The Instigator
roudy.chaccour
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
handywandy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gay marriage

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 384 times Debate No: 33634
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

roudy.chaccour

Pro

Hello everyone,

I think that gay marriage should be legal,because if a guy likes another one than this is the strongest argument for them to get married and no one should oppose to that.

What I'm against in this topic is the adoption of children for gay couples because that way they would be affecting the mentality of the child and will psychologically disturb him. Gay couples are free to Love each other, are free to live together and should be free to get married .
handywandy

Con

I accept the debate.

My opening statement is as follows:

Gay marriage should remain illegal, as it has been for the entire duration of our Nation's existence, for one simple reason: It doesn't meet the definition of a "marriage" as seen in the eyes of the law. "Marriage" is defined as "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." Obviously, the definition clearly states "union of a man and a woman". My opponent could easily then respond with the question "Why must marriage only be bound to a man and a woman?" To which I would respond: The purpose of marriage in the eyes of the law of The United States of America is procreation, creating the children that will maintain our species' life on earth. Children cannot be created between two men or two women, and for this reason gay marriage simply cannot become legal.

Married couples receive benefits based on the fact that even if they choose not to have children, they CAN, and if and when a married couple has children, additional benefits are given to help with the cost of said child. Why should a couple who cannot create children receive free money from the government for something they will never be able to do?
Debate Round No. 1
roudy.chaccour

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for the definition he gave that I never knew.

Then I would like to disagree on the purpose of marriage as " procreation" . A lot of married couples live together without the desire of having kids and enjoy living as a couple. My opponent mentioned the USA , but why being specific, this is a worldwide problem we are debating and having children is not an obligation, it's a choice. philosophers worked all their lives to determine the objective and the reason of our existence but did not get to any answer . This is why I do not agree on limiting the purpose of life to procreation. In article 3 of the UN charts of human rights , we are all said to be equal and free so a man is free to love a man and no Law is allowed to stop him .

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate .
handywandy

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

My opponent in his last argument is simply restating what I had already acknowledged. I clearly said that " Married couples receive benefits based on the fact that even if they choose not to have children, they CAN, and if and when a married couple has children, additional benefits are given to help with the cost of said child. " I never said all married couples HAD to procreate, I only stated that they COULD. It is an option that heterosexual couples have and gay couples do not.

Next, I agree we that we are all equal, and at no point in time did I say that a man is not free to love a man. If homosexual couples wish to be together then that is their choice. However, I do not agree with the statement that we should redefine marriage to include homosexual couples, marriage isn't just "two people in love", it is a covenant between one man and one woman, where they become the same flesh and create a family. Gay couples have the full ability to join in a civil union, where they will have the same rights and benefits as a married couple. No one is "oppressing" gay couples, no one is "discriminating" against gay couples, but people are standing strong in their belief of what a marriage truly means.

A common argument made for gay marriage is that "if two people love each other why is it anyone else's business", and the truth is that if two people love each other, no one else has the right to tell them otherwise. However, it becomes heterosexual couples' business when gay couples want to redefine the definition of marriage, which is very important to married couples everywhere. Changing the definition of what constitutes a married couple is very offensive to many married couples.

Gay rights activists so often say that they love their partner and all they want to do is be with them. The sad thing is, if there is true love between two people, then the title "civil union" shouldn't be "embarrassing" or "oppressive" as many activists have said, there should be pride in the fact that they are with the one they love.
Debate Round No. 2
roudy.chaccour

Pro

roudy.chaccour forfeited this round.
handywandy

Con

handywandy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
roudy.chaccour

Pro

roudy.chaccour forfeited this round.
handywandy

Con

I'm disappointed... I was looking forward to this debate :(
Debate Round No. 4
roudy.chaccour

Pro

roudy.chaccour forfeited this round.
handywandy

Con

handywandy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.