The Instigator
MENGXINPEI
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Beginner
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Gay marriage is unnatural

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Beginner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,437 times Debate No: 29893
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

MENGXINPEI

Con

Some people said that gay marriage was unnatural. They said that marriage was natural only between a man and a woman, because of the reproduction. A man should get married with a woman and they have a baby.That is a natural relationship.

THAT's NOT TRUE.
As we all known, a woman could not have a baby later than about 51 years old, because of the amenorrhea. They still can get married with a man if they want.
Why is a homosexual couple not allowed to get married? It is not unnatural.
Beginner

Pro

I'm ready to hear your argument on how marriage is natural. I will establish my case too. :)
While you are here touting gay marriage as unnatural, I will contend that not only is gay marriage unnatural, marriage and subsequent ceremonies of any kind are also unnatural.
What is natural?
Here are some definitions from merriam webster:
natural - occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature [1]
natural - growing without human care; also : not cultivated [1]
nature - humankind's original or natural condition [2]
Google definition:
Adjective
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. [3]
As according to these definitions, marriage itself, gay or not, is unnatural. Marriage, in contradiction to natural, is of human contrivance. This alone debases it from the state of natural. To call it natural would be to shirk the definitional clauses which constitute the word itself. It would be like calling a fat man a skinny man and vice verse. It simply isn't true (I don't think I have to source the definition of fat/skinny).
" A man should get married with a woman and they have a baby."
While reproduction itself is a natural thing.. all organisms intuitively go through some form of this, marriage is not. Of all the millions of species of living organisms in the world, the human being is the only one that practices marriage. Marriage is derived from religious union endowed by some religious lead (a monk/father, a priest, sources of divinity in the case of asian nations, etc. etc.) Once again, all this goes against the classification of marriage under natural.
So what if people say it is natural. People say lots of things. I could google thousands of absurd claims and select a few of the silliest ones and show them here as an example, but I will leave that to you. If you are not Christian, I can tell you assuredly that there are people who claim christianity is true and real. THere is no real evidence to this claim. If you are not muslim, I can tell you that people swear to Allah's authentic existence. Proof? If you weren't Ancient Chinese, I would tell you people believed in a divine emperor and empress who live in the sky. Proof??? People say things. Toilets are hairy animals that like to take strolls in parks. My statement of this absurd claim doesn't make it any more true. It's still false.
Similarly, people say marriage is natural. People also claim gay marriage should be natural. As I've proven with my earlier paragraphs, neither of these statements are true.
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]http://www.google.com...
Good luck!
diepotato
Debate Round No. 1
MENGXINPEI

Con

Thanks for your reply.

First, I'm not calling that gay marriage is unnatural.

Second, you said that not only gay marriage was not natural, all marriage was unnatural.
Marriage is the human sample for monogamous commitment. If animals could marry, then they would marry. There are many species have monogamic relationships, such as mandarin ducks. Clearly, we all know that animals don't have ceremony. My point is that gay marriage is equally natural to the homosexuality.
Beginner

Pro

My"Thanks for your reply.

First, I'm not calling that gay marriage is unnatural."

Omg! THe sun rises in the east and sets in teh west! I NEVER KNEW!! It's an epiphany!!
Your intro on round 1 already establishes your point of view. Additionally, I never accused to of calling gay marriage unnatural.

"Second, you said that not only gay marriage was not natural, all marriage was unnatural."
Yes I did, I further backed this point with logical reasoning too.. :)

"Marriage is the human sample for monogamous commitment. If animals could marry, then they would marry. There are many species have monogamic relationships, such as mandarin ducks."
If animals can marry they would.. hmm, looks to me to be perfectly reasonable except that you forgot to back this up with evidence or logical reasoning, woops! I can make all the claims in the world.. doesn't make it anymore convincing until I've backed it up with sound premises/contentions.

Humans are really cybernetic beings controlled by microscopic ducks residing in proportionally large offices within the orifices of the brain.
As you can see, I fail to truly support this statement.
Now if I had provided logical reasoning (which is founded on semantics in many cases) or linked several important research sources and studies along with pictures, this wouldn't seem so silly. THe problem is that none such exists, therefore, I cannot support my statement. Similarly, you have failed to back your statements.

"Clearly, we all know that animals don't have ceremony."
Marriage is a type of ceremony. Animals don't have ceremony, animals don't marry, What's you point?

" My point is that gay marriage is equally natural to the homosexuality."

Incoherent statement. If I interpreted it correctly, then my question would be:
How did you get from animals don't marry to homosexuality is natural? In fact, what the hey did this entire paragraph about monogamy and ducks have to do with homosexuality's naturalness?
My opponent fails to establish correlation of several unsupported statements to his side of the resolution.

Con still fails to clearly establish gay marriage as being natural.
Debate Round No. 2
MENGXINPEI

Con

Honestly, this is my first try to debate and English is not my native language. I'm sorry about my mistakes. However, you still have a few mistakes.
Actually, my point is not that marriage is natural or unnatural. My point is that gay marriage is equal with hetero sexual marriage if it is natural or unnatural. They should be on the same order and degree.
Beginner

Pro

I agree, but you're resolution was just sitting duck. Maybe you can try another one? :)

I digress.
Con concedes, pro wins.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
BTW, agree with toolpot's vote, although then PRO could attempt to argue about what is considered "ordinary".
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
CON: "Actually, my point is not that marriage is natural or unnatural. My point is that gay marriage is equal with hetero sexual marriage if it is natural or unnatural. "

Unfortunately, the resolution as it was worded does not support your point. If this was what you wanted to debate, you should have made this clear in your resolution.

A learning experience, no doubt. Arguments to PRO, he easily wins this by arguing that marriage itself is unnatural. For sourcing definitions (none of which were defined in round #1 by CON, and were key to PRO's argument), I will give sources to PRO as well.
Posted by BigSky 4 years ago
BigSky
Con, your argument is so poorly put together I would vote for pro after the intro. It is unnatural, your argument that a woman being over 51 and getting married to a man is the same as a gay couple being married. That is obviously false. The fact that that man and woman could have procreated is why people think it would be unnatural the other way around.

Good luck tho
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by msaka33 4 years ago
msaka33
MENGXINPEIBeginnerTied
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: Beginner is certainly no beginner at this site :)
Vote Placed by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
MENGXINPEIBeginnerTied
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: natural - occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature [1] - that this is a definition of natural means that, since gay marriage (and likewise all human activities) occur in nature, strictly speaking they do conform with the "ordinary" (or rather, ONLY) course of nature, and are thusly natural - unfortunately, Con didn't bring this up.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
MENGXINPEIBeginnerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
MENGXINPEIBeginnerTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was polite, Pro was rude. I thought Pro's semantics-based argument was inappropriate and weak. And although English is not Con's first language, I found his arguments far more pleasant to read than Pro's. Did I mention that Pro was really rude?