The Instigator
Cairolbono
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
darthebearnc
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Gay marriage shouldn't 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 3 votes the winner is...
darthebearnc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,120 times Debate No: 79502
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Cairolbono

Pro

Gay marriage shouldn't of been legalised. It shouldn't be allowed or accepted in any country. From the beginning of time, it wasn't accepted, so why now? Because it's love? No. It's people wanting to be different and disobey. Man with man and woman with woman wasn't the way humans were made. Man is made for woman, and woman for man... Changing the natural order shouldn't be allowed. Gay is abnormal and isn't what God had created. The children need to know that isn't okay. People who are with the same Sex relationship isn't love.
darthebearnc

Con

Hello! First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for creating what is sure to be a great debate, and look forward to an interesting experience. :)

My argument in this round will be structured into three parts - (a) an opening argument in defense of the legalization of gay marriage, (b) an opening argument in defense of the morality of gay marriage, and (c) a rebuttal of my opponent's claims in Round 1.

Please note that I'm pretty sure my opponent has already left DDO so I'm going to make this kind of short.

Part A: An Argument in Favor of the Legalization of Gay Marriage

According to the Declaration of Independence (Source 1), "all men are created equal," and all are entitled to certain rights, "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Of course, the use of the word "men" is taken to likely apply to humanity as a whole (Source 2), as per the definition of said term (the second definition of (Source 3)). Hence, the Declaration states that all of humanity is entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with the only excuse for taking away said rights being if the United States government has a valid reason for doing so. Is this the case when it comes to same-sex marriage? The answer, of course, is no. As legalizing same-sex marriage produces no suffering or negative change among our nation's people, there is no reason for it to be banned. Hence, as same-sex marriage falls under both the branches of "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" (being able to obtain a same-sex marriage is a liberty and allows same-sex couples to pursue happiness through marriage), it should be legalized.

The Declaration of Independence also mentions that "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The implication of this statement is that the population of the United States itself should be able to determine the powers of its government. According to (Source 4), (Source 5), and (Source 6), the majority of the United States population now believes that same-sex marriage should be legal, meaning that the population of said citizens as a whole would consent to a form of governance in which clerks are able to issue same-sex marriage licenses (this fulfills the terms of the Declaration).

A common argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage is, of course, that one's religion prohibits it. However, as per the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (Source 7), the United States government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," meaning that the religious preference of one religious group can not supersede that of another. As long as there is at least one religious group in favor of same-sex marriage (Source 8), the United States government cannot ban said institution for religious reasons, as doing so would establish the ideologies of some religious groups as superior to those of others.

Part B: An Argument in Favor of the Morality of Gay Marriage

According to (Source 9), all moralities are subjective and none are objective, meaning that every person is entitled to come up with their own moral stance. Mine, of course, states that an action is not immoral unless it causes suffering (please see (Source 10) for evidence in favor of the validity of said moral stance). Allowing same-sex marriage does not cause any suffering, unless I'm mistaken. Hence, as per the terms of my subjective morality, it is perfectly morally acceptable.

Of course, a common moral argument in opposition to same-sex marriage is that it is religiously, and hence morally, unacceptable (Source 11) (Source 12). However, unless my opponent is able to provide evidence or logical reasoning in favor of the validity of a religious system that opposes same-sex marriage, I see no reason to believe this.

Another argument in opposition of same-sex marriage is that heterosexual, monogamous marriage is the only 'traditional' type, and should hence be the only one allowed. This is not true. According to (Source 13), many historical marriages have not been both heterosexual and monogamous, rendering the theory that heterosexual, monogamous marriage is the only 'traditional' type invalid. Furthermore, according to (Source 14), even the Bible contains stories of marriages that do not comply with the supposed 'traditional' rules.

Finally, another argument in opposition to gay marriage is that same-sex behavior is 'unnatural'. However, according to (Source 15), this isn't the case. Rather, same-sex behavior can be seen in more than 450 other animal species worldwide.

Part C: A Rebuttal of My Opponent's Round 1 Argument

My opponent's first argument against same-sex marriage is that "from the beginning of time, it wasn't accepted, so why now?" However, according to (Source 13), this is not the case. Many historical records of same-sex marriages have been found.

My opponent's next argument is that gay marriage is "people wanting to be different and disobey." However, he/she hasn't provided evidence that being 'different' is a bad thing, nor has he/she explained who same-sex couples are 'disobeying'.

Next, Pro says that "man with man and woman with woman wasn't the way humans were made," also stating that "changing the natural order shouldn't be allowed." However, according to (Source 15), same-sex behavior is, in fact, very natural, and has been exhibited in many species throughout the world.

Pro next says that being "gay is abnormal and isn't what God had created." However, he/she fails to provide evidence that being 'abnormal' shouldn't be allowed, nor has he/she provided evidence in favor of the existence of said 'God'.

Pro also states that "the children need to know that isn't okay." However, he/she has provided no evidence for the assertion that same-sex behavior/marriage is not okay.

Finally, Pro says "people who are with the same Sex relationship isn't love." However, according to (Source 16), same-sex relationships can, in fact, include 'love', as many same-sex relationships include "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person."

Thank you for this great debate and I look forward to continuing it. Good luck! :)

Sources:

1. http://www.archives.gov...
2. http://www.loc.gov...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
5. http://www.gallup.com...
6. http://www.pewforum.org...
7. http://www.archives.gov...
8. http://www.pewforum.org...
9. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
10. http://www.sparknotes.com...
11. https://www.biblegateway.com...
12. http://quran.com...
13. http://www.gaychristian101.com...
14. http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com...
15. http://www.yalescientific.org...
16. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Cairolbono

Pro

Cairolbono forfeited this round.
darthebearnc

Con

Argument extended.
Debate Round No. 2
Cairolbono

Pro

Cairolbono forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Cairolbono

Pro

Cairolbono forfeited this round.
darthebearnc

Con

#berniesanders2016
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Beeker 2 years ago
Beeker
That's right God made the land, sea creatures and all the things Mankind has deemed to be at his command. And man worshipped God. But then mankind couldn't agree on how to worship god, or if there was more than one god, or if there was a god at all. Then came war and persecution. And those things are here to stay. Lucky for us Americans, when our founding fathers wrote the Constitution it was decided that the government was not to endorse any particular faith so that people could worship freely or not at all and their beliefs or lack of would not result in governmental persecution. Then they wrote this in broad language which would allow no room for misinterpretation. And it got even better when one of the greatest presidents to lead out country decided our constitution needed to protect the rights of all American, even the ones that were brought to our country against their will. And the 14th Amendment was born! This historic piece of legislation said that no state could create laws withholding rights from any Americans That's right all Americans! Mr Lincoln was looking to the future and wanted to ensure nobody in this great country would be considered a second class citizen based on any criteria. The first amendment says people can have a standard for Marriage that's outside of a religious fundamental and the 14th amendment prohibits a state from creating laws that withhold rights from its citizens (marriage certificates seem to fall into that category). So while religion may be able to say who can claim matrimony based on their faith and the government can't meddle, the government can't create laws that either endorse that standard of matrimony or withhold rights from those that won't fall in line.
Posted by srhelsel609 2 years ago
srhelsel609
I agree with you. God made Adam and Eve and to point out that 2 men/women can't have children naturally. So that says something!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
CairolbonodarthebearncTied
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: FF meant that Con provided better arguments and had better conduct. Con was the only side to provide sources (not to mention very organised and reliable sources) and they also had better spelling and grammar although this wasn't notable enough to award points for - I may have given Con S&G although the final 2 rounds were incorrect spelling although I understand that they were intentional.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
CairolbonodarthebearncTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
CairolbonodarthebearncTied
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: Forfeiture