The Instigator
gjdarizona
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
V5RED
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Gay marriage

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 1 vote the winner is...
V5RED
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 586 times Debate No: 79704
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

gjdarizona

Con

Wouldn't it be hilarious if the institution of marriage can acknowledge a man and a woman as being two people of the same gender because physical gender doesn't matter with physically mating less human relations, however, the institution of marriage cannot acknowledge two people of the same gender as being a man and a woman because physical gender does matter with physically mating human relations. I can tell the difference between acknowledging diversity and homogenization, too bad nobody else can keyword yet!
V5RED

Pro

Marriage is a human institution and is defined by the culture in which it exists. There is no absolute law that marriage must be between a man and a woman, which seems to be your objection. Our society currently defines marriage as a legally recognized union between consenting adults regardless of gender.
Debate Round No. 1
gjdarizona

Con

On the one hand gay marriage advocates believe that the institution of marriage is purely a human construction, human beings are just totally making up the institution of marriage. But, on the other hand gay marriage advocates argue that there are certain restrictions as to how human beings can define and construct the institution of marriage that are beyond human control and that's called doublethink. Shouldn't gay marriage advocates be arguing that of course the institution of marriage acknowledges a man and a woman as physically mating human relations and we have no qualms with that. What we object to is that the institution of marriage has always been restricted to acknowledging a man and a woman as physically mating human relations and we want to expand the institution of marriage to also acknowledge physically mating less human relations because the institution of marriage is purely a human construction, human beings are just totally making up the institution of marriage and that's inclusiveness, diversity, and legal equality. Instead gay marriage advocates use doublethink to make the case for gay marriage, that is, it is impossible for the institution of marriage to acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations or as physically mating less human relations because the institution of marriage is purely a human construction, human beings are just totally making up the institution of marriage. Gay marriage the hyper-space alternative! If the institution of marriage does not acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations then there is only one alternative, the institution of marriage will acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating less human relations. There is no hyper-space alternative and even if there were you would still get the same homogenizing effect. Why not allow two people of the same gender to get married, but, still legally acknowledge all marriages as husband and wife, that is as a man and a woman as physically mating human relations. That way two people of the same gender could get married with out redefining the institution of marriage and two people of the same gender would be married just like everybody else! But, wait a minute! If the institution of marriage conforms to a man and a woman then the institution of marriage will acknowledge all marriages as being a man and a woman. If the institution of marriage conforms to two people of the same gender then the institution of marriage will acknowledge all marriages as being two people of the same gender, whether a man and a woman are included or not is totally irrelevant, and the only way the institution of marriage can conform to a man and a woman is if only a man and a woman are allowed to be married.
V5RED

Pro

You seem to think that if humans invent a system, then that system can never change. That is incorrect. Marriage has changed to include relationships it previously did not include. There is no need to define it in terms of gender, it is defined in terms of adulthood and consent. Most of what you wrote was pretty incoherent and used very strange terms that you never bothered to define like "hyper-space alternative" and "physically mating human relations".

Maybe you could try having someone read your posts before posting them?
Debate Round No. 2
gjdarizona

Con

A man and a woman physically mating with each other in physical reality are not an example of physically mating less opposite gender relations in physical reality. Therefore there are two completely separate and distinct opposite gender physical relations that exist in physical reality, physically mating and physically mating less. The traditional institution of marriage acknowledges and differentiates the true dichotomy of opposite gender physical relations that exist in physical reality, physically mating from physically mating less. It's the traditional institution of marriage that acknowledges diversity. Acknowledges the diversity of physical gender of human beings in physical reality male and female. Acknowledges the one and only diversity of human physical relations in physical reality that is a man and a woman physically mating with each other. Allowing two people of the same gender to be married homogenizes the institution of marriage which is why the institution of marriage is homo-phobic. To use the institution of marriage to acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations is gender equality. To use the institution of marriage to acknowledge all marriages as being two people of the same gender as physically mating less human relations is also gender equality and those are the only two ways to achieve gender equality with the institution of marriage. A group marriage acknowledges a group of human physical beings in physical reality like a flock of birds or a herd of cattle, whereas the institution of marriage acknowledges and differentiates human relations and which of these two physical relations, physically mating and physically mating less, the institution of marriage will acknowledge is determined by the physical gender of the human beings being acknowledge. Instead of acknowledging and differentiating the true dichotomy of opposite physical relations, physically mating from physically mating less, the institution of marriage will acknowledge and differentiate the false dichotomy of same gender physical relations, physically mating less from physically mating less in terms of physical reality, romantically loving each other from not romantically loving each in terms of human subjective reality, or whatever from whatever in terms of human subjective reality. Gay marriage advocates insist that the institution of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with acknowledging a man and a woman as physically mating human relations and this is the result.
V5RED

Pro

I asked you to rephrase your basically incoherent wall of text and instead you basically just copy and pasted it again. There is no point in debating if you are just going to post incoherent things in a nigh unreadable fashion.
Debate Round No. 3
gjdarizona

Con

So, am I to conclude that never in all of human history has the human species ever done anything to legally acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations with each other, that is the human relations that perpetuate the human species, other than being a criminal offense, other than being a civil offense, other than being a crime against the state, other than being a threat to society, i.e., rape, incest, prostitution, adultery, unlawful carnal knowledge? If the institution of marriage does not or can not acknowledge a man and a woman as physically mating human relations with each other, that is the human relations that perpetuate the human species, other than being a criminal offense, other than being a civil offense, other than being a crime against the state, other than being a threat to society, then just what the hell can? A paternity suit? Even then the acknowledgement is being legally forced not legally granted to two consenting human beings of their own free will. So, if not the institution of marriage well than what?
V5RED

Pro

What does any of that have to do with your opposition to gay marriage? Are you saying that gay marriage causes rape, incest, prostitution, adultery, and "unlawful carnal knowledge"? If that were the case then why is it that those existed before gay marriage?

Please post a coherent argument against gay marriage, one that someone can make some kind of sense of. Right now, I see no argument, just random statements about "physically mating human relations".
Debate Round No. 4
gjdarizona

Con

Gay marriage advocates insist that the institution of marriage has nothing to do with acknowledging a man and a woman mating with each other, i.e., physically mating human relations. Advocates for the traditional institution of marriage insist that the institution of marriage does acknowledge a man and a woman mating with each other, i.e., physically mating human relations. It's the core argument for allowing two people of the same gender to get married.
V5RED

Pro

I can't tell if I have been debating some computer program like an IM bot or if my opponent has been trolling. Either way this was a waste of time, though the comments section was interesting.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
I do, however, support the child being able to choose - but at a certain age. No matter the age in general, I feel they would be happy to adopt no matter who it is or what their sexual orientation is. I, however, don't feel that children should be deprived of a family simply because the woman was married to another woman or a man loved another man. They are just like heterosexual couples - able to understand what they are filling, who they are, consenting and want children (though not all do.) The only difference is their inability to conceive and there are many that aren't able to regardless of their sexual orientation. Sex is done for pleasure just as much as that of reproduction.

I know this is just restating my general argument, but this is something I'm just passionate on.

I await your reply.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
In a loving environment filled with food, clothes and attention, I don't see the issue. With a study of 15k people, most of which could have been contributed by confounding factors, I can't find myself understanding the harm. If they are more likely to be homosexuals, is it so wrong? They are just as likely to be hetero than homo (abbreviating, as it takes up characters and I don't know how long I will make this. I don't like the 2k limit) and vice versa no matter their environment they were raised in. It's evident in environments where isolated children find themselves being attracted to the opposite gender in heterosexual families. And there are plenty and many children exposed to and will do drugs when they are around the wrong crowds. Children are capable of suffering both sexual, nonsexual and mental abuse no matter what household they are raised in. There are also doubled statistics for race-based parenting too, no matter their sexual orientation. "More likely" or "less likely" percentages aren't depriving Asians, whites with tattoos and piercings, Mexicans, African Americans, etc., from being capable of adopting, so why should their sexual orientation play this horrible factor just because a woman loved a woman or man loved a man? Do you see where I'm coming from on this? [I could try to explain it in a different way if I'm not making any sense. My apologies if that is the case.] People can't choose race and cannot choose orientation. They shouldn't be punished for it and they shouldn't have studies thrown in their faces over things that could be influenced by friends and done in heterosexual couples as well. All they want to do is adopt children and give them a home, instead of sitting there waiting in a long line for a heterosexual couple because they are "more likely" (capable of doing what homosexuals are feared of [though are not guaranteed and are just as likely/least likely as anyone else]) to give them a better home.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
Oh, I forgot to reply to the bottom half.

I don't see the issue in being homosexual at all. It's not wrong and it's just a matter of who you love. Is being bisexual wrong (I'm curious as if just same-sex only are in question or if bisexuals are included in this.) What if a homosexual child is born in that of a heterosexual couple? Should we treat it as if who they are is wrong? How would that go about? What if a bisexual woman conceived a child with a straight man and then marries a woman? Should her child be taken from her? There are many flaws with a learned behavior for sexual orientation in general. For instance, It was also wrong in the South for a white woman/white man to love a black woman/black man. It wasn't normal to them. They were raised to despise them and remain master, but they developed an attraction for them anyway. Was this learned? No, it was merely an attraction. They liked them, wanted to be around them, fell in love with them and had mixed children [in some cases. Life isn't a fairy tale.] Loving someone no matter their race is also normal, even though at one point in time it was un-thought of, especially in the South. What is "normal" now won't be later. Many of the homosexual "behaviors" that are deemed wrong are done just as often as heterosexuals. The only difference is the orientation. Either way, it is both consenting adults, both of which love each other and want to spend their life together like heterosexual couples. Our intelligence allows us to understand the actual harm done. For instance, a son having sex with his mother and her ending up pregnant could create mutated children. (Which is why in many places someone can marry their second cousin.) Children typically, and in most cases, would rather not be with their own family. As for the bestiality statement: animals are outside of our species and can not give consent, therefore classifying it as both animal cruelty and rape against said animal. [The laws here in the US anyway.]
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
By the way, if I say something confusing, mention it and I'll try to revise it to make it easier to understand.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
@Longline

I don't know what you mean by "cancel." Can you clarify this? I think you're meaning cancer, but I don't want to assume such.

Reproduction is a body function. Yeah, in this aspect, it's not normal. But so is sex for pleasure and not for reproduction, but we do this anyway. Sex for pleasure is considered a normal act, though, because it is pleasurable and done often. It's not for reproduction. In fact, reproduction isn't the only purpose of the sexual organs, and sex often deals with stress, reduces the risk of prostate cancer, boosts antibody production, and many other things. Here's some: [http://www.webmd.com...] But again, anyone who can't reproduce is then considered not normal, right? It's natural for people to have sex, regardless of their gender and with whatever gender they choose.

@Ahalasa

Sorry that it takes me a while to reply. I can't get on the computer when I'm at home.

Natural in the way of epigenetics. While we can prevent many of those aspects with our intelligent minds, sexual orientation is not a choice, but factors also with epigenetics and even in some cases intrauterine hormones.

And I can certainly tell you, I didn't choose to be bisexual [more lesbian than straight]. The fact that I have to fight to show people that who I am is not wrong is one reason why that I would have rather been straight then live trapped in a world where I'm not considered natural and often considered below human by some. This wasn't learnt and it certainly wasn't by choice. I don't think anyone would want to face what we have to today. While being born bisexual may be a factor, there isn't a doubt in my mind that biological factors play a part. "Learned behavior" in homes where the mention of homosexuality was forbidden? When children were never exposed to it? Learning it may be the case for some, but it's not for many. Myself including.
Posted by ahalasa 1 year ago
ahalasa
Dear longline,
Though I agree with you on the concept but we cant say it is a desease, or illness. It is a tendency available in every creature between homosexuality or hetrosexuality, this is proven by psychology, there are different schools that discuss the evolution of this behavior. But our main argument is would that affect children or not. Awaiting mizzenegma to comment.
Posted by Longline 1 year ago
Longline
@missEnigma.

Just because a behaviour from gay people was found in animal does not make it ok. animals too can have cancel does that make cancel ok? no same as being gay. Because science found this same pattern in animal does not means it ok. animals can get the same type of disease any human can. it's not normalize anything.

And second you can not put aside our body function. as I mention in my last post. gayness is by far not normal no matter what kind of experiment you do. why because the female body is design not to do the same thing as the male body in terms of reproduction theory.

if a guy sleep with another guy right their they are going against our body functionality. that means something is not right mentally. because physical the body of both men already have a penis, it's telling them what their role in society is by birth.
something has to go wrong mentally, first, because the body still has that part.

If something is wrong mentally that means it's a sickness. if it's a sickness that also means any animal can acquired the same sickness as well. so I don't know why when scientist find gay animal they think being gay is normal. and when they find an animal with cancel they don't think cancel is normal.

the only time I will have an exception if both men where born with both a penise and a vegina that is function like normal. normal as in it can reproduce.
men sleeping with other men is not normal. same with women. does not make any logical sense.

think about this. when you want to convince someone of a lie, you will take longer using complex example, because somewhere along your explanation you want to hide the truth.
the truth can be explain with ease like I said, it does not make logical sense.
if you want to prove that it make logical sense. you will have to fight hard to by pass all the truth to come up with reason. go ahead. try.
Posted by ahalasa 1 year ago
ahalasa
in my opinion, most homosexual advocates compare the behavior with animals; there are cases of homosexuality in animals then it is normal. This is a trick, not everything done by animals should be considered as normal and applied to humans. For examples, it is normal for animal kids to do sexual interact with their mothers when they grow up. It is normal for animals to abuse other kinds of animals. It is normal for animals to kill other animals. But humans are different, humans are very developed creatures compared to animals, they are learning creatures and according to Freud, people are born bisexual and the lipido develops into homosexuality or hetrosexuality based on many factors (external and internal). I see that homosexuality is a learnt behavior, i.e. if you read in the history of ancient Greece, most of the people were bisexual (the man would give the wisdom for another man by doing sex together) and they considered women as stupid creatures created only for reproduction (I am sorry for using the term). The society was developed in a way that people learnt to be bisexual at that time.

Going back to the scientific paper, it is a research of many but I believe that government should give more attention for such researches to help the society develop in the right way.
The example of marigwana is not my concern, why don't you comment on the very high probability for a child to be homosexual compared to a child lived in a heterosexual family. It is learnt behavior you can't ignore that, if a child was raised in a society that kissing and having sex with the same sex is normal, then it will be normal for him. In less developed countries, for example in Africa, men do sex with Monkeys, is that right? but it is learnt behavior. Homosexuality could be learned, and raising children in such families will let them learn the attraction for the same sex.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
First and foremsost, homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. It is observable in animal behavior as well and is also growing in number. Classifying norm on the basis of reproduction, then I suppose infertile couples shouldn't be capable of marriage or adoption etiher.

What those studies also don't show is the confounding factors. The friends of the children, who notably play a heavy role in a child's life, the genetics of the child's biological parents, etc. There are many reasons that can contribute to why a child does certain things. You can check the differences, but other underlying factors won't change. Heterosexual children, just as homosexual sexual children, are likely to smoke marijuana when persuaded as a young child by another young child. Being in a high school atmosphere with the majority of heterosexual parents is proof enough of that.

"While the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding "causality." In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work."

As the site itself says. I don't agree with a lot of the conclusions as there are many factors that can be played and be dealt with on both sides. Society is changing and a lot of the "societal norms" aren't "societal norms" anymore, just like women not being able to vote and having to live confined to her husband was a "societal norm" back in the days. Things change.
Posted by ahalasa 1 year ago
ahalasa
Here is a link for the study:
http://www.frc.org...

and there are many many studies in such field that prove my point.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Richardsonalj 1 year ago
Richardsonalj
gjdarizonaV5RED
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: V5RED had more compelling arguments.