The Instigator
Gensai
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Con (against)
Winning
10 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 2 votes the winner is...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,784 times Debate No: 16795
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Gensai

Pro

In this debate. I will argue the following:
1. Reasons people need to become, open minded about Gay Marriage.
2.There is no difference in a gay marriage, then there is a tradional marriage.
3.Gays raising a child. Is not so different from how a man and a women raise a child.
4.The gay community, is a stable community.
5.That the bible verses, widely assumed, to be direct to gay marriage, is often misinterpreted and and not a direct violation or sin, in the christian community.
http://christiangays.com...
KeytarHero

Con

I would like to thank the instigator, Gensai, for issuing this challenge. Gay marriage is not something I debate very often so I look forward to this. I do believe that the Bible is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin, but as for laws against homosexual marriage, I'm actually on the fence about whether they should be allowed or not. So I could be argued out of my position. I will still offer Gensai a riveting, thought-provoking, and, hopefully, challenging debate.

As Gensai has the burden of proof, it will be my job in this debate to case doubt upon his evidence.

1) He must offer compelling evidence for why I should not only be "open-minded" about gay marriage, but why I should accept it to be allowed in our country.

2) Why there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage (except for the obvious gender differences).

3) How two people of the same gender can raise a child just as well as two people of opposite genders.

4) I'm not sure if this point is necessarily relevant, but I will still be interested in hearing what he has to say.

5) How the Bible verses are misinterpreted and how homosexuality is not a direct violation or sin, even though historically orthodox Christianity has always taught homosexuality to be a sin and one of the oldest orthodox Christian sects, the Roman Catholic church, has never accepted homosexuality.

I look forward to the Instigator's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Gensai

Pro

I would like to thank, my opponent for accepting my challenge. I look forward to a fruitful debate. Let's begin.
1.Why society needs to open there minds, to Gay Marriage.
One of the most frustrating things about today's political rhetoric is the entrenched nature of those who argue any side of an issue. Political leaders and the media provide a bounty of messages to support a position, and it is profoundly easy to consume only opinions one already agrees with.

There are times that it feels as if we are at a permanent stalemate regarding some of the biggest issues facing our society and our nation.
Gay Marriage is one among those issues. The traditional Marriage or Union, is usally between a man and a women. The wedding normally conducted by a priest or other person of interest. Now there are laws in some states, that allow the union of two men. This has become an issue in which many people are concerned. Rather it be for religous purposes, or the simple belief that only a man and woman should be united for a lifetime. The belief is tradional, spawning it's roots in divine literature. Example: If A person is brought up all his life, to believe one thing it is very hard to believe in something else. Rather it be right or wrong, the individual, usally will not care to grasp the concept. Below I have a link attached, it expalins one mans revevaltion, on this subject please read it!
http://www.religiondispatches.org...
2. There is no difference in a gay marriage, then there is a tradional one.:
I will now back my statement.
The authors of the studies say their findings challenge the stereotype that same-sex relationships aren't as healthy or secure as heterosexual pairings.

In the first study, researchers at the University of Urbana-Champaign compared 30 committed gay male and 30 committed lesbian couples to 50 engaged and 40 older married heterosexual couples, as well as dating heterosexual couples.

The researchers found that all the couples had positive views of their relationships, but the more committed couples (gay or straight) resolved conflict better than the heterosexual dating couples.
Read more at the link below.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

3.Gays raising a child.I not so different from how a man and a woman raise a child.
My support for this:
Lesbian and gay related statistics play a very important role in society. So, I have decided to add this.
An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
Other persons of interestand other wise,often are concerned about the welfare of the children.
Because of the same sex unionthere is a stereo type,that the partners can not raise a child this is false.
Overall out of the 65,000 adopted children who are being raised by same sex couples.

4. The gay community, is a stable community.
Explanation: I put this as one of the topics, I'd be arguing because...
It is often thought homosexuality is psychopathological.
I will disprove this now.
A brief study of the literature dealing with homosexuality reveals 2 opposing beliefs: those beliefs which are oriented towards the concept that homosexuality is psychopathological and those beliefs which are not so oriented. The hypothesis tested in this study was that homosexuality is not usually a symptom of psychopathology. The MMPI was given to 40 college-educated overt male homosexuals and the results compared to a group of 40 male college graduate students. The mean profile of the homosexual group was only slightly higher than that of the comparison group and was still well below a T score of 70, with the exception of the Mf scale. The homosexual group was significantly higher than the comparison group on 4 scales (Pd, Mf, Sc, and Ma). The results obtained showed the presence of only moderate atypicality and could in no way be interpreted as being symptomatic of any general and severe personality disturbance. Below is the link to the website I obtained this information:
http://psycnet.apa.org...
5.That the bible verses, widely assumed, to be direct to gay marriage, is often misinterpreted and not a direct violation or sin, in the christian community.
Much opposition to same-sex marriages appears to be based on certain beliefs However, gays, lesbians, religious liberals and others who support same-sex marriages disagree: In fact, many religious groups in Europe had special marriage ceremonies for gays and lesbians. Also, a recent book by the late Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Christian churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. That book lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies: Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece.
Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece.
The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic.
Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek.
An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic.
Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic.

This concludes my agument for this round. I will await my opponents response.
KeytarHero

Con

Again, I thank Gensai for issuing this challenge.

I will tackle his points one by one.

Contention 1: People need to become open-minded about gay marriage.

"Political leaders and the media provide a bounty of messages to support a position, and it is profoundly easy to consume only opinions one already agrees with."

This is true on all sides of the issue. Gay marriage supporters are just as guilty of this as those who oppose.

"Now there are laws in some states, that allow the union of two men."

Which states are those? I live in California, which has tried to illegally marry gays, but this has always been put a stop to and the marriages nullified. In fact, this speaks against homosexuals that rather and change laws the legal and moral way, they will resort to illegal actions to support their cause. In fact, the Defense of Marriage Act legally defines marriage as one woman to one man. So federally, same-sex marriages are not recognized. [1] No state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage as valid. The link you provided did not specifically link to the article in question. However, it's irrelevant. Just because someone changed their mind on a stance does not make that stance valid. I could also find people who went from supporting same-sex marriage to opposing it.

Contention 2: There is no difference between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage

I think the research the Instigator provided is largely irrelevant to this issue. Incest and pedophilia are also illegal in this country, yet rock and roll superstar Jerry Lee Lewis married his underage cousin, and they remained married for thirteen years and produced two children. [2] If people engaged in incestuous relationships or pedophilia can have positive views of their relationships, does this mean those should be allowed, as well?

Contention 3: Gays raising a child is no different that heterosexuals.

The Instigator has not listed any sources for his numbers so I have no way of knowing where he got them from. I would ask that he please, in the future, list his sources so that I don't have to go looking for them.

Also, he has not indicated how any of the children being raised by gay parents have turned out, so I have nothing here to respond to. This seems to be a non-issue. Bad parents can raise a child, too.

Contention 4: The gay community is a stable community.

The Instigator here has left out one crucial detail: In 1973, the APA voted to remove homosexuality from its list of pathological conditions as such (or in itself). "However, it appears that in contrast to the results of the vote, the majority of the APA membership continued to view homosexuality as a pathology. A survey four years after the vote found that 69% of psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as a "pathological adaptation." A much more recent survey suggests that the majority of psychiatrists around the world continue to view same-sex behavior as signaling mental illness." [3]

Contention 5: The Bible and homosexuality.

I have reviewed the Instigator's profile, and it turns out he is not a Christian. As such, he cannot be fully trusted to accurately represent the Bible and its view on homosexuality.

My opponent's argument is a non-sequitur. For every Christian denomination he finds that supports homosexuality, I can find ten that don't. Also, the Catholic church far predates any of the churches he mentioned, and has never condoned or supported homosexuality. [4]

Let's see what the Bible actually says on homosexuality. The Bible calls it an abomination, one even deserving of being put to death (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13). Romans 1 indicates that homosexual relations are leaving the "natural use" of the opposite sex, and the sinners were given over to their shameful lusts. Also, the original plan for the family was for one man and one woman to be joined together as one flesh (Genesis 2:24).

I have cast doubt on the alleged proofs that the Instigator has shown, in one case he didn't even make an argument, and I have also shown how my opponent has not properly interpreted the Scriptures. Instead, he has just shown a few churches who have accepted it over the course of the last thousand years or so. As such, I have shown how that evidence is unreliable and is, in fact, faulty. I look forward to the Instigator's response.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[2] http://oldies.about.com...;
[3] http://narth.com...;
[4] http://www.catholic.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Gensai

Pro

My Opponent:I have reviewed the Instigator's profile, and it turns out he is not a Christian. As such, he cannot be fully trusted to accurately represent the Bible and its view on homosexuality.)

To avoid any confusion on this subject. I will not argue the bible oppositions to gay marriage, even though I believe there are none.

Now to begin. My opponent asked...Which states allow gay marriage. I will give him the history.

The first civil unions in the United States were offered by the state of Vermont in 2000. The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them. By the end of 2006, Connecticut and New Jersey had also enacted civil union laws; New Hampshire followed in 2007. In 2010 Illinois passed a civil unions law. Furthermore, California's domestic partnership law had been expanded to the point that it became practically a civil union law, as well. The same might be said from 2007 for domestic partnership in Maine, domestic partnerships in District of Columbia, domestic partnership in Washington, and domestic partnership in Oregon.

In 2005, the Connecticut legislature became the first state in the United States to legalize civil unions without a court order. The law took effect on October 1, 2008 and was signed into law by Connecticut governor Jodi Rell. Gay rights groups subsequently sued to legalize same-sex marriage, with the Connecticut Supreme Court deciding in their favor in 2008. Same-sex marriages have been performed since November 12, 2008. On October 1, 2010, all existing civil unions were automatically transformed into marriages.

http://www.ask.com...

My opponent stated my second contention, to be irrelevant.

Gay marriage advocates argue that this is an equal rights issue. But what is it that a married hetero couple can "do" that an unmarried gay couple cannot "do"? Under current law, gays can commit themselves to one another... they can live together... what can't they do that married people can do? Nothing, as far as I can tell. So why is it so important for these gay (and lesbian) couples flocking to San Francisco to be able to hold up an "official" marriage certificate after their one-minute wedding? I surmise that it's about validation: gay and lesbian marriage is about their relationship being recognized precisely as a marriage. But my question is this: why am I being forced to acknowledge gay relationship as marriage? That is, after all, what marriage is: a political (i.e. public, on behalf of the people) stamp of recognition. Hence, my conclusion: in many ways (albeit not for all those involved), gay marriage is about forcing the body-politic to recognize homosexual unions as legitimate.
Burgwald is right — and he is wrong, and all on the very same point. He is right that being married is about achieving a sort of validation for gay couple; he is wrong that there is nothing that a married heterosexual couple can "do" that an unmarried gay couple cannot do — and it is precisely this point of asserting social validation for their relationship. Finally, he is further wrong that he is being forced to acknowledge a gay relationship on a personal level.

It is worth noting that there is nothing in these questions about gay marriage which could not be asked about marriage generally. What is it that a married heterosexual couple can do that any couple living together can't do — especially if we imagine changing a few contract laws to allow for things like property sharing? What is so important about a marriage certificate that any couple, gay or straight, would want to hold it up? What do they hope to gain by having society acknowledge their relationship as a marriage?
http://atheism.about.com...

I will explain: Homosexual couples, are no different, than a heterosexaul couple.
There is no difference, in a same sex marriage, then there is in a tradintional marriage.
Because they both seek the same things. To be publicly recoginzied as being in a union with their partner.ETC..
Both groups are exactly the same aside from there sexuality. Society just gives one more trouble about it, because society views it as different. We also viewed African Americans, as different at one point in time as well.

My opponent also has a problem with contention 3. He asked for evidence proving that children raised by gay partners turned out healthy. While I can not provide, an accurate list. I will give what I can to prove, that there is no difference.

Notice below there is a link please read the article within it.

http://www.post-gazette.com...

Contention 4: My opponent forgot to add this>
Medical and scientific organizations do NOT list homosexuality as a mental disorder. It used to be listed as a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, but it was removed as a disorder in 1973. There are certain groups and religious organizations that refuse to accept this position.http://wiki.answers.com...

Above is the whole article my opponent used against me. Now my refutation. My opponent clearly states,it appears that in contrast to the results of the vote, the majority of the APA membership continued to view homosexuality as a pathology. Can this not be aquired to Religous groups and Origanizations, that the full article speaks of?

Also see this link: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...
This concludes my Refute efforts, the best of luck to my opponent.
KeytarHero

Con

I would like to thank Gensai, once again, for issuing this challenge.

It has become clear that Gensai really has no argument of his own, he just copies and pastes from different websites. As my debate is with Gensai and not the authors of these pages, I do not feel compelled to read them. They don't support his argument, he is using them to make his argument for him. On to his contentions.

Contention 1: People need to become open-minded about gay marriage.

The Instigator has offered no evidence for why I need to be open-minded about gay marriage. All he has done is show me states that have accepted gay marriage, or civil unions. I understand that these exists, but he has given me no reason for why they should exist. Conversely, I have shown that gay marriages are not federally recognized due to the Defense of Marriage Act. He has shown no reason for why they should be recognized. I have sufficiently cast doubt on this contention.

Contention 2: There is no difference between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage

Here, the Instigator is trying to make a Strawman argument. More than that, he's taking someone else's argument and arguing against it. This is completely ridiculous, as I am the one he is supposed to be debating with.

"Homosexual couples, are no different, than a heterosexaul [sic] couple."

They are different. First, there's the obvious difference: They are both of different genders. Second, homosexuals cannot naturally produce a child, which seems to indicate that for the sake of society, they should not be accepted and endorsed. Third, the sexual organs of heterosexuals fit together, whereas they don't for a homosexual. In fact, homosexuals are trying to gain more rights than heterosexuals, the right to marry whomever they want. If I were to fall in love my cousin, I could not marry her. There are laws against it, and a moral case could be made against it. However, homosexuals want to have more rights than everyone else by trying to legalize it.

"Because they both seek the same things. To be publicly recoginzied as being in a union with their partner."

This similarity is irrelevant when discussing whether homosexual marriage should be allowed. Simply seeking to be recognized does not make it right or wrong.

"We also viewed African Americans, as different at one point in time as well."

Gay rights is not the same as rights based on race. There is nothing moral or immoral about belonging to a particular race. However, sexuality and marriage are moral issues. Otherwise there would be no debate about this. Laws based on morality and nature can be made against homosexual marriage, incest, polygamy, etc.

The Instigator has not shown compelling reason for why there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Contention 3: Gays raising a child is no different that heterosexuals.

"He asked for evidence proving that children raised by gay partners turned out healthy. While I can not provide, an accurate list..."

The Instigator has admitted he has no evidence to back up this claim. In fact, the article provided even admits that more research is needed. On top of that, the article only mentions two kids raised by homosexual parents. Hardly enough to be conclusive.

The Instigator has failed to provide accurate information to back up his third contention.

Contention 4: The gay community is a stable community.

The Instigator also has not shown adequate proof that the gay community is a stable community, especially in light of the evidence I submitted. The question about religion is irrelevant, since this debate is about homosexuality.

Contention 5: The Bible and homosexuality.

The Instigator also has failed to show why the Bible's verses on homosexuality have been "misinterpreted." This is really because they haven't. The Bible is quite clear about God's view on homosexuality, and if he were to try and prove otherwise, I could easily show how the verses would have been taken out of context.

I thank Gensai for this debate, and I thank you, the reader, for your considerations. As you can see, Gensai has failed to satisfy the burden of proof, and I have cast reasonable doubt on his evidences. Also, Gensai has not argued his own position, he has simply copy and pasted information from various sites to make his case for him. I don't have to tell you how to vote.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
That's exactly what I meant, Medic. I read the article, I just didn't spend much time refuting it because it basically refuted itself.
Posted by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
I don't think he meant that he didn't read it. I think he meant that he didn't spend much time trying to refute or discredit it because it was basically ineffective.
Posted by Gensai 5 years ago
Gensai
Why put a link if no one is going to read it? Also the links were not my main argument if you go back and look I clearly posted from a link then added my own arguments.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Medic, thank you for your vote and comment. I chose not to spend much time on the article because since it was used to "support" Gensai's claims, it fell short in numerous ways (especially by the very claim that more research is needed). However, your points are certainly valid.
Posted by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
Pro's article about the two raised by gay parents actually hurts his position, imo. One of the two is gay, and says he had crushes on boys at age three. Three??...come on, he loses credibility right there. I've never met, or heard from a heterosexual that they had a crush at age three, yet so many gays have claimed that for years. I've had three significantly younger siblings, raised three kids, and many many foster kids, and have never seen any indication of that happening. What could explain that phenomenon?? The only thing I can think of is the fact that gays are attempting to give justification for the "born gay" theory.
Pro had an uphill battle from the start, as most of his contentions are unwinnable (subject to opinion).
Especially #1, because to show that we NEED to be open minded about it, he must prove that pro-gay has to be the default "right" position to take, in all aspects (legal, moral, religious, etc).
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
You just need to be more careful when writing your debate. You can use spell checker to check your spelling, and proofread to catch grammar mistakes.

By the way, I am trying to read your article but the link you provided wasn't specific on which article you wanted me to read. Which one is it?
Posted by Gensai 5 years ago
Gensai
Please forgive me. I messed up on a few parts of my debate. Grammer mistakes and word smashers.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
GensaiKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Gensai at times gives sparce arguments to support his position and then just links to a website and notes "read this", fairly dominating performance by Con 4:2
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
GensaiKeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was not able to substantiate any of his positions, and made many grammar and spelling mistakes. Con had better and less bias sources.