Debate Rounds (3)
It is easy to side with the argument of "Gay people don't hurt anybody" or "You can't help it", because it is generally morally right. I understand that there is no problem having gay people in our community, neither is it to interact with gay people.
The problem is gay marriage itself, hence why we are debating here. Here are my beliefs and reasons to why I am con to gay marriage in this debate.
Gay marriage is unnatural:
The definition of marriage itself derived from Middle English which appeared around 1250-1300 CE, marriage is a bond created between a man and woman, mean't to interlock a man and a woman with a great chance to form offspring later on.
"This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife"."
-Oxford English Dictionary
Marriage was created for a man and a woman to produce offspring, not for those of the same gender who cannot produce offspring. This is simply how marriage was made, this is how nature intended marriage to be, twisting how gender and marriage works is unnatural.
Gay marriage does not create a family:
Gay marriage attempts to create a family, yet ultimately creates a sterile union that does little more than to encourage the creation of more sterile unions. Natural marriage was mean't to create families, gay marriage is mean't for those gay to feel "Normal", yet unintentionally creates a problem.
I do not have a problem with gays, but a problem with gay marriage, considering it is destructive, unnatural, and will only create a problem for society. That is my argument, good luck.
https://www.google.com... it says the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. You say that it will create a problem for society but there are 147-210 million children who are in orphanages. And since gay people can't have kids, they will help kids get a better home instead of continuing to overpopulate the Earth. And still, they will have a family. But what is the definition of family? https://www.google.com... A group consisting of parents and children living together in a household. So two men get married and adopt a child, they will live in the same house. By definition, it does create family. If you are still stuck on the fact that they can't have kids, science has made it possible for women to reproduce without men. You say marriage was created for a man and a woman to produce offspring. What if the woman or the man can't create a child. http://www.parents.com... http://www.menshealth.com... Should they not be allowed to get married because they can't have children?
Gay marriage is unnatural continued-
As I have said before, marriage was created for a man and a women to interlock and create offspring. Gay marriage does is unnatural not only to nature, but our society in general. Of course definitions will change over time to suit the paths our society is taking, but this doesn't change the fact marriage was initially created for a man and a women to eventually create offspring.
Gay marriage does not create a family:
What I mean by this statement, is that Gay marriage does not create a natural family. Gay marriage is unnatural and does not create a proper, strong family.
Gay marriage is the assurance of a sterile union to create more sterile unions, natural marriage is the making of a new generation to make a new generation, this is the difference.
As for your "Can't get pregnant" and orphan argument, a proper family needs a mother and father figure, this is what creates strong future generations. Those who cannot create offspring don't even follow in line with the definition of marriage in the first place.
My argument stays the same, gay marriage is unnatural and fails to create a real family.
Pro has failed to list points, switched arguments from the actual issue, failed to counter many of my points and reasoning, failed to list sources to back up their statistics, etc.
I have proven Pro to be wrong, and organized my arguments and points while doing so. Vote Con.
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.