The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Winning
96 Points
The Contender
haxandrew
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points

Gay Marrige

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 21 votes the winner is...
Rockylightning
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,676 times Debate No: 10717
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (21)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

Our current religious systems and majority religions tend to be very much against same sex relationships. These as a general rule teach against it and call it many things, unnatural, sin, and sometimes try to break people of the habit so to speak. While all of this is accepted belief it is not necessarily correct.

Marriage is a social institution that brings many privileges, not least of which is the financial aspect. The governments of most countries offer tax breaks to married couples, as well as recognition of dependents in welfare systems. Marriage also ensures next-of-kin rights if one partner is incapacitated or dies, property rights and affects some parenting rights.

Marriage also has important social aspects. Marriage is traditionally a public recognition of a couple's commitment to each other, and their acceptance as a family unit into society. Preventing gay couples from marrying is seen as a way of separating gay people from mainstream society – the exchanging of pride rings would ensure a gay couple's place in society. The issue does not just affect homosexuals. Transgender people can be prevented from marrying the person of their choice, if that person is the same sex as the trans gender person's birth sex.
haxandrew

Con

First of all, my opponent has not stated any sources. Second of all, who thinks that gay marriage is right?? IT is a SIN to be gay in many religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism. This quote is from vendidad, the ancient texts of Zoroastrianism..
"The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva [demon]; this man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas."

These religions think that is is in fact, a sin, like the way People are not supposed to be gay. The way of life is not to be gay- it is to be straight- man with woman, not man with man. Nothing is produced between them. You can't make babies, so technically you are no longer performing the act for the right reasons. So, infertile couples and post-menopausal women should lose their rights and responsibilities too--they aren't procreating, so their marriages are useless.
And even with gay marriage- Only a few states allow it. Until 2004, same-sex couples couldn't wed anywhere in the country. Now, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and most recently New Hampshire. It was illegal UNTIL 2004. Less than 6 years ago. So, before, the people must have thought it was wrong to have gay marriage, until now. (source is stateline.org) Gay marriage threatens the marital institution: Oh yeah it does. So does the high divorce rate among the legally-allowed-to-marry heterosexuals. By allowing gays to marry, it takes away from the number of people who marry with little attraction to the other person. Even some people who divorced from marriages turned to being queer.

If we allow gay marriage, then homosexuality will be taught in schools. Yes, the schools. Since it will be allowed it will have to be taught in schools. do we want our children to know about gays? they themselves may become gay, and do we want that? (Kansan.com)

for these reasons, opp has won this deb
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

First I would like to refute my opponents points:
My opponent has stated that "IT is a SIN to be gay in many religions" this proves that my opponent is religious, which clearly makes his point of view bias.
Also he used bias sources such as "wikipedia (which can be edited by anyone)" and stateline.org
which are his ONLY sources. And really, in a debate on morals, do you need sources?

Con repeatedly states that it's a SIN to be gay and a SIN to be married gay, but yet the memiriam webster dictionary defines "marriage" as "the unification of two individuals, civil, or religious" so this is another reason why I've won this debate.
Also con states that "If we allow gay marriage, then homosexuality will be taught in schools." this is a completely irrational and irrelevant point because this is an assumption, and this is a very bias assumption, also off the fact that people are gay at birth, but only realize it during puberty. So this is a completely bad point

Also, America is the LAND OF THE FREE, and the HOME OF THE BRAVE, is everyone "free" if they can't marry as they choose? NO! Are we brave, if we are so intolerant as to call gays SINNERS and "demons" then how are we brave?

Dignity & respect: "The institution of marriage conveys dignity and respect towards a couple that make a lifetime commitment to support each other. "Same-sex couples deserve this dignity and respect."
Equal rights: Denying marriage to same-sex couples removes from one group a fundamental, important human right -- the right to marry the person that one loves and to whom one has made a commitment. That is unfair and unjust in a democracy.
Financial & security: Denying one group the right to marry has many adverse emotional and financial consequences. Examples are Social Security, Medicare, medical leave, and other benefits; property inheritance; the right to visit their spouse in hospital, and make medical decisions if they are incapacitated; security of the couple and of their childr
haxandrew

Con

I will first like to refute my opponents points-

He has stated that "it is a sin to be gay in many religions" as a bias point. First of all, I am in fact religious. So is everyone else. You are religious, Obama is religious, and everyone is religious. And I am not speaking in my point of view- The current religions I have stated in my first argument do in fact ban gay marriages, so how is this a bias point?

Your point of stating the definition of marriage is completely irrelevant. I have stated that it is a sin to BE gay, and the definition is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" and clearly your definition does not help you win your debate.
Also pro has stated that my point of gay marriage being taught in schools is completely irrational and irrelevant. IF so, then why do we teach our kids about sex? If proposition 8 failed, than the PROP 8 clearly states that Gay marriages shall be taught in public schools.

And how are people "born gay?" It is completely irrelevant to this debate. Please explain how a child can be born gay! And yes, your point is "a completely bad point"
Pro has also stated that America is Land of the free and home of the brave, so it is, but then wouldn't gay marriage be allowed anywhere? Please do tell me why it's not legalized completely in the US if we are indeed "the home of the free". And what does being brave have to do to call gays sinners and demons? It makes no sense therefore is irrelevant to this debate!

Who stated that quote about how gay marriage should be allowed?
Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? Or his doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

My opponent stated that he is religious, which COMPLETELY makes his sin point bias! I do not see how this can not be bias. He has also stated that "religions I have stated in my first argument do in fact ban gay marriages, so how is this a bias point?" I believe my opponent does not know the definition of bias, bias (defined by dictionary.com) is "a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice." and I believe that someone who has called himself religious, quotes religions, should be considered bias.

-Also he said that my definition of marriage is irrelevant, but since this debate is about marriage I do not see how this is irrelevant. Also my opponent stated his own definition of "marriage" but he is the contentder AND con so he has NO POWER whatsoever TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

Also my opponent brought up Proposition 8, which is very irrelevant because this debate is over gay marriage in general, not 8 AT ALL!

Finally- My opponent brought up the point about gay sex being taught in schools, this is a completely outlandish and insane notion as this will never happen, only gay marriage will be taught in schools, not gay sex, Con's point on that is completely insane and should be disregarded.

Now what this debate is really about is America, is america FREE if we don't allow gay marriage, NO! Is america brave, if we cannot tolerate people who were born different? NO!

Also, it has been proven by countless scientific studies that people are BORN gay,but they only notice it during puberty, because this is the time when this kinda stuff happens.

Imagine this, IMAGINE YOU WERE BORN GAY, but you don't notice it until puberty, and you are called a sinner for something you can't control, excluded from society by people like my opponent, who just can't tolerate difference in a society. I ask my opponent this: you tolerate people of different races, but not of different sexualities? VOT
haxandrew

Con

How exactly does me being religious have to make that point bias? How does it? And now my opponent is telling me the definition of bias. First of all, let's har my point again, that my point of "religions I have stated in my first argument do in fact ban gay marriages, so how is this a bias point?" You have stated that it is a bias point, why did you think i asked "so how is this a bias point?" You should be learning yourself what the definition is! You are also deny the ways of the religions, sting that everything is a lie, well that is just crazy, whether you thinks it is personally or totally.

Also, all i stated was the definition of marriage, i did not say yours was false, nor did i change the overall definition, all i said was the definition.

Proposition 8 is what decides whether gay marriage shall be allowed in a state, so please tell me how it is irrelevant?
Without prop 8, how would we decide whether it will be legalized?

And yes, excuse me for stating that gay sex will be taught, but yes gay marriage will be taught in schools, which is just as bad.

You have no proof that people are born gay, nor the source of that statement, making it out of this debate.
Thus making his last point of this debate leaving my points standing tall. Now to my points-

And according to balancedpolitics.com, gay lifestyle should not be encourage because of numerous researches that concluded that it leads to a lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. According to godandscience.com, homosexuals had an average life expectancy of less than 50 years - more than 20 years less than the overall male population. The main reson why they live shorter is because of the disease HIV. So not only is gay marriages not producing anything, it also shortens the lives of the couples. So I ask you this- is it alright that people live shorter just because they are gay? And let's not forget about smoking, drinking etc, which shortens their lifespans even more
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mark40511 6 years ago
Mark40511
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Catholic church say it is not a sin to be homosexual, but it is a sin to "act" on it. So if you're a homosexual, but not acting on it, you're not sinning. Which leads me to my next question. If the Catholic church believes that being homosexual is not a sin, wouldn't that deduce that they believe you're born homosexual, but that alone is ok, yet acting on it is sinful. Does that mean the Catholic church thinks God made a mistake?

Gay people are only acting on their instincts just as heterosexual people act on their instincts. This "choosing" to be gay and being possessed by demons just blows me away. The Bible can be a very dangerous book if not read with much reason.
Posted by KafkianRoach 6 years ago
KafkianRoach
Also for the Rekers 1992 study on gender incongruence, which is something completely different from Sexual orientation, as it is Gender Identity. So what maybe true for Gender Identity may not be true for Homosexuality, as Transsexuals can be of any orientation. But the point I was wanting to make was that the study doesn't "Show how easily it is" for such things to occur. Instead it shows that such things need to be examined further in a separate study.

(This point brought to you by Me word searching "Childhood" in search of alleged trauma.)
Posted by KafkianRoach 6 years ago
KafkianRoach
Actually could you post references for Levay's study for now, I'm just reading through the extracts. However the book seems to have it's own biases, and I count no less than two-threee double standards so far, and ignorance on how diseases spread. And chapter two opens with a Thought-terminating cliché, as well as a earlier paragraph tried lumping Homosexuals as a manpulative group that demanded "additional" (as opposed to the same) rights. Parts aren't as scientific as they should, and others are more similar to propaganda. (With the "Them or Us" strategy.)
-There is also the problems with lack of peer reviews, and the price of it, .. well, Scientific journals are available without needing to pay, whether online or borrowing from a university, and as I said "Anyone" can write a book.

For your example in the below comment, But how do you establish life events affect Neuroplasticity? That's something you'd have to examine by you can make a criticism (I'm at a loss to see what could be bad about having a control group from San Fransico, it seems like relativity large city, to draw a relible sample, if it is just one place; Beauty of Science is we should be able to replicate results if done right.)

Yeah, I googled Twin Studies, and it still seems to support my point. However an odd thing is that don't most "Hetrosexuals" say that they've been that way for as "Long as they can remember"? Truely interesting if you hypothesis that child abuse determines sexuality, this must be one broken nation...

Also you're using the Argument from ignorance, or negative evidence, that since people can remember being abused they MUST HAVE been abused, may not have been the case, as for bringing to surface those "memories" from that age into a later age, is how the "Satanic Panic" started, where therapists were manipulating the children into thinking they were being abused by Satanists. So memories aren't as relible as they appear, like Confabulation.
Posted by Luistpuig 6 years ago
Luistpuig
Levay studies have been taken apart (details in my book) due to not being very scientific (he "assumes" a lot during his process, and anyone intelligent knows what happens when you assume...) plus his work is but more like biases towards the acceptance of the dysfunction known as homosexuality, and not in search of the Truth.

Example: We know the brain is a changing organ, it re-arranges itself according to life experiences, so anatomical differences could have occur DUE to the homosexual life style and not by birth, Levay failed in establishing a control group correctly, by following the individuals FROM birth to adulthood. In addition, the "straight" brains he used to compare to the "homosexual" brains came form individuals who had questionable "straight life styles" there in San Francisco, again failure to properly establish a control group.

As for the Twin Studies, you can do a simple Google search or read my book to get the details.

Mistreatments were done along the way during upbringing to homosexuals by their caretakers, something (various kinds of mistreatment) from about less than a year old to up to early childhood that their mind have chosen to forget and/or bury deep inside of them. And since the abuse is done so early in their lives most do not remember being anything else, hence the homosexuals always saying that they have being homosexuals "as long as I can remember…"

Simple facts, how many people remember in detail what a typical day was for them at one and a half year old, or what life was like for them for example at two or three years old? Not most people! In addition to this, in the book I explain what I found regarding studies on how memories are retained, especially early childhood memories, which is linked to how a child is being treated. The studies found that children with good upbringing are more likely to have more memories of their childhood than children that were mistreated and/or abused.

All the facts are in my book.
Posted by KafkianRoach 6 years ago
KafkianRoach
I have to ask, why isn't Homosexuality okay?

Also not all twins share 100% of their genes, identical twins may but non-identical twins can share up to 50%, but not all genes are expressed equally, only 2-5% are coded as extron DNA and expressed accordingly if Homosexuality genetic (From studies I've seen suggest this) then the other twin doesn't always need to be homosexual. However could you link to the studies in Sweden and Finland?

You seem to misunderstand the notion of in utero cases of homosexuality, in that there isn't just one cause that is solely to blame for causing homosexuality. However one Levay (1991) study noticed that the a region of the brain ;the anterior hypothalamus; was shown to be dimorphic and indicated to play a role in orientation. One cause of this region being developed in such a way was due to the amount of older brothers; this also know as the fraternal birth-order effect; where the likely hood of the young er sibling being born gay was due to the Mother's immune system not recognising the Y-Chromosome, and using antigens which "Feminise" the Foetus. The study that looks at that was Blanchard R. (2001)
Homosexuality could also be seen as an advantage produced by evolution to slow down the rate of growth of the population, but having them compete in non-productive manner. (I've forgotten which study suggested this.)

Also you haven't quoted sources on how "Mistreatment/child abuse" leads to homosexuality. (Although there are studies that shows it leads to Bipolar disorder somewhere...) which for such a claim needs some compelling evidence, it seems more like an assumption.

Also anyone can produce a book, but if you've submitted a peer-reviewed paper into a Science or medical Journal, I'd happily read that.
Posted by Luistpuig 6 years ago
Luistpuig
Homosexuality is just one of the many dysfunctions humans can have, but still not "ok."

It is not genetic as proven by the large "Twin" studies in Sweden and Finland which show that Homosexuality is not due to genetics, since in the cases where one twin is gay only about 10% of the time the other twin is gay too, which shows it NOT genetic since twins SHARE 100% of the genes, and therefore they BOTH would have to be gay 100% of the time, but that is not the case!

Also, another wrong theory is that homosexuality is the result of something that happens in the womb, a chemical incident that perhaps happens in the womb, but if that is the case then what is the explination in the twins cases, as explained before where one is gay and the other one is not?

Mistreatments were done along the way during upbringing to homosexuals by their caretakers, something (various kinds of mistreatment) from about less than a year old to up to early childhood that their mind have chosen to forget and/or bury deep inside of them. And since the abuse is done so early in their lives most do not remember being anything else, hence the homosexuals always saying that they have being homosexuals "as long as I can remember…"

Simple facts, how many people remember in detail what a typical day was for them at one and a half year old, or what life was like for them for example at two or three years old? Not most people! Memories are retained, especially early childhood memories, depending on how a child is being treated. The studies found that children with good upbringing are more likely to have more memories of their childhood than children that were mistreated and/or abused. But overall, most people do not remember early childhood well, a critical time in their lives when the foundations of who they will be as adults are being laid.

Complete analysis can be found in my book "What Nature Intended, Six Factors Demonstrating Homosexuality to be a Dysfunction" Whatnatureintended.com
Posted by KafkianRoach 6 years ago
KafkianRoach
It seems I made a mistake too, I didn't mean "Neurologial Determination" but "biological Determination", Neurology has little to do with this. But what I mean, is that as the embryo is developing the pre-natal conditions of what happens in the womb play a role in how it developes, one trait of which is dependant is Sexuality, .. but the pre-natal hormones affect how the brain developes, -this is where the Neurology part comes in- such as the Hypothalamus which determines Gender Identity and sexuality.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Posted by pradhan 6 years ago
pradhan
Thanks for correcting ..I accept the fallacy but that was not my conclusion ..
I'd want some more clarity on what you said about "neurological determination, through development in the womb" ...
what does that mean?
Posted by KafkianRoach 6 years ago
KafkianRoach
I can't really see how a small amount of the population being gay is suddenly going to end in extinction. That seems to be a slippery slope argument to me, knowing that even though Homosexuals do exist, I don't think I need to remind you that Heterosexuals also do, it's not as though ones existence rules out the other.

And human nature if a vague and deceitful term, that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, Humans are more complex than what politicised terms could describe. However in cases of homosexuality, it can't be described as an instinct, but more as a neurological determination, through development in the womb.

Also your conlusion is a prime example of a Non sequitur fallacy, in fact, your premise seems to suggest the opposite, in that Human nature left up to nature is just us wanting to breed with other's flesh. .. it's times like these where I wish I was a lesbian.
Posted by pradhan 6 years ago
pradhan
Being Gay can affect community greatly for instance reproduction - How will that happen?
Secondly, It's nature of human being that it has adoped to have a relationship sexually with the opposite sex and you might counter by saying it can be an instinct for gay person. Well even animals know that they need to reproduce with the help of the opposite sex.
If an individual is still going against this that means its just the desire of flesh/lust ...and it's upto an individual solely but Why did you make that choice the question?
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mark40511 6 years ago
Mark40511
RockylightninghaxandrewTied
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 Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightninghaxandrewTied
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 arenax3 6 years ago
arenax3
RockylightninghaxandrewTied
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 Lovebotlass17 6 years ago
Lovebotlass17
RockylightninghaxandrewTied
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 kingofslash5 6 years ago
kingofslash5
RockylightninghaxandrewTied
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 Grape 6 years ago
Grape
RockylightninghaxandrewTied
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 
Vote Placed by RedDominique 6 years ago
RedDominique
RockylightninghaxandrewTied
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:14 
Vote Placed by spinnerclotho 6 years ago
spinnerclotho
RockylightninghaxandrewTied
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 Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
RockylightninghaxandrewTied
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 dweyand07 6 years ago
dweyand07
RockylightninghaxandrewTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60