The Instigator
jakoplant1
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
judeifeanyi
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Gay marriage should be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
judeifeanyi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 585 times Debate No: 44308
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

jakoplant1

Pro

Gay marriage should be legalized as there are no legitimate reasons against it.

Rules:
-No profanity
-Any quotations need to be cited
-No plagiarism
-Bible is not a valid source
judeifeanyi

Con

I accept the challenge..but then, I beg to disagree that there are no argument against it..gay adds nothing to the nation building and it should not be legalized because like pole repels while unlike pole attracts so how can a man marry his fellow man? Or woman marry his fellow woman? Who will marry who? Who will be the father? Or rather the mother? Gay marriage denies one of parents because one in his right sense will not call a man his mother
Debate Round No. 1
jakoplant1

Pro

My opponent asks "how can a man marry his fellow man? Or woman marry his [her] fellow woman?" The answer to this is simple. Because they love each other. Notice also that the only actual reason that my opponent gives is that it denies a child a parent of both genders. First, marriage does not demand a baby. Second, does this too mean that single parents should not be allowed to have children?
judeifeanyi

Con

judeifeanyi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jakoplant1

Pro

jakoplant1 forfeited this round.
judeifeanyi

Con

For one to call something that is morally wrong a moral right, it means the person is indeed insane. Samesex marriage should not be encouraged..let me start by reboutal, my co-debater rightly put it that marriage is done because of love. Indeed i never protested to that what am saying is this, the reasons why people marry includes, 1.for multiplication, 2.for love. And you can't tell me that a normal human being will love and marry his or her fellow man..when I rightly said it denies parental right, it doesn't mean that is my only argument now let me give substansive reasons that will back up my claims..
1.'same sex marriage is not a marriage' based on the defintion of marriage, marriage can be defined as a legal union between a man and a woman or a legal union of a man of women(Africa).so ponder on this, and based on my definition, is homosexuality there? Indeed it should not be legalized.
2.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 homo.
3. 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 morality
4. 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.
5. 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. Having given some of the reasons why it should not be legalized, reader, I urge you to oppose it
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by kaufmanj1973 2 years ago
kaufmanj1973
It is unfortunate that Pro lost this debate. The ONLY argument that is habitually used for those against gay marriage is that it will somehow "harm" marriage in general, and will somehow cause the downfall of society. These people present no facts, no concrete examples, nothing. No, they simply rely on prejudice, bigotry, and religious doctrine. Thankfully, the laws are changing throughout the country, and those of us who aren't insane know that it will be legal nationwide very soon.
Posted by kaufmanj1973 2 years ago
kaufmanj1973
I assume that Orwell84 is heterosexual, based upon the content of the comment posted. The comment itself shows that Orwell84 is ignorant regarding the "causes" of homosexuality. To begin with, nobody knows what "causes" it, whether it's environmental, biological, genetic, psychological, or whatever. Everybody has their own theory. And, the reason I pointed out Orwell84's own sexual orientation, it seems that it's the heterosexuals who repeatedly try to come up with the "reasons" or "causes" -- all of which tend to focus on negative events in childhood. I am homosexual. I was not abused as a child (sexually, physically, or emotionally). I did not have an absent father figure. I was not exposed to sexually explicit material at a young age. This is simply the way I am. I didn't "become" a homosexual, it is part of me, the same as being heterosexual is part of you. It begs the question: what "caused" you to become heterosexual?

As to the assertion that homosexuality is a "direct violation of natural law," I am going to use a word I never thought I'd use: POPPYCOCK! :-) Homosexuality is present throughout the animal kingdom (including but not limited to human beings). If it is not "natural" then why does it exist in all species of mammals?
Posted by Orwell84 2 years ago
Orwell84
The reason for absent support is because the science is complicated, and the arguments in support of homosexuality in general are driven by a disillusionment. Homosexuality comes from very deep emotional wounds, sometimes caused by sexual abuse, the absents of a father growing up, and other times exposure to sexually explicit material at a young age. The television is a major contributing factor, also children with a natural born sense of rebelliousness often conjure up ideas that society is wrong, they feel that society needs to be thought something. Homosexuality is also in direct violation of natural law and to support it would mean supporting evil. Homosexuality is espoused from fear not love.
Posted by kaufmanj1973 2 years ago
kaufmanj1973
It's interesting that people make these comments, that somehow "marriage" is being destroyed, but can't come up with a single fact to support it. Two guys getting married does not mean that heterosexuals are suddenly going to all get divorced and start dressing in drag. Heterosexual men are not going to suddenly decide that they don't like vagina anymore.

I also LOVE the fact that this debate explicitly states that the Christian bible (lower case on purpose) is not a valid source for a citation. If the ONLY argument against gay marriage is based upon religious belief, then it has no place in the laws governing the people, and should be ignored.
Posted by Orwell84 2 years ago
Orwell84
There is absolutely no reason for it's legalization. Feminism destroyed the foundation of marriage enough, why add to that with the desensitization of homosexuality.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lnhsjayhawk 2 years ago
lnhsjayhawk
jakoplant1judeifeanyiTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that the con side used overall better arguments, and while misspelling/misusing a few words, they had a much more thorough and clear debate round. The only way I could see Pro getting the vote for this one is due to extreme bias.
Vote Placed by PiercedPanda 2 years ago
PiercedPanda
jakoplant1judeifeanyiTied
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: x
Vote Placed by Hierocles 2 years ago
Hierocles
jakoplant1judeifeanyiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: x