Gay marriage should be legal.
Debate Rounds (1)
First of all, there should be a right of choice. Not everyone is going to be like you. A vast majority of the population loves to choose to either marry someone of the opposite sex, or not marry. But there's a percentage with it's own opinion. You get to choose a lot of your life, there are many small decisions we make everyday that are very important to us. But marriage is a much greater concept. For people who prefer living with someone of the same-sex who they love, if gay marriage is illegal where they live, they often have a mentally tough and challenging time choosing between marrying someone of the opposite sex, or not marrying at all. Just because some choices are more appreciated worldwide, doesn't mean that other choices are of any lower value. In this case, since there should be a freedom of choice, gay marriage should be legal.
Secondly, there is a right to love. No one can stop you from mentally loving someone. No matter how much someone can stop you from seeing the person, your mental state will still love. Not being allowed to express this love, may make a person emotionally challenged, and fiercely disappointed. Tradition isn't bad, as tradition is to love, live with, maybe have kids with, and marry someone of opposite gender, possibilities still exist. Gay couples could still love, live together and take care of kids. People who are against gay marriage because of religion, should be aware that even if two people of the same-sex don't marry, they can still love each other and you can't stop that. If love grows exceptionally strong within the same-sex, they may really want to marry. If there is a right to love people of the same-sex, there should be a right to show this desire. If you're one of the people who think gay couples should love someone else, you're not defining love right. Mentally, there is always going to be right to love. But these emotions are remarkably calmer when expressed, so the right to go through your love life the way you want to, should exist.
Lastly, this is your life. A person has a life, with their own body. They have a mind, which has it's complexity. Part of this complexity may come with one's own emotions. Changing one's own self isn't that simple, and shouldn't be done, especially because judging creates barriers. Extraverted judging creates barriers for others, while introverted judging gives yourself barriers. Judging should be used for accuracy, not for personality. Your personality is you, and your feelings are a part of your personality. Being receptive of the world is important. Emotions are a tough part of the inner-world, which shouldn't be sacrificed if you want to stay true to yourself. Legalizing gay marriage isn't just legalizing it for everyone, but one's it's legalized, allowing yourself to have gay marriage, is a part of judgment. Staying true to yourself, is refusing to judge. Part of what you have to do to legalize gay marriage, is to temporarily accept the world without judgment, so that you can vision these perspectives. Staying true to yourself, is listening to your personality, and letting it matter.
Overall gay marriage should be legal, so that some who prefer loving another of the same-sex as they themselves, can express themselves to the fullest. One can do this by valuing their own individualism, openly perceiving emotions, and acknowledging the human right to make decisions on her/his own. A lot of us express these needs by marriage with the opposite sex, or no marriage at all, if we don't feel this way. But it's important to respect the part of the human population who feels such emotions for someone of the same-sex. One's personality creates love. Therefore, gay marriage should be legal.
The biggest problem with your first argument is this statement "In this case, since there should be a freedom of choice, gay marriage should be legal." You are not only claiming that gay marriage should be legal, but you are arguing that it should be legal because there should be a freedom of choice. First you must argue for a freedom of choice before you argue for gay marriage.
Then it is argued "for people who prefer living with someone of the same-sex who they love, if gay marriage is illegal where they live, they often have a mentally tough and challenging time choosing between marrying someone of the opposite sex, or not marrying at all." This is may be true (no evidence was presented), but when making a decision about making something legal, it is important to think about the society as a whole and not just about the 2% of the population that are homosexual. Homosexuality is actually dangerous to the society as a whole. It spreads disease, there are higher sexual molestation rates among them. And by the way, the arguments my opponent has used could literally be used to support "voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc.? (https://carm.org......). Homosexuality is dangerous whether people want to admit it or not.
Part Two: Right to Love
It was then said that "Secondly, there is a right to love. No one can stop you from mentally loving someone." No actually, there is no right to love. My opponent hasn't even defined love yet so this whole argument is somewhat meaningless. And it doesn't seem like the majority of the homosexual community actually knows what love is (1 Cor 13 is my definition of love). Statistics show that "83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners." Doesn't sound like love to me. See link above for the evidence of this fact.
And just out of curiosity...do you think I should have special rights because I am a Christian?
Part Three: This is your Life
It was then said that "Lastly, this is your life. A person has a life, with their own body." My response to that is who says? Prove that statement and don't just keep asserting things without any justification. What gives a person the right to do whatever they want?
But the most disturbing statement made was this: "Part of what you have to do to legalize gay marriage, is to temporarily accept the world without judgment, so that you can vision these perspectives." As a Christian I know that homosexuality is a sin and what you are asking me to do is to completely ignore my moral values to give the minority special privileges. And the worse part is that I know that homosexuality will cause harm to society but you want me to completely remove my knowledge of these matters merely because you believe they should have rights. I don't think so.
I thank my opponent for creating this debate and I look forward to see how things turn out.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: I don't feel as though a 2 round debate with little to no up front information can reliable come to a good conclusion, and about the only thing that was really brought to the table was Con's reference to the bible for a grounding regarding what a word is defined as. I don't find either side particularly convincing, so my vote is going to seem as particularly disappointing. X(
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.