The Instigator
JOhn_D.5ilver
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Gay marriage shouldn't be legalized at this point in time

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 2 votes the winner is...
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,429 times Debate No: 31816
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

JOhn_D.5ilver

Pro

Only enter if you know you can start this debate strongly. First round will be the arguments of my opponent.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

Gay marriage should be legal. Anyone dumb enough to want to get married should be free to do so. The government shouldn't be telling people they can't get married. That's ridiculous. All tax breaks available to straight couple should be available to gay couples. Same with parental rights, medical rights, etc. People who oppose gay marriage are secretly homosexual and ashamed of this fact and so they lash out at those unrepressed homosexuals who are not ashamed of their sexuality.
Debate Round No. 1
JOhn_D.5ilver

Pro

Under different circumstances it would be just to let people have their freedom. However, at this point it shouldn't be done. Too many things have changed through influences of the past and because of that a few definitions adapted with it.

The natural order is that men should engage with women. In the past that was no problem because things like large societies and media weren't there to alter things. Over time it slowly started to change and the characters of both parties were altered in becoming what they are now. Men and women aren't compatible anymore, both are just fundamentally different. Through that the definition of relationship was shattered for those parties because it couldn't withstand that difference. It created a diffidence and because we are beings that seek others we started to look elsewhere. Intimate relationships work under a setting of understanding one and other and having an attraction based on personal interest. This personal interest is mostly formed by the ideology of what that current society has placed to be the factors of that interest.

Side example the increase of sexual allowance has created men to be more sexual active. This created a problem for the increase of children in the world and because the responsibility decreases since the definition of sex is not for creating life, but pleasure a lot of children grow up unwanted. Stated to show my opponent the result of the past that cause certain chain reactions in today's society.

Now back to our case if we allow gay marriage in spite of these differences men and women will seek within the same sex sector more often. Both parties will see that the love will be redirected at same sex individuals because they are similar in interest and because of that the relationship is more likely to succeed.

In closing I do not appose to gay marriage under different circumstances, but at this point it would create a huge increase if publicly allowed. That will create ultimately the change in definition that would allow it and it will grow even more in the future because we are beings of adaptability and whatever environment we grow up is the form we will take through that nature. As we all know that human life cannot proceed without people having sex between men and women, so by that I disapprove the legalization of gay marriage in this era.



ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

Gay people should be able to do whatever they want, so long as they're not hurting anyone. Why would you want to control what another person can or cannot do? If two gay people get married, how does that impact in your life in any way? It's like saying a black and a white person cannot get married. It's wrong to prohibit interracial marriage and it's wrong to prohibit gay marriage.

Marriage is really just a symbolic arrangement. It doesn't change anything. A gay couple who can't get married aren't just going to give up on homosexuality and start having sex with people of the opposite gender. That's not how the world works. They're just going to live together and feel slighted that they cannot experience what people of the opposite gender can experience.

Personally I will never get married. I don't need the church or the state to approve of my love. But if someone wants to get married, if there's a priest that will marry them, more power to ya. It's none of my business. And it's none of your business.
Debate Round No. 2
JOhn_D.5ilver

Pro


I agree people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting others. However, as I explained they are having a negative effect. Also, it is our business because we do not live separately our actions are having an impact on other members of the world. In life there are certain choices and once made the after effect in decision making is limited. Say you want a college degree from that point you are limited in getting it. You need to go through certain procedures in order to obtain it and if you don't follow those you can't get it. Same goes if you want to life you can't kill yourself so you are not free to do everything once you made a choice. Living in a society is also a choice and once chosen you can't do certain things because of that choice. You live as a whole now and must have a certain duty to that society. For example, if war is declared upon your country it is by law that you will be forced to fight for your nation.


As you now see it is our business to govern this because it is our duty as a community. In this case, as I have explained the negative effects of gay marriage if you disagree counter it in the final round. In your reference to interracial marriage it is the perfect example to empower my argument about the after effect once the definition of things changes. Once it was forbidden and now it isn't. It has become a standard so that is the indicator that it will also happen with gay marriage.


That is why it's so powerful because it has been given symbolic meaning. I won't get married either for the same reason you stated, but that's not how most people see this arrangement.


As I rest my case in this final paragraph I enclose it with saying I have laid down my arguments, re-enforced them and countered my opponent's arguments. Vote for JOhn D. 5iler.


ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

Having a 'negative impact' is not the same thing as hurting someone. The assessment of what is or is not a negative impact is entirely subjective. Anything can be thought of as having a negative impact. Playing video games can be considered negative, in comparison with doing your home work or working a part time job. Saying something stupid can be considered to have a negative impact on the people hearing it. These things aren't crimes and should not be prohibited. Your definition of harm is so incredibly broad that you open the door to the prohibition of virtually anything.

We don't need the government telling us what we can and cannot do, and who we can and cannot marry. If some dude wants to marry another dude, that's not the governments business, that's not their business. There is no benefit from criminalizing gay marriage and it's discriminatory against the homos. Conscription, which my opponent advocates, has been abolished in most right thinking nations because it is a form of slavery. War, incidentally, is not a conflict between PEOPLE but between governments. But we digress.

Let the homos have equal rights and marry each other. More chicks for the rest of us!
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheSlenderMan 4 years ago
TheSlenderMan
I do think before I respond. If you have a solution, don't keep it to yourself. The best way to combat a problem is to state a solution.

"As we all know that human life cannot proceed without people having sex between men and women, so by that I disapprove the legalization of gay marriage in this era." Because everyone will start to like the same gender. No. I think you want a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. But we do have a problem that exists right now but you don't want to fix it without first coming up with a solution to something that's not a problem. Fix the real problems before fixing imaginary problems. And you said it yourself...there's a problem with a lot of kids growing up unwanted because of men and women having sex...so if anything you should be for homosexuality.

You say I might be reading what I want to read. I say you might be believing what you want to believe. Learn to evaluate things on fact and reason not on some ever so slight possibility that probably will never come to reality. Some bridges must be crossed when getting to them otherwise we would be pulling our hair out trying to come up with thousands of solutions to problems that won't end up happening. (and some will happen but since we can't predict all of them sometimes we have to address them as they come)

I understand perfectly what you're saying.
Posted by JOhn_D.5ilver 4 years ago
JOhn_D.5ilver
Are you really understanding what I am saying or are you just reading what you want to read. Just because oppressing it isn't the solution doesn't mean it should be automatically allowed. I already mentioned not giving solutions to the problem merely remarking that it shouldn't be legalized. I understand that it is easy to reflect that it should be left alone and further oppressed. Basically neither is the solution that is what I am saying. Sorry to state it, but I must, learn how to read between the lines. Try to think first before you respond. I do have a solution for the problem, but kept it to myself and just added if another measure is put in place.
-Final-

If you wish to debate it further you are free to challenge me to a dual in debating.
Posted by TheSlenderMan 4 years ago
TheSlenderMan
"I agree that oppressing it is not the solution and if we do that now it could result in something bigger. I find that it can only be allowed if another measure is set in place."

Your debate topic stated that it should be legalized in this point in time....now you are saying that oppressing it is not the solution.

And I don't understand why we would need another measure set in place? For what?
You stated in the debate,
"Side example the increase of sexual allowance has created men to be more sexual active. This created a problem for the increase of children in the world and because the responsibility decreases since the definition of sex is not for creating life"
Having gay people solves your problem....maybe homosexuality is the measure you've been looking for.
Posted by JOhn_D.5ilver 4 years ago
JOhn_D.5ilver
I agree that oppressing it is not the solution and if we do that now it could result in something bigger. I find that it can only be allowed if another measure is set in place. The increase of it is also largely the effect of the oppression in the past that the media is causing these changes. I can't provide solid evidence merely speculation from the end that it seems to promote homosexuality in a lot of TV-shows and such. It can't be compared the difference is obvious that it violated the basic human rights. In the case of homosexuality it is a secondary right which not directly linked with freedom of choice because we all know that we are free. However, there are certain consequences to your choices. In separating the wanted behavior and unwanted once by law. At this point I find no reason to deny or state the wrong in the act of homosexuality. My only worry is the increase in the future by not the choice of the individual, but the effects of the past that is causing the increase in homosexuality. That is another discussion that needs to be brought in deciding the value of free choice and if it exists.
Posted by TheSlenderMan 4 years ago
TheSlenderMan
I see, thanks for clarifying that for me.

Though it's quite farfetched to conclude that homosexual oppression is anywhere near the oppression that slavery was. Homosexuality used to be oppressed much more but it's not so much now. Which is why we need to legalize it as soon as possible...to stop the oppression from growing into something bigger.

Though, I still don't think it's too rational to say that homosexuality today is even remotely comparable to the horrible slavery. I only used the analogy to show how it doesn't matter your sexual orientation just like race doesn't matter. I didn't mean to compare their oppression with slavery.

If homosexuality was legalized we wouldn't all of a sudden have homosexuals living in poverty because of it. Their situation is quite different than that of the slaves.

One more thing...It doesn't matter that there were negative effects to giving slaves civil rights. Them not having civil rights created much worse negative effects...in fact it was a possitive thing. Even living in poverty is better than slavery.
Posted by JOhn_D.5ilver 4 years ago
JOhn_D.5ilver
I am showing you that the past is creating problems in today's society and by that certain situations are enforced by those events of the past. In order to fix it you can't blindly ignore it by saying well they do have civil rights and by that are free to do whatever they want. The problem lies that the past have created the increase in people becoming gay. Explained by the arguments I used in the debate of separation between men and female in interest and understanding. The slavery example shows the usage of an unjust solution of affirmative action instead of doing nothing. Also, not to say it is the right solution, but stated to the recognition of the necessity of solving the problem.

I am not stating any solid solution to the problem merely remarking on what will happen if allowed in this era and by that the negative impact that will result from it.
.
Posted by TheSlenderMan 4 years ago
TheSlenderMan
I'm not sure how you can make that analogy to slavery. Mine made sense...I was using it in a way to show civil rights. You went into a whole thing about how do we fix the mistakes of slavery (how does this apply?)...the only way I can see that it applies is that you say there are bad effects to slavery (because they had no civil rights). So does that mean we should let homosexuals have civil rights as well, before we create another mistake that we'd have to fix?

Sorry, I'm just not understanding the point you're trying to make.
Posted by JOhn_D.5ilver 4 years ago
JOhn_D.5ilver
I agree on most things you said. However, the issue with the end is not the end itself, but the means. How people became homosexual in the first place and how it is going to increase in the future if allowed under the circumstances of today's society is where the problem lies. Slavery had an effect on black people and in today's society the effect of that is most of them live in poverty. Should we then do nothing about that and say well a black person has the same possibility has a rich person. Those growing up in a high income family did not choose to be born into that family nor did black people. Yet, they are having less opportunity because of their starting point in life. Should we just proceed and do nothing or should we use affirmative action? Something to balance this for the time being so that their future seeds will grow up in at least a middle class family.
Posted by TheSlenderMan 4 years ago
TheSlenderMan
"Living in a society is also a choice and once chosen you can't do certain things because of that choice." ~ Pro

Yes but in this society we have a constitution. And civil rights are a constitutional right. We don't limit civil rights because some people think they have "negative effects at this point in time." We shouldn't even vote on this issue...it's absurd. We shouldn't let other groups of people vote on a certain groups civil rights.

The same could have been said about slavery (and probably was). The human race can progress MUCH faster if people stop treating other people differently...whether it about race, religion, gender, sexual stance etc.
Posted by JOhn_D.5ilver 4 years ago
JOhn_D.5ilver
One voter stated subjective reasoning I disagree if anyone also disagrees vote in order to cancel out his vote. Solely for the purpose of making sure this debate is won through objective votes. I don't care about winning or losing if I deserved the outcome. Another voter stated that he doesn't see how my argument would be valid based on his disability to read I guess. To disagree is one thing, but to not see the argument explaining it is another, incompetence.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
JOhn_D.5ilverZakYoungTheLibertarianTied
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: I agree with Con and fail to see how Pro's burden of proof was met. I think Con should have explained how there really wouldn't be a negative impact, though. Pro assumes legalizing gay marriage would somehow increase homosexuality, but I just don't see the case for that. Even if it was true, wouldn't reducing population actually be a good thing at this point?
Vote Placed by induced 4 years ago
induced
JOhn_D.5ilverZakYoungTheLibertarianTied
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: Pros justifications were just like justifications for banning interracial marriage. these are based on bigotry, not objective reasoning.