The Instigator
anusprovoker
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
Lordknukle
Con (against)
Winning
36 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 13 votes the winner is...
Lordknukle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,657 times Debate No: 18759
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (13)

 

anusprovoker

Pro

I see you are against homosexual marriage. Why? A gay person has the same feelings as you. He loves his parents the same way you do. He puts on his pants one leg at a time. He can cook. He can hold down a job. In a society where we are trying to integrate gays into society more, why shouldn't they have the same rights us everyone else? Why do you have more of a right to marry the woman of your dreams, than I do to marry the man of my dreams? It's completely unreasonable that they should not be allowed to get married. Good luck to the both of us, young one.
Lordknukle

Con

I accept the debate under these rules:

Round 1: Introuction
Round 2: Body/Main Case
Round 3: Rebuttal/Conclusion

I wish the best of luck to both of us.

BOP will be provided by both of us in Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
anusprovoker

Pro

Homophobes Turn Into Homosexuals
Numerous studies show that most homosexuals started out as homophobes. They are over compensating for their gay feelings, by pretending to be against gays altogether.

Everyone in this world should have the right to love whoever they want
Many people might argue that being attracted to someone of the same sex is not natural, but what is natural? I'm sure you play some sports, those aren't natural. Loving is not natural, you are not born with an attraction to someone of the opposite sex. This is al affected by who raised you, where you were raised, and certain events that took place in your life. Who you love has nothing to do with nature, it has to do with you. Whether I love a man or a woman, I have every right to love them. So what if I like men? Some men like men, get over it.

We can't help who we have feelings for, they come unexpectedly. Gays have all the rights we do for loving someone. If I love a man, I have all the rights to live with him, and start a family. Why are heterosexuals more important in society than homosexuals?

Homosexuals are capable of doing everything that heterosexuals can, and maybe even better. After reading your debates, I realize you might be a 'Big Bang Theory' fan, or maybe a fan of the TV show 'How I Met You Mother'. Well, both of the main characters of these shows, Jim Parsons and Neil Patrick Harris, are gay. You probably knew this before I told you, does this stop you from watching these shows? No. Does this stop them from acting? No.

Why should they be prohibited from doing common things such as getting marriage? How does this affect you that gay people can live a happy life together? You don't need to be involved in their life, but they still deserve all the rights that you do.

Is Homosexuality Natural?
Homosexuality may not be natural, but neither is heterosexuality, and especially homophobia. It is a fact that homosexuality is present in many species of animals, but homophobia is only found in humans. What does that say to you? To me, it says that homosexuality is a choice, a lifestyle, and a right. If there are gay animals, but no homophobic animals, which one of these is more natural? Obviously homosexuality.

Petter Boeckman is a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo. He states that no species have been found where homosexuality does NOT exist, with the exception of a few species that do not have sex at all. This is enough proof of how natural this feeling is. Here is his statement: http://www.takeonit.com...

Conclusion
These are all the reasons I believe that homosexuality should not be frowned upon, and instead should be welcomed in our community. Gays have all the rights that straight people have to get married. They are no different than anyone else, and it does not affect anyone else’s lie, just theirs.
Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his agruments.


Before I continue, I would like to point out that most of my opponents arguments are based on assumptions. The one "study" (which is actually a opinion page) is that of an unknown zoologist.

My two contentions will be:

C1: Marriage is the union between a man and a woman

C2: Homosexuality is not natural

C1: Marriage is the union between a man and a woman

As defined by google (1) marriage is:

"The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."

According to United States Federal Law, marriage is also classified as the legal union between a man and wife. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) enacted in 1996 states that marriage is defined as a legal union between one man and one woman.(2)"

"Under the law, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state." (2)

California Proposition 8 states that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."(3)

C2: Homosexuality is not natural

Here I will attempt to demonstrate that homosexuality is not natural and hedrosexuality is safer for society.

Violence between homosexual couples is two to three times more common than in hederosexual couples.(4)

I would like to continue quoting the American College of Pediatricians:(4)

"Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years"

"Homosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed committed relationships"

"Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans."

Homosexuality is prohibited according to the Bible (5):

  • Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
  • Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
  • Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
  • I Corinthians 6:9 - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Conclusion

Unfortunately my opponent has put a 4 000 character limit so I am running out of room. I believe that most of my opponent’s arguments were based on personal opinions, with a lack of facts. I have affirmed that homosexuality is not natural and that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

I urge you to vote CON

Good luck to PRO

(1)http://goo.gl...

(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...

(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...

(4)http://www.acpeds.org...

(5) http://www.biblegateway.com...

Debate Round No. 2
anusprovoker

Pro

Thank you for your argument. Although a lot of it was my opinion, the study by the Norwegian zoologist was all fact. Not his opinion.

Your main two contentions are that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is not natural, heterosexuality is.

I will be giving a rebuttal to both of your contentions.

R1: Marriage is not necessarily the union between a man and a woman

R2: Homosexuality is indeed natural

NOTE: You said ‘hedrosexual’ numerous times instead of heterosexual. Just pointing it out J.

R1: Marriage is not necessarily the union between a man and a woman

Marriage is, in fact, NOT only the union between a man and a woman. According to dictionary.com (1), the term ‘marriage’ includes same-sex marriage, and does not specify that it is the union between a man and a woman:


1.a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. separation.

b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. separation.

2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.

3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.

5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song

For translation 1, both a and b have the same antonyms. How can words with different meanings have the same antonyms? They can’t. Therefore same-sex marriage is the same as any other marriage. OR at least this is what dictionary.com says.

Although number one DOES state that it is between a man and a woman, it shortly after says that a very similar institution can happen between two people of the same sex.

You also mention in this contention (haha, that rhymed) some legal issues with same-sex marriage. However, there are numerous countries where it is legal all over the country (2). These countries are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Holland, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. You live in Canada, so clearly the society where you were brought up in was pro gay marriage, seeing as it has been legalized for the past 6 years. (3)

You also mention that it is not recognized as a marriage in any states in the United States. This is outdated. Today, same-sex marriage is considered as ‘normal’ marriage, and is legal in the following states (1):

  • Connecticut
  • Washington DC
  • Iowa
  • Massachusetts
  • New Hampshire
  • New York
  • Vermont

It is also legal in Mexico and Mexico City.

Most of these states made same-sex marriage legal very recently (within 5 years), this means it is on an incline. As time goes on, more states, and probably more countries, will legalize gay marriage. People are realizing gay rights, and this is a great thing.

R2: Homosexuality is indeed natural

You mention that homosexuality is not natural, but if it is not natural, why is it found in animals? (4) This point was brought up in the comments, and is by all means right. If it is found in animals, than how is it unnatural? Attraction to someone or something is a natural force.

It is a fact that humans contain something called “pheromones” that naturally attract you to someone. (5)

“Human pheromones are naturally occurring substances that trigger specific “mating” responses.”

This is a quote from naturalattraction.com. This is proved by scientists, and shows that the force of love, or whom we are attracted to, is a large part natural.

Also, you use cars everyday. Those aren’t natural. If you are convinced that homosexuality is unnatural, what’s wrong with something unnatural?

Unfortunately, I am running out of room. I will finish this argument and post my sources in the comments. Thank you and remember to vote PRO. Good luck to CON!

Lordknukle

Con

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal

If you read the website where the zoologist posted his statement carefully, you would have saw that it is an opinion website. Therefore, any facts derived from it are moot and inconclusive.


I will not respond or acknowledge the part of his argument that was in the comments section.

R1: Marriage is union between a man and a woman

"For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementary of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage."(1)

A marriage has to be between a man and a woman:

1. As the Holy God said:
"As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it."
Genesis 9:7

Two of the same sexes cannot multiply and be fruitful. According to the Almighty God, the purpose of a relationship is to be fruitful. Therefore, only a man and a woman should get married because only they can be fruitful.

2.God brought into this world Adam and Eve. Not Eve and Eve or Adam and Adam. This shows that it is natural to love the opposite sex, not the same sex.


My opponent has mentioned that 10 countries have legalized gay marriage. This is true, but he is completely missing the other side of the issue. There are 204 countries in the world.(2) Therefore, only 10/204 countries have legalized gay marriage. Less than 5% of the countries in the world have legal gay marriage. As a whole, a society is usually correct. If society states that gay marriage ought to be not legal, then it shall be.

R2: Homosexuality is not natural

My opponent has posted about how some animals practice homosexuality. He is therefore jumping to conclusions that since:
Animals practice it=Natural

1. By that theory, since animals kill each other in the wild for food and eat the flesh with their bare hands, we should also (because we are animals).
2. Charles Darwin, the founder of the modern evolution theory states that:

“Homosexuality is a negative corruption of humanity with no evolutionarily useful attributes. As the 'homosexuality gene' is passed from parent to child, and homosexuals do not breed, my theory predicts that the Homo sexualus species will soon become extinct”
~ Charles Darwin

An interesting study that I found about pheromones:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

It states that response of homosexuals to synthetic chemicals is closer to a heterosexual person of the opposite sex.

"The finding builds on previous research that suggest that gay men responded in a way more similar to heterosexual women than heterosexual men when exposed to a synthetic chemical."(3)

Therefore, homosexuals actually have brain chemistry which is more similar to the opposite sex. As a result, homosexuality is not natural.

Unfortunately I am running out of room so I will post one last quote from an scientific study titled: Born or Bred? Science does not support the claim that homosexuality is a choice.(4)

"In May of 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."(4)

People are not born homosexuals, instead it is a choice. There is a multitude of scientific data to back up the claim that homosexuality is not genetic.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have shown that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is also not natural. Most of my opponent's arguments were based on opinions, not facts.

VOTE CON



(1)http://www.americancatholic.org...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...

(3)http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
(4)http://www.cwfa.org...


Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
@anusprovoker:

The reason why I did not reply to your argument in the comments sections is because you set yourself a 4 000 character limit. I didn't go over the limit, therefore it isn't fair if you do. Get your arguments into the debate and I will reply to them.
The comments section is for comments, not extensions of the debate.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Just because something is old, doesn't mean that it is outdated.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
I also respect your beliefs, but why back up your beliefs with out-dated bible
Posted by anusprovoker 5 years ago
anusprovoker
In your last argument you said you won't respond to anything in the comments section. Is this because you are unable to come up with a rebuttal? Thus inferring that you agree with me, therefore I am correct. Thank you.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Kohai:

Just because I don't agree with your views doesn't prove anything. I value other opinions. I respect that you disagree with me on pretty much all the issues.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Con is a fascist
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Whether or not homosexuality is natural is utterly irrelevant. A desire for multiple partners is perfectly natural, but that doesn't mean we ought to legally recognize polygamy. It came down to what marriage was. Bc of the 4000 char limit neither were able to fully explain their position or the states interest in it, but Con brought up legal definitions and a historical precedent where as Pro brought up definitions from dictionary.com. Clearly cons definitions are superior, which makes gay marriage self contradicting. Con focused quite a bit on religion which he shouldn't have done (and is interesting because unless I'm mistaken lordknuckle usedd to have a version of the problem of evil as his profile pic) but he managed to justify his definition that way, and it was not refuted by pro.
Posted by anusprovoker 5 years ago
anusprovoker
As promised, here is the remaining part of my argument. Do not fret, it is brief.

As for the Bible, it may state that you shall not sleep with another man, but that has nothing to do with how natural or unnatural it is. Also, many things are forbidden in the Bible, which I am sure you do daily. The Ten Commandments include:
"You shall not steal"
"You shall not lie"
And "You shall not envy your neighbor"
I'm sure you have been jealous of your friend who got that nice computer. Or that businessman driving the Lamborghini. Also, I am positive you have stolen or lied more than once I your life. There are also 613 more commandments in the Bible, of which I'm sure you have broken more than half of. Why is the same-sex marriage law any more important than the ones you have broken? It is not. Although there are many things prohibited by the Bible, those are truly just guidelines. A ‘sin' in the Bible does not mean you will be killed if you do it, it means it is frowned upon.

Conclusion
As you can see, homosexuality is natural and gays deserve all the rights non-gays have. Being gay is more natural than being homophobic, as I said earlier. I would like to end with this picture, it is obviously not a real study, but it gets the point across. https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...
Once again, thank you, and vote PRO!
Posted by googlemabob 5 years ago
googlemabob
If homosexuality isn't natural, why are there homosexual animals?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
anusprovokerLordknukleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering XiaoFei98's votebomb
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
anusprovokerLordknukleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have to agree with Con. The debate was very engaged and interesting but in the end it seemed that Con did better than pro.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
anusprovokerLordknukleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: wasn't a good debate
Vote Placed by Rednerrus 5 years ago
Rednerrus
anusprovokerLordknukleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con by a landslide.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
anusprovokerLordknukleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a really fascinating debate because despite the limit both sides brought up just about every argument for/against gay marriage. I gave argument to Pro because marriage is between a man and a woman according to state laws, and nothing else. The Bible argument though i think was a poor argument so i gave argumetns to Pro. Still a very great debate, bravo to both sides
Vote Placed by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
anusprovokerLordknukleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con. Con is more convincing as well.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
anusprovokerLordknukleTied
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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a rights-based argument. Why shouldn't gay's have equal rights? Good. Con said marriage is defined as between man and woman. Pro countered with another definition. Draw. Con said gay marriage is unnatural. Pro pointed out that the debate isn't about what's natural. Draw. Con said god forbids. Good only because unrefuted. So we're down to whether equal rights is better than taking orders from an invisible eccentric. I call that one for Pro.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
anusprovokerLordknukleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has BoP to prove his assertions, which he did not do.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
anusprovokerLordknukleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter bomb
Vote Placed by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
anusprovokerLordknukleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Hederosexual Con killed pro