The Instigator
wayneii308
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Con (against)
Winning
29 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 12887
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (10)

 

wayneii308

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent upon accepting my debate and wish them the best of luck.

I would like to start by saying it should be legal because the FIRST amendment clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. We founded this country on the separation of church and state. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should.

It states: "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."

By denying gays the right to wed, we are violating the first amendment to the constitution.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
m93samman

Con

I thank the instigator for what I hope shall be an interesting debate. Seeing as arguments have already been made, we shall begin.

First: Con arguments

1) Gay marriage is wrong by nature.

According to Robert A.J. Gagnon, Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one's life with another in a lifelong partnership. It is about sexual merger or, in Scripture's understanding, re-merger of essential maleness and femaleness. [1]
The implication is that all gay marriage is is essentially a deviation from the natural method of life of humans. Animals in nature don't have incidences of homosexual sex because it is contradictory to nature's law; likewise, gay marriage is, as per Dr. Gagnon, a "contradiction in terms". Because marriage is more than just about lust, regardless of who it is to, gay marriage can not take place in a natural (as opposed to barbaric/unnatural) human society.

2) a. Gay marriage is a method to facilitate sodomy. This argument has no impact; it is simply a link to the second part of the argument;

2) b. Sodomy is dehumanizing, immoral, and gruesome.

According to Mukhtar K. Ahmed Al-Mesalati,

"Sodomy is one of the most gruesome and detested crimes, the punishment for do so is also one of the harshest penalties, it is the capital punishment....The punishment is obviously hard, but the crime is of a harder effect on the society if the culprits are let go unpunished. They should not be allowed to live in society, for the epidemic they could spread is overwhelming. Imagine a society with a bunch of sodomites living in it. It will be a society without chastity, morality of virtue, because these values will be executed and killed. Certainly, executing these sick and dangerous sodomites is much better and safer for the society than executing morality, chastity and virtue."

"Some people claim that a sodomite is genetic, but this is wrong. A sodomite is an evil habit, like alcohol. It can start as a trail and experiment and then turn into addiction and disease." [2]

3) Homosexuality has catastrophic effects on the individual and family levels

From the same source, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the ISNA writes,

"Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption... No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education."

"There are many reasons why it is forbidden in Islam. Homosexuality is dangerous for the health of the individuals and for the society. It is a main cause of one of the most harmful and fatal diseases. It is disgraceful for both men and women. It degrades a person. Islam teaches that men should be men and women should be women. Homosexuality deprives a man of his manhood and a woman of her womanhood. It is the most un-natural way of life. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of family life."

Continuing with my own contribution to this idea, let's consider a gay couple that adopts a child. This child will be sent off to school and, to his dismay, when he begins learning about mommy and daddy he will have trouble coping and participating. He will be asked, and he will tell about his two daddy's or momma's, and he will be ridiculed by all of his "regular" classmates. This will only lead to developments in his brain about outrage towards society; lack of proper parenting will perpetuate the ideas in his head that he is different. You can check some statistics about what this does here.. no need to list them all out. http://www.pflagphoenix.org...

3) Homosexuality has negative psychological impacts on individuals.

I'm going to not do the work of analysis or even copy-pasting this time; I am also going to apologize. It is past midnight and I have college classes starting 9:30 am tomorrow, plus I'm fasting because we are in the month of ramadaan so I have to wake up in 5 hours to eat. Here is the link http://www.womensenews.org...
All I am concerned with is the second and third subheadings. Thanks for your time. But I guess I also have to do refutation, so here we go...

Second: Con refutations of Pro argument(s)

Seeing as Pro's only argument in supporting gay marriage is the first amendment, let's tear this down in a few ways.
1) The resolution says "Gay marriage". Thus, all I have to argue against is the concept of gay marriage, as opposed to gay marriage in the United States. Thus, the idea of the first amendment to defend it is non-topical. But even if you don't buy that,
2) The constitution was known to be flawed. Before the amendments and bill of rights and everything up until our most recent 27th amendment of a decade ago, we had been correcting and likely still will be correcting the human (and thus naturally flawed) document. The constitution at one point allowed slavery; at one point in time, once all the arguments are considered, maybe they will realize the problem with it allowing the institutionalization of homosexual marriage?
3) My opponent says "the FIRST amendment clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected." But then if you read his quotation of the first amendment, it NOWHERE states what I added in brackets. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [OR LACK THEREOF], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

All this is to my opponent, with all do respect, is a religious argument. I urge him to consider the other aspects of homosexual marriage in his next argument, and with that, I'm off to bed. I apologize once again for my laziness. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to an interesting debate.

[1] http://www.robgagnon.net...
[2] http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Debate Round No. 1
wayneii308

Pro

wayneii308 forfeited this round.
m93samman

Con

I apologize to the readers for the lack of any serious debate between my opponent and I. My opponent has not simply forgotten to debate or not seen the notification; no, he has NEGLECTED this debate. See the other debate he was engaged in at the same time as this one here. http://www.debate.org...

Seeing as my opponent has made the conscious decision not to debate, I will take the liberty to do the following:

1) Extend all of my previous arguments with the exception of the argument about animals not committing homosexual acts in nature. Everything else will remain considered in the round. Thus, my impacts/arguments flow over to round 3.
2) Drop all of my opponent's arguments (or my opponent's [one] argument). It was refuted in the first round and he left it undefended. Thus, he has no ground going into the next round.
3) Add one further refutation from my side. Here we go...

My opponents advocacy for gay marriage is an advocacy for a marriage per the terms of a sexual perversion. He wants them to have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, but the problem is that there are other perversions that are also not given the right to marry by their own will. For example; pedophiles, polygamists, polyandrists, and pederastrists. I find my opponent compelled to defend ALL sexual perversions in which some irregular form of marriage would be desired, because all of them surely would want the right to marry freely, and all of them are sexual perversions just as is homosexuality.

So, in conclusion, you have only offense coming off of my case to consider in this debate and all the offense off of my opponents case has been negated by his non-response to my attack. I urge a con ballot.

Thank you, readers/voters, for your time.
Debate Round No. 2
wayneii308

Pro

WOW!!
I think that's a good way to begin.
My apologies to the people reading this. I actually went away on vacation for Labor day and was unable to access a computer.
To my opponent: The fact that your saying I want gays to wed out of sexual reasoning is absolutely uncalled for and out of line and the fact that you think they are even remotely in the same argument as pedophilia, etc is purely disgusting and rude. Your debate manners are absolutely arrogant and blatantly rude.

No, I may not deserve to win this debate because I missed a round. But to suggest that I want gays to have the right to wed out of sexual perversion is absolutely sickening on my opponents part. It shows total lack of respect. Your argument is further disproved in that sense with the fact that I'm straight.

To disprove arguments from earlier, your quote from Mr Gagnon does not matter because he though he is qualified to say something like that, it has nothing to do with the debate today because I'm CLEARLY discussing making gay marriage legal in the united states and making CLEAR statements that say this debate has nothing to do with religion in the sense that our country was founded on the separation of church and state. With that said, Secular marriage under the government has nothing to do with the religious influence of any religion or person preaching in pertaining to such.

Onto your second argument, the fact that you are calling the fate of being gay sodomy is absolutely and purely disgusting on your part. That argument is completely asinine. To call an entire community immoral and then spit out a couple quotes about being immoral has no real connection and deserves no praise. That argument is utterly ludicrous and deserves no praise.

Onto number 3. Your quotes from the Islamic writer do not impact this argument because they have nothing to do with the debate I'm trying to set forth. This is about the legal binding of gays in the USA. Our country was founded on the separation of church and state and the secular marriage has NOTHING to do with Islam or any other religion for that matter.

I would also like to reference the two other debates that I have forfeited in the past. I'm not denying that they ever occurred but now because my opponent has brought them up, I have to defend. I was unable to debate because I recently went through the toughest break up of my life. God forbid I don't don't get online and discuss society with someone else when I'm in emotional upheaval.

I apologize to the reader that my opponent should act with such disgusting manners and say the things he did. It was out of line for you to say half the things you did and I believe an apology would be in order.

To clarify even further to the reader and to my opponent, I don't know where you think you have the right to suggest that I want gays to have the right to wed all because of a sexual perversion due to the fact I missed a single debate round. ON LABOR DAY WEEKEND NONTHELESS. And then to compare this to pedophilia is extremely degrading to the homosexual community. I don't know where you think you have the right to say the things you did, but you don't.

I don't expect to win this debate, and its my fault for missing the round, but I don't apologize for my opponents lack of respect. His arguments lack respect and better judgement.

Thank you to everyone that votes for me.
m93samman

Con

This will be interesting... So, first and foremost, I apologize for calling out my opponent on not debating. I respect that he was on vacation and missed the time, but that's all I apologize for. That's the end of it. His misinterpretation of my arguments in no way qualifies him to insult me, but let's get into his continued lack of debate.

I, first, never said that my opponent is gay. "My opponents advocacy for gay marriage is an advocacy for a marriage per the terms of a sexual perversion." Homosexuality is a sexual perversion; what I'm saying is that the marriage he is advocating is the marriage per the terms of A sexual perversion, i.e. he is promoting this perversion. I can advocate nuclear war but it doesn't mean that I pressed that shiny red button in the oval office. All my opponent ends up saying is that "[my] argument is further disproved in that sense with the fact that [he's] straight". I never brought my opponent into the debate. You may extend the argument.

Second, he says that the quote from Mr Gagnon is irrelevant because though " he is qualified to say something like that, it has nothing to do with the debate today because I'm CLEARLY discussing making gay marriage legal in the united states and making CLEAR statements that say this debate has nothing to do with religion in the sense that our country was founded on the separation of church and state." First, I wasn't making a religious argument- I simply called out gay marriage as immoral. I don't need religion to judge morality; I have many atheist friends who would tell you the same.

Regarding the sodomy argument, he says that I am "absolutely and purely disgusting" on my part. I agree. Homosexuality (and thus, sodomy) is absolutely and purely disgusting. I will drop this argument if my opponent actually refutes my claim as opposed to saying the pornographic images that I depicted are nasty. Rather, he has failed to give any reasoning as to why gay marriage wouldn't lead to sodomy. I ask this question: What sexual ends would a male couple reach? I won't get into detail, but from my understanding, it's sodomy.

Moving on, the quote from the Muslim scholar. My opponent's only response is that he advocates a separation of church and state, and that it has nothing to do with the debate that has to do with the "legal binding of gays in the USA". First off, the frameworks for my argument and his are not mutually exclusive, ergo they can co-exist without contradiction. Thus, my argument remains. Second, (and this is a cross application from round 2) his response that it deals with the US is false because the resolution only says "Gay Marriage" as opposed to "Gay Marriage in the US". I accepted this debate as a question of reasoning, not one that is specifically for the US. But again, even if that wasn't true I repeat that the argument I made is NOT mutually exclusive with his framework of the US, thus my argument is upheld.

===========Concluding Remarks============

Not only did my opponent come back thinking I disrespected him by misinterpreting my remarks, he continued to fail to debate. He has not posted one response to a single one of my arguments; rather, he has forgone the opportunity even though he is back home now and chose to simply reiterate points that have already been refuted. Moreover, he is trying to guilt trip me and play the sympathy card with the readers off of the basis of his MISINTERPRETATION OF MY ARGUMENTS. The only one who is lacking in etiquette in this round thus far is my opponent, as I have apologized for mistaking a vacation for a forfeit, whereas my opponent vied to insult me with no ground.

I urge a con vote. Thank you for your time, and I apologize on both of our behalves for the critical and aggressive atmosphere.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Pro won due to Erick's vote-bombing.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
@wayneii308

"I apologize to the reader that my opponent should act with such disgusting manners and say the things he did. It was out of line for you to say half the things you did and I believe an apology would be in order."

I sympathize with you since it's your first debate and you obviously care a lot about this issue. However, it would be better in future if you try to persuade people with the force of your arguments instead of emotional appeals to our sense of what is offensive.

In competitive debate events, debaters are often asked to debate sides they do not agree with to learn how to argue both sides of an issue. You could be asked to debate against gay marriage, for example.

In addition, LD and policy debate often force debaters to defend untenable positions, like that murder is okay, as a learning experience.

You may one day be confronted with people who believe homosexuality is immoral. It will be better to have logical and cogent responses at that time (such as Kinesis's argument: it's widespread in nature) than simply getting offended.

If you would like to see how I chose to defend homosexuality, you can check out this debate:
http://www.Debate.org...
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
My first vote ever goes to m93samman - congratulations.

o Agree before/after: Con

o Conduct: m93samman - He apologized for what may have been taken as an insult while Pro came
with unneeded and negative comments about Con.

o Spelling/grammar: Fine on both sides, but Pro has some grammatical errors.

o Arguments: Con - He refuted Pro's arguments finely

o Sources: Not a big difference, tied.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Haha well, you could've put it in round one but you used the first amendment as an argument as opposed to a framework for debate. But hey, live and learn! Look down at the previous comments, I got pretty badly pwnd by Kinesis
Posted by wayneii308 6 years ago
wayneii308
Well being new here, I just wanted to say that it was my mistake for not putting Gay Marriage in the US on the resolution. That was my fault. Sorry.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
reading through my argument i'm kinda pissed at myself now.. i took this entirely the wrong way. I could've done much better :/ oh well. Let's see how it plays out.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Haha well I guess live and learn? It's just one argument that I'll have to completely drop, the others are at least fair points to make on my part
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'Animals in nature don't have incidences of homosexual sex because it is contradictory to nature's law'

LMAO, animals engage in every kind of sexual activity imaginable. There are virtually no sexual active species that DON'T engage in homosexual activity.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
I'm sure you want someone that's actually against gay marriage this time lol.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by S98-SAMMAN 5 years ago
S98-SAMMAN
wayneii308m93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
wayneii308m93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
wayneii308m93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Erick 6 years ago
Erick
wayneii308m93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
wayneii308m93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
wayneii308m93sammanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 6 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
wayneii308m93sammanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ReginaldJeeves 6 years ago
ReginaldJeeves
wayneii308m93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by alyssa_16 6 years ago
alyssa_16
wayneii308m93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by js92 6 years ago
js92
wayneii308m93sammanTied
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:05