The Instigator
bringg_me_the_horizon
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Phoenix61397
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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...
Phoenix61397
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,075 times Debate No: 53296
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

bringg_me_the_horizon

Pro

I'm pro marriage and pro gay marriage, because another person's choice isn't my business. Love is love. It's not a choice. You were either born that way, or it came naturally due to how you were raised. The Constitution states that all people should be treated equally and that we all have out rights and freedom. It doesn't state that gay marriage is a bad thing, and that it should never happen. People don't understand that this world is so full of hate, and a person doesn't just choose whether to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, pan sexual, etc. If they could, they would choose to be happy. The amount of hatred i see on these comments and statuses are made of stupidity. Like i said, another person's choice isn't my business.
Phoenix61397

Con

I accept this debate.

My argument will be on the grounds that "gay marriage" would no longer be marriage at all.

According to U.S. Code " 7, [1] marriage is a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. This law is as it is because marriage was an institution created in order to establish a family that could be taken care of. Children are given role models, that, in an ideal world, would bring a child up with the best that each gender has to offer, both masculinity and femininity. Due to this, marriage has an intrinsic need for procreation. Without the ability to procreate, marriage would be an exclusively different union. "Unlike other forms of friendship, the marital community is structured by norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence, partly because of the intrinsic link between it and procreation." [2]

To allow homosexual persons to be married would take away an essential part of marriage, the biological unity of male and female, from which the hoped result is the creation of children and the raising of a family. Gay marriage could not possibly fit the same definition that marriage does today, and therefore "gay marriage" cannot be a real institution. Gay people have no possibility of procreating or even raising children in a balanced family environment. I'm not saying their children will turn out as abominations or anything, but they cannot receive the full breadth of education given by a mother and father. This argument has nothing to do with hatred, gay people should be treated with utmost respect and dignity, as they have no less worth than any other person. However, it would be degrading to heterosexual persons to classify a union that is biologically (not emotionally) weaker to theirs.

I would also like to point out a fallacy in my opponent's opening argument. My opponent stated in their first sentence that "another person's choice isn't my business." Yet in the next sentence, they stated "it isn't a choice." They went on about how it isn't a choice, and then ended with a restatement of "another person's choice isn't my business. This left me a bit confused. This has little pertinence to my argument, but it may have something to do with theirs, as it was used quite often, so I advise them to take a definitive position.

Thank you, and good luck in the upcoming rounds.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...
Debate Round No. 1
bringg_me_the_horizon

Pro

My argument will be on the grounds that "gay marriage" would still be marriage, no matter man and man or woman and woman.
Marriage is something between two people who love each other and want to spend their life's together. I don't know if you know this or not, but gay marriage is legal already in 17 states. There is two definitions of marriage in the dictionary..
1. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: "a happy marriage.
2. (n some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
[mass noun] The state of being married.
(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)

Also, I know plenty of kids who were raised from a mom and a mom, and a dad and another dad. I know many of people. It doesn't affect the kids. Some kids support it. You don't want to raise your kids to be someone who disagrees with something that a lot of people see now a days. You don't want them to see a gay couple and look at them and laugh and say something out of disrespect. As someone who grew up with family members who are gay and lesbian, it opened my eyes. It taught me that love is equal. Love is good. Love is kind and caring. It opened my eyes to realize that people can really care for different sex, people can love all sorts of people. Whether they are gay, lesbian, black, white and many more. My aunts raised a daughter, she turned out great. She is married, has kids, went to college, has a nursing job. I was also raised to treat people as I want to be treated. If someone loves someone, let them be. It's not you, so why worry? Does it honestly bother you that much that you are against it? Is it because they're happy? It doesn't matter if you agree with gay marriage, or you disagree. People are to be treated equally and be treated as a human. Yes, children are given role models, but it doesn't matter. Just because a child is raised by a gay couple, doesn't mean they will turn out to be gay, or turn out to be a bad person or even a good person. I believe in gay marriage because it's someone else's choice. It doesn't harm me to know that a girl loves another girl. I love seeing couples like that holding hands with confidence. For all the hate that lesbians and gays get for being that way.. if they could choose.. Why would they choose to be gay and hated on? I'm sure if they could choose, they would choose to be happy. It doesn't hurt you. It isn't you holding and marrying the same sex. It's another persons business to be with the same sex.

Also, what I meant by "another person's choice isn't my business" in the first sentence is that it doesn't concern me with what sex they are with.
Then when I said "it isn't a choice" I meant that they can't choose to be gay or lesbian. They're just attracted to them, and they'll know it when they find out that they're that way.

TI am going to end this with ; the constitution of the Untied States of America states that people are too be treated equally. To have the same rights. Why judge someone because they love a different sex race?
Phoenix61397

Con

Thank you for your argument!

As far as I can tell, the only argument of mine that you even attempted to refute was that of the parent's ability to raise a child. I never claimed that children raised by gay parents turn out horribly. I actually said that would not happen, and many children raised by gay parents turn out fine, as you said. However, all people have both a masculine and a feminine gender role. [1] It can be quite difficult to raise a child in the right balance if both parents have a strongly masculine or strongly feminine gender role. However, no matter how the child turns out, homosexual persons cannot biologically create children. One of the most important and defining characteristics of marriage, sex, only has 50% of its intended meaning. Sure, it can express love. But as human beings, we are given bodies with parts that have specific use. Our heart pumps blood. Our lungs help us to breathe. Our brains control our nervous systems. Our sexual organs are intended to unite sperm and egg to create a human being. If they are used for anything else, they are denying their purpose. It would be like using a baseball bat to beat someone up. Yeah, sure, it can be used for that, and it works, but that isn't the point of a baseball bat. It's engineered for baseball. (That's not a perfect analogy, but it gets my point across) Yes, homosexual persons can have "sex." And yes, they can adopt children. These two ideas are not intrinsically linked however, and therefore skip a very important part of marriage.

You spent most of your rebuttal trying to disprove something that was never there. I never claimed I hate gay people, and I never said that they cannot have relationships together, or hold hands, or any of the other examples you have. That, like you said, isn't harming anyone. I have no problem with a sexless gay relationship. However, I believe gay marriage would be harmful to the already established tradition of marriage. It would change the definition of marriage by more than just who is allowed to be married. It changes a vital aspect of marriage, the ability to procreate. Without this, marriage is a vastly different idea. If gay marriage is allowed, then marriage can no longer be marriage.

The United States Constitution (really more of the bill of rights and constitutional amendments) does guarantee the rights of American citizens. However, gay people have no less rights than straight people. They have the legal ability to do every single thing that straight people do. They cannot marry people of the same sex, but neither can straight people. When African Americans fought for their rights, they did not have the right to everything white people did. They could not swim in pools that white people could, go to college, eat at the same restaurants, etc. Their exclusion was one of physical nature, and it was an unconstitutional, unjustifiable exclusion. Meanwhile, no matter whether gay people are born with it or not, their exclusion is a behavioral nature, not physical, and cannot be equated with civil rights.

Lastly, our nation was founded on Christian principles. This is evidenced in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." [2] Our nation was founded off of the principles that God gives the rights that man deserves. If certain rights can be proven to be opposed by God, then they are against our Declaration of Independence. In the Christian Bible, it states:

Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT)

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT)

The definition here of homosexuality is having sex with another man. Furthermore, a romantic, nonsexual homosexual relationship is fine. But man is not biologically meant to have sex with a man, and therefore cannot marry another man. Again, no hate for gay people here. Thanks for your time, and back to you!

[1] http://www.rebellesociety.com...
[2] http://www.archives.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
bringg_me_the_horizon

Pro

I was just stating some more of my opinion, like you did..

First of all, it doesn't matter where or whom it was founded of. It only matter the love for someone. I understand where you're coming from, but we all have our own opinions. Just because they don't have the same body parts, doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to marry or any of that. Yes, we are giving specific body parts to use, but you cannot help who you fall in love with. Love works in different ways. I never said that you 'hated' gay people, nor is it harmful to the meaning of marriage. If it was harmful, would it be legal in 17 states? No. Would they even let gay couples ever think about getting married? No.

No matter the sex, people should be treated equal. Sure, some people don't believe that it should be equal because of what you said.. But that doesn't give anyone any right to feel the need to not want gay marriage to be legalized. Yes, it says that man shall not lay with another man, but god also said he would love his children no matter what. We all have different ways of expressing our opinions, and this is mine..
Lets say you walked up to a girl and said "ew you're lesbian.'
She replied, 'ew, you're straight.'
How would that honestly make you feel for being judged for being straight. We live in a world that being gay and lesbian is becoming more common because more people believe. Correct? yes.

Yes, when African Americans fought for their rights, they did not have the right to everything white people did. But we live in a generation when it's becoming more and more alright to be the way you are.

People get judged on their sexuality everyday, the word gay literally gets dropped on the daily. Children are exposed to the meaning of sexuality. But that doesn't mean that straight people should have any more of a right that gay people do.

We are all meant to be treated equally, no matter the sex or race.

And the fact that you say it's a sin.. Well guess what? Everyone sins every day, and it is said that god forgives those sins. And it also says that god loves his children equally, FOR who they are..

There, this time I actually answered your arguments. :)

Good luck.
Phoenix61397

Con

Once again, thank you for your argument. This has been a pretty fun debate, and I appreciate how you are passionate but not angry.

Thanks for responding to my arguments, but you provided no factual evidence for any of your claims other than the 17 states in which gay marriage is legal. In addition, most of your arguments seem to be aiming for the fair and ethical treatment of gay people rather than marriage itself. These points are not actually useful in this debate, because I have never actually opposed them. For instance, you stated that you can't help who you fall in love with. I don't have a problem with gay people being in love. They just need to express their love in ways that are not sexual, and since marriage implies sexual relations and the fostering of a family, gay people should not be able to get married.

I'm gonna start putting some quotes from you in quotation marks:
"If it was harmful, would it be legal in 17 states? No. Would they even let gay couples ever think about getting married? No."
Um, possibly. All 50 states have legalized abortion due to Roe v. Wade. You yourself have disagreed with abortion in the "Big Issues" on your profile.

"Sure, some people don't believe that it should be equal because of what you said.. But that doesn't give anyone any right to feel the need to not want gay marriage to be legalized."
I'm not actually sure what this is saying. What I said expresses a reasonable qualm about the existence of gay marriage, and due to the Constitution and its amendments, which you used as a source, I have freedom of speech, and therefore have full rights to express these views.

"Lets say you walked up to a girl and said "ew you're lesbian.'
She replied, 'ew, you're straight.'"

Well first of all, I wouldn't say that, because that isn't treating her with respect. I have reiterated that homosexuals deserve respect, just not the ability to be "married". This has no pertinence to the topic at hand.

"How would that honestly make you feel for being judged for being straight. We live in a world that being gay and lesbian is becoming more common because more people believe. Correct? yes."
Um, if I HAD said ew, you're lesbian, I would not be treating her with respect, so, that response is warranted. I'm not sure what that second part means, but I think more people are admitting their sexuality rather than more people actually being homosexual. So no, not completely correct. I don't see how either of these things relates to gay marriage.

"People get judged on their sexuality everyday, the word gay literally gets dropped on the daily. Children are exposed to the meaning of sexuality. But that doesn't mean that straight people should have any more of a right that gay people do."
This is strikingly similar to a certain Macklemore song....and also, speaks out against disrespect and hate rather than my arguments. If you haven't realized by now, my reasoning is NOT "being gay is a sin! All gay people are terrible!", but rather that human nature does not allow for a marriage between two people of the same sex.

Lastly,
"And the fact that you say it's a sin.. Well guess what? Everyone sins every day, and it is said that God forgives those sins. And it also says that God loves his children equally, FOR who they are.."
I never claimed that God didn't love his children equally. And yes, everyone sins every day. Well, to my knowledge. But throughout history, if we're going the religious route, there has been a call for repentance. Look up John the Baptist. If you do not repent of your sins, and keep offending God, then no forgiveness can be given. God has infinite patience, and will forgive as long as forgiveness is asked. But marriage is forever, unless you are claiming to change that too. If you keep sinning forever, without any remorse, where is the potential for forgiveness? If the United States were to concede to gay marriage, they would condone sexual relations between homosexuals. This would be allowing for a non God-given right. It would go against our very own Declaration of Independence.

Therefore, I can resolve that while some of the arguments made by pro were valid, they never even attempted to disprove my arguments. I fully agree that gay people should be given respect. However, receiving respect is different from receiving the ability to be married, something they could not do unless the very essence of marriage was changed. My arguments were solidly backed with sources, rooted in fact, and strong, valid reasons for why gay marriage should not be legal. I believe there is more than enough evidence that I should win this debate. Vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
No Christians just pick and choose which parts are applicable to follow on any given day. That is why much of the bible is ignored, including the majority of Leviticus, unless of course, like I said, it serves their purpose to quote it.

America isn't tied to biblical law. Some founding fathers were Christian and some were not. Some had major issues with any sort of organized religion, which is why they made sure to note the importance of the separation of church and state.
Posted by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
When I joined, I got this little dude with brown hair. That makes sense haha. And actually, Christians do not just disregard the Old Testament. If so, why would it even be included in the Bible? Christ never abolished the old covenant, it was just inapplicable to Christians in many senses. The homosexual lines however, could still very well apply. Here's a passage from the New Testament:

Romans 1:26-27
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

It, however, doesn't matter whether you think it's true or not, because the writers of the Declaration of Independence did. I only was bringing those points up to demonstrate a paradox that would occur between the writers of the Declaration of Independence and God. God, in all of the Bible, has never condoned gay marriage and actually expressly condemned it. Therefore an allowing of gay marriage would be against the Declaration of Independence. I used those passages because they most obviously express God's view on homosexuality. This was reiterated in the New Testament, just in a longer, less straight to the point way.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
Lol, i thought those with that purple circle were the same person.
That's an image that appears by default in the avatar section of your profile. So basically, it's really easy to get. I don't know if it has a meaning tho.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
A Christian using Leviticus to condemn homosexuality or gay marriage makes no sense. Christians believe that Jesus made a new covenant with God, which cancelled the old covenant (Old Testament laws). Christians believe in very little from the Old Testament, unless of course it supports one specific argument they are trying to make.
Posted by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
You can vote now, but you have to finish 3 debates first. The first thing you should see when you get to this page is a voting ballot now that the debate is over. You don't do anything with the comments.
Posted by michaaaa_masters 2 years ago
michaaaa_masters
I am new on here. How do you vote for the comments?
Posted by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
Hey guys I'm glad you're reading this debate and it's cool that you support Nikki. Just remember to vote on who made better arguments, not on bias. But anyway, the real reason I'm posting this comment is that I'm wondering why so many people have that circle as their picture. What does it mean? I'm just seeing a ton of them all of a sudden.
Posted by issiahhh_james 2 years ago
issiahhh_james
This was really worth reading .. I agree with Nikki. :)
Posted by michaaaa_masters 2 years ago
michaaaa_masters
Nikki, I agree 100%!
You go girl!
Posted by bringg_me_the_horizon 2 years ago
bringg_me_the_horizon
I'm **
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
bringg_me_the_horizonPhoenix61397Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had excellent spelling and grammar whereas Pro made several mistakes. Pro's arguments lacked evidence and were mostly based off of personal opinion that did not directly support her argument. The majority of Pro's claims were refuted successfully but Con's arguments stood uncontested.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
bringg_me_the_horizonPhoenix61397Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: This one definitely goes to Con, Pro repeatedly argued that gays are mistreated and deserve respect while Con had made no claims against homosexual people. Simply opposing marriage, his strongest point being that America was founded on christian principles which was never refuted by Pro. Pro repeatedly brought the topic at hand off track and for this I am giving con conduct as well. Con used 4 sources while Pro only used 1