The Instigator
KB240o
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Subutai
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points

Gay Rights Is Wrong

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 5 votes the winner is...
Subutai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,855 times Debate No: 35398
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

KB240o

Con

I'd like to take this time to make my statement to propose that Gay Rights is not right, it's wrong. Marriage has always been between man & woman, that was Gods intention. Adam & Eve was his view in love (man & woman) not Adam & Steve (Not man & man). Also same sex marriage denies self-evident science like biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women. It also denies the human race of raising children that will have an impact on the future & who knows what that can cause 10-20 years from now.
Also, it violates natural law. Natural Law is universal & unmutable. It's a relationship rooted in human nature & thus must be governed by natural law. It applies to the entire human race.
It always denies a child a mother or father. It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex "marriage." A child of a same-sex "marriage" will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex "marriage" ignores a child"s best interests.
Also, it validates & promotes sexual lifestyle which is inhumane & morally wrong to society. In the name of the "family," same-sex "marriage" serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone"s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.
It turns a moral wrong into a civil right? No it does not, not in any way. Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.
It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society. By legalizing same-sex "marriage," the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new "morality," businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution. In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex "marriage." If homosexual "marriage" is universally accepted as the present step in sexual "freedom," what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain "avant garde" subcultures are already advocating such aberrations. The railroading of same-sex "marriage" on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press: "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."
And last but not least my favorite, It offends Gods will & purpose to life. This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it. Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: "God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."" (Gen. 1:28-29) The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: "From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife." (Mark 10:6-7). Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: "The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil." (Gen. 19:24-25)
Subutai

Pro

To begin with, my opponent has plagarized almost all of his argument from this website: http://www.tfp.org.... Also, before you claim I plagarized my argument from this debate: http://www.debate.org... please remember that I am Ron-Paul's second account.

I. It Is Not Marriage

On procreation, The United States Supreme Court has never indicated that procreation is an essential feature of marriage or that marriage is only between a man and a woman. What the Supreme Court has actually said in 14 cases is that the right to marriage is an aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association and identity.[1]

The fact of the matter is that the state has never inquired into a couple's procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license.[2] In fact, the Supreme Court has indicated that "[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse."[3] Lawrence, 539 US at 567. Likewise, the Supreme Court has also mentioned that, completely apart from procreation, choice and privacy are an integral part of the marital union. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381US at 485-486.[4]

On the well-being of a marriage: "Research shows that same-sex couples are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children. Thus, there is no scientific justification for denying marriage equality, when research indicates that marriage provides many important benefits."[5]

II. It Violates Natural Law

This argument is irrelevant to the debate. Even if homosexual acts were immoral, this doesn't provide a convincing argument as to why gay marriage should be prohibited.

III. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

I will concede this; yes it does. However, In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents. While research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, research shows these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships [6].

IV. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

Again, this argument is irrelevant to the debate. Why does it matter if the legalization of gay marriage pormotes the homosexual lifestyle? Even if homosexual acts were immoral, this doesn't provide a convincing argument as to why gay marriage should be prohibited.

V. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

My opponent claims that it opposes nature. On the contrary:

"In a review article published in 2009, biologists Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk at the University of California, Riverside, noted that many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, mollusks and nematodes.

Some animals, when given a choice, show a preference for the same sex, and researchers have even ascribed a same-sex sexual orientation to members of certain species."[7]

"Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species."[8]

Then on the comparison of interracial marriages to homosexual ones, Although the nature of these two examples may different, the very base of the argument is the following: Group X and Group Y should not be together for Reason A. This reason needs to be a morally relevant reason in order to be justified, but in the case of interracial marriage and gay marriage, the idea is incredibly similar. The reason for arguments against interracial couples is of a belief that blacks and whites should not be together, and the reason for arguments against gay marriage is of a belief that men and men should not be together. Both are morally irrelevant reasons for denying such marriages, and at that point, these marriages are at the very least similar in their nature. Therefore, analogies comparing them are fair.

VI. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

My opponent's arguments seem to be degrading. Not only is this irrelevant, it is a "so what?" argument. So what if homosexual must circumvent nature by costly and artifical means or employ surrogates? In fact, they can also adopt; a very moral decision. So what if these unions do not create families? In fact, many couples do.

VII. It Defeats the State's Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

Like I said earlier, the state's point of a marriage is not procreation; even so, allowing homosexuals to marry would not produce any decline in the birthrate because heterosexuals would still have the same amounts of kids. In addition, allowing more couples to get married would provide either more children via surrogate or in vitro or by adoption. And, couples are more stable for children than single parents. This obviously benefits the state by producing more jobs and a stronger economy.

VIII.-X. It "Destroys" Morality

My opponent's final three arguments are just rants on how the legalization of same-sex marriage would degrade morality for society.

Who cares if it "imposes" homosexuality's acceptance on society? This will actually help society as people become more tolerant of them.

Who cares if homosexuality's acceptance is the cutting edge of the sexual revolution? This is again a step forward as we break the chains of "accepted" morality. And, how does the legalization of gay marriage lead to the legalization of rape and pedophilia? This is a slippery slope fallacy. These are true crimes, unlike homosexuality.

And finally, who cares if it offends God? Jamie Raskin basically summed it up with this quote "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the bible." Just because something is in the Bible does not mean it should be illegal. If that were the case, tattoos would be prohibited (Leviticus 19:28), pork would be prohibited (Leviticus 11:7-8), and work on the Seventh Day (Christian Sunday, Jewish Saturday) would be prohibited (Exodus 20:8-10). See how silly all this sounds? Even so, "The Bible never mentions or condemns the concept we call same-sex marriage. Although opponents of same-sex marriage claim that lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender unions violate biblical principles, no verses in the Bible explicitly address gay marriage or committed same-sex relationships."[9]

XI. So Why Should Gay Rights be Recognized?

Gay rights are human rights. Marriage is a voluntary social contract between two people that the state has intervened in. Marriage isn't a state contract. Even if you believe in the idea that any contracts involving the state should be beneficial to it (i.e. benefits to gay marriages), remember that the sole reason for martial benefits is for the raising of children (and not solely be procreation), and gays have been shown in hundreds of reliable studies to do this effectively and efficiently. The state can't be selective with who it gives rights.

Sources

[1]: http://tinyurl.com... (Time 41:54 - 43:30)
[2]: http://www.afer.org..., p. 67
[3]: ibid, p. 111
[4]: ibid, p. 111-2
[5]: http://www.apa.org...
[6]: http://www.livescience.com...
[7]: http://www.popsci.com...
[8]: http://www.news-medical.net...
[9]: http://www.debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
If you believe gay rights is wrong, don't you have to be Pro instead of Con? If you're Con, you're saying that gay rights are not wrong.
Posted by Piccini 3 years ago
Piccini
Just to clear up, by taking the Pro side, I shall defend that Gay rights are not wrong?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 4567TME 3 years ago
4567TME
KB240oSubutaiTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Con plagiarized. I think some administrative action should be taken, and it would explain why he only set up one round.
2. Pro used sources.
3. Pro had well structured arguments. Con was just jumbled up with no paragraph breaks.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
KB240oSubutaiTied
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: Pro had arguments based on the actual law of the land rather than a preference or an assertion that s/he knows the mind of a god. S/he had sources, did not use demeaning arguments, and appears to know how to use a comma. All points to Pro on those grounds.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
KB240oSubutaiTied
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 easily deconstructed CON's arguments, so he gets that, and he gets sources too because he actually supported his positions with proper sources. PRO gets spelling and grammar too due to errors by CON.
Vote Placed by THElittleRISK 3 years ago
THElittleRISK
KB240oSubutaiTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for pro because Con did practically plagarize the article Pro linked. Sources to Pro because he used them to back up all of his arguments. Arguments to pro because his were more structured and organized, and refuted all of Con's effectively.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
KB240oSubutaiTied
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: Everything that Con said was easily refuted by Pro's argumentation, which was backed up by a large amount of sources. The assumptions of Con's argument were demolished efficiently. At the end of the debate, there were no good reasons to think that marriage is about procreation, that homosexuality is unnatural, or that religious reasons are applicable to the issue.