, where man may read them for himself. If ever you are about to say anything amiss, or to do anything wrong, consider beforehand you will feel something within you which will tell you it is wrong, and ought not to be said or done. This is your conscience, and be sure and obey it... Conscience is the only sure clue which will eternally guide a man clear of all his doubts and inconsistencies.'" [4]

The concept of right and wrong is very subjective, like I said my rebuttals against my opponent. Morals aren't the same for everyone, believe it or not.

D. Adoption Increase

In what way? Reaserch by Boston University seems to point the other way.

The best study so far, Siegel tells BU Today, is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, begun in 1986. The study has followed 154 lesbian mothers and recently checked in on 78 adolescent children, comparing the mothers’ and kids’ self-reported status against national standardized samples.

"The lesbian mothers’ reports of their children 'indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts,' Siegel and Perrin write. If you might expect parents to say that, consider their kids’ testimony: 'The self-reported quality of life of the adolescents in this sample was similar to that reported by a comparable sample of adolescents with heterosexual parents.'" [5]

Again, the claim of "rare adoption increase in homosexual relationships" is another bare assertion with no evidence to support it. I explained this is my opening statements with the quote on the number of children not adopted.

Thank you for the debate. You may waive the last round, like I said in the rules. Best of luck. Good bye.

Citations
[1]https://www.theguardian.com...
[2]http://www.slate.com...
[3]https://www.psychologytoday.com...
[4]http://www.chivalrynow.net...
[5]http://www.bu.edu...




Teekee

Con

Teekee forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DebaterGood 7 months ago
DebaterGood
Someone please make arguments about the institution of marriage and how both pro/con can use this to their advantage. This is key in the actual debate that exists today.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Reigon 6 months ago
Reigon
missbailey8TeekeeTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was unable to defend his/her's opening statement with facts.