The Instigator
ryann.drougas
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Jezzkay
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay marriage should be allowed.

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...
ryann.drougas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,872 times Debate No: 36457
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

ryann.drougas

Pro

Gay marriage. Every one has their opinion on this topic. Mine is why not let them get married? The divorce rate in heterosexuals is very high, but I have know gays and lesbians that never break up. My opinion is there divorce rate would be much lover. The bible says god loves everyone, so why wouldn't he be o.k with this? If they want to get married, they should have that right. It shouldn't be taken away from them just because they like the same sex. I may not be gay and you may not be gay, you may think its gross but you still shouldn't take away their right. It's like abortion, I may not agree with it but doesn't mean that right should be taken away. Marriage is a civil right, and taking it away means your disobeying the constitution. Remember that? The act to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and taking away marriage crushes the dream of the pursuit of happiness.
Jezzkay

Con

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
Debate Round No. 1
ryann.drougas

Pro

1. Marriage is a union of love, not a union of genders.

2. Homosexuality is a human characteristic, not a crime.

3. 'Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual priviledge.'

4. Homosexuals(nor anyone else) are not able to control their feelings or affect to who they fall in love with, so they shouldn't be punished for that.

5. Many people are against Christian values and God, but it isn't illegal to believe in God. As well, many people are against gay rights, so it shouldn't be illegal for gays to get married.

6. If God doesn't exist, gays have been treated unequally for no reason.

7. Love is an emotion, justice and right, not a concept that can be controlled/denied by law or by an old book(bible).

8. Would it really bother anyone, if two people could celebrate their love equally?

9. Gays don't try to control straights' rights, so straights shouldn't try to control gays' rights.

10. Christianity is a choice, and religion is something you were taught. Homosexuality is something you were born with.
Jezzkay

Con

IIt Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

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.

It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

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

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.
Debate Round No. 2
ryann.drougas

Pro

Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits, and banning gay marriage increases rates of psychological disorders. So kids should have a mother and a father (in your opinion) but what if a foster child wasn't able to be provided with a mother and father, you'd rather them to just stay in foster care when statistics show abuse and neglect is high in foster care when gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. Gay marriage legalization is correlated with lower divorce rates, while gay marriage bans are correlated with higher divorce rates. If the reason for marriage is strictly reproduction, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them.
Jezzkay

Con

"The greatest gift a husband can give his children is to love their mother, and the greatest gift a mother can give her children is to love their father. That is what will keep the proper balance in the family and make their home environment secure. That is what will free the children from their primary fear, which is to be abandoned by one of their parents. Why do they fear that? Because that is what has happened to so many of their friends at school."

Marriage is supposed to have the ambitious goal of providing children with a nurturing and reassuring base from which to learn to face the world. Therefore, parents must not only be good persons, not only a man and a woman (so as to provide the dual role models psychologists say they need), but also so unshakably devoted to each other that their mutual love can withstand all the temptations and shocks that life will hurl at them, as well as the abrasion of living with each other.
To this end, sexual passion and the bewildering differences between the sexes jointly play a vital role. As Chesterton put it:
The differences between a man and a woman are at the best so obstinate and exasperating that they practically cannot be got over unless there is an atmosphere of exaggerated tenderness and mutual interest. To put the matter in one metaphor, the sexes are two stubborn pieces of iron; if they are to be welded together, it must be while they are red-hot...
Therefore, as Fr. Vandenberg goes on to emphasize, sexual intercourse is not merely a permitted "perk" or a reluctantly tolerated means of procreation but rather a vital and holy part of marriage -- a divinely sanctioned means of demonstrating and intensifying conjugal love to make it withstand the rigors attendant upon raising children.*
Fortunately, as with all animals, men and women have the proper equipment for such activities. The corresponding parts of the male and female body interact quite neatly for both mutual pleasure and procreation.
Not so for homosexual men and women. Whether or not there is anything wrong with their desires, they simply don't have the proper apparatus to fulfill them. They must resort to clumsy makeshifts, like cargo cult devotees trying to make airplanes out of straw. Alternatively, they submit to grotesque operations, trying to alter their bodies to suit their desires. The artificiality of these attempts to mimic normal sexuality will inevitably distort the emotions that arise from them and will tend to adversely affect any children living with them.
Homosexuals who engage in such desperate expedients shouldn't be condemned for wanting to do so. As the psychoanalyst in Kurt Vonnegut's God Bless You Mr. Rosewater explained:
Let's assume that a healthy young man is supposed to be sexually aroused by an attractive woman not his mother or sister. if he's aroused by other things, another man, say, or an umbrella, or the ostrich boa of the Empress Josephine or a sheep or a corpse or his mother or a stolen garter belt, he is what we call a pervert. Let us hasten on to the admission that every case of perversion is essentially a case of crossed wires...
In fact, there is neurological evidence that at least some homosexuals are wired differently and cannot help their proclivities. Others contend that homosexuality may be one of the aftereffects of sexual abuse during childhood. In recognition of such factors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church proposes the apparent paradox of condemning homosexual acts while urging that people afflicted with homosexuality be treated with sympathy
.
But we cannot debase the whole concept of sex and marriage merely to oblige them. The objective of what a gay activist has called the ""war we've already won" is to reduce marriage to a lowest-common-denominator status that will inevitably include polygamy, which is already being touted on ABC-TV as "normal" and being campaigned for in Canada. That's too high a price to pay for making homosexuals feel better about themselves.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ryann.drougas 3 years ago
ryann.drougas
Nothing comes up for your verse. I did research and the bible never says gay marriage is bad but states that man and women were designed to be attracted to each other.
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
Apparently I am being called a liar, so I would urge everyone reading this to go ahead and look up 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 for yourselves. You will see that some translations uses the word "homosexual" and others uses the word "effeminate", because both translations mean the same thing.
Posted by ryann.drougas 3 years ago
ryann.drougas
1. God did not write the bible. He dictated it and man wrote it. They could have misunderstood. I liked up your little verse. Only three google results when there are a hell of a lot more answers on google. Meaning you changed what was really wrote to suit you. Like I said , hope you like staying out of heaven with the rest of the people like you because your are all unrighteousness wicked bastards.
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
I know that there are no homosexuals in heaven because God clearly says in scripture that no homosexuals go to heaven. Did you not read my last post? I'll post it again.......

1 Corinthians 6:9-10- "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR HOMOSEXUALS, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Posted by ryann.drougas 3 years ago
ryann.drougas
The bible says that, but it also says god loves everybody. I never said that god is unethical but your comment is ubsurd. Looks like your not going to heaven because you are unrighteous yourself. How do you know yourself that there are no homosexuals in heaven? Are you dead? If god doesn't exist ( not saying he doesn't) you are just discriminating because an old book says it's not ok.
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
Who are you to tell God what is ethical and what is not. God determines light from darkness, right from wrong, good from evil. He is the creator, and you are nothing more than a creation. He sits upon the throne, and you do not. He is everything, and you are nothing.

The Lord has made it clear that homosexuals cannot get into Heaven, so therefore the only place they'll be going is straight to the fires of hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10- "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Posted by ryann.drougas 3 years ago
ryann.drougas
That is unethical!!
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
no gays in heaven
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
ryann.drougasJezzkayTied
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: Con just threw around empty points about his moral view of the world and whatnot.
Vote Placed by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
ryann.drougasJezzkayTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is the furthest from a quality debate. Seriously, both parties made big claims without providing sources or proofs, they are just sticked there like facts, sometimes in very fallacious manners. Even worse, the vast majority of text is a copy paste, no clash or rebuttals, just copy pastes. Thus, I find myself unable to vote in this debate. I would like to welcome both debaters on this site, and hopefully they would take learning opportunities and improve. I am sorry if this came as harsh, but I have to be truthful. Good luck to both.