The Instigator
Jackthemarine86
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
psyduck
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Homosexual Marriage and Lifestyle: Detrimental and Not Necessarily About Equality.

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 3 votes the winner is...
psyduck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 980 times Debate No: 46521
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Jackthemarine86

Pro

Hi, I'm new to this site, and this is my first debate. Unlike most of the debates I've seen regarding this subject, I am going to keep Biblical references out of my argument. My contention is that homosexual marriage is not necessarily about equality. Furthermore, there are statistics and reasonable arguments for how the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriage negatively affects a society, as well as the homosexual as an individual.

Round 1 - Opening Arguments

Round 2 - Rebuttals

Round 3 - Final Rebuttals and Closing Statement.

Personal attacks of debaters is not acceptable. Proper spelling and clarity of writing are suggested for legitimacy. Due to my work schedule and job, I've given lee-way to the max on vote period and time to argue. Any direct Biblical quotes or verses are not allowed when making an argument.
psyduck

Con

Homosexual marriage and lifestyle is not detrimental towards society in any way whatsoever. Two people gaining recognition for loving each other does not detract from society in any way. Also, being true to yourself does quite the opposite hurting oneself. To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment."

I'm very curious what the rational argument against homophobia is without use of religious text. Looking forward to it.
Debate Round No. 1
Jackthemarine86

Pro

So we begin. Is homosexual marriage really about equality? I don't think so. Homosexuals have the right to marry just like any heterosexual couple. In fact, many get married in private ceremonies on a regular basis across the country. There is even an entire cottage industry dedicated to gay weddings.

Sweden and Norway and the Netherlands are three countries which have legalized gay marriage. Surprisingly, after being legalized in the Netherlands, the number of gay marriages declined consecutively year after year. Of the gay couples that married, the divorce rate among the men was 50% higher, and lesbians, 150% higher than their heterosexual counterparts. In the Netherlands, between 2001-2008, only 2 to 6 percent of homosexuals have married.

Homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan has even claimed that he doesn't believe that gay monogamy is possible. Instead, he claims that homosexuals "need" multiple partners! Apparently monogamy is not "flexible" enough for homosexuals. He calls monogamy a "stifling model of heterosexual morality" and thinks homosexuals have a greater "understanding for the need for extramarital outlets."

The vast Sex in America survey published by the university of Chicago found monogamy among heterosexuals to be 83 percent, but less than 2 percent for homosexuals. The Journal of Family Psychology wrote, "The practice of sexual non-monogamy among some gay couples is one variable that differentiates gay and heterosexual couples."

So what is it about? It's about respect, validation, and normality. They understand that government-backed same sex marriage will validate and normalize homosexuality in society. Andrew Sullivan admitted this when he said, " Including homosexuals within marriage will be a means of conferring the highest form of social approval imaginable" .

As far as society goes, studies have shown that children are best raised in a home with a mother and father. Homosexual couples remove this element. They claim without evidence that parents are interchangeable. This is an interesting notion because this means that men and women are interchangeable to them when it comes to the role of parenting, but when it comes to their sexual persuasion, it's not so. But if men and women are interchangeable, why not marry someone of the opposite sex?

Health wise there is nothing inherently loving, natural, or healthy about inserting a penis into the anus. The anus has one primary function - excreting waste. This is not a personal opinion..it's a fact. Labeling its abuse as an act of love will not change that fact. Gay and bisexual men account for more than 60% of all syphilis cases in the United States. The highest concentration of AIDS can be found in the homosexual community. Even the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association admits that Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer, have higher risks for cervical cancers and are more likely to be obese. A study of over 1,400 lesbians found that lesbians experience higher rates of bacterial vaginosis and hepatitis C, have twice the number of male (yes male) partners than heterosexual women (only 7 percent who identify themselves as lesbians never have sex with men), they are 4.5 more likely to have fifty or more male sexual partners in a lifetime, and are three to four times more likely to have sex with men who are at high risk for HIV - homosexuals, bisexuals, and IV drug users. (Kinda matches up with Sullivan's statement of "needing" multiple partners.)

In US history, it was recorded homosexual men were involved in one-third of all child molestation cases. That is, about one third of all pedophile cases are homosexual in nature-man to boy.

School indoctrination of kids into the "normalcy" of homosexuality despite the health concerns and objections of parents.

Workplace indoctrination.

Surveys show that countries who legalize gay marriage have a higher illegitimate child birth explosion, because people no longer connect marriage to childbearing. Surveys also show that countries which recognize same sex marriage have a higher population that think illegitimacy is acceptable - illegitimacy contributes inevitably to increased crime (lack of one parent being in the home) and social welfare costs.

Lastly, JD Unwin, a British ethnologist and social anthropologist did a comprehensive study on 80 primitive tribes and six known civilizations through 5,000 years of history - Sex and Culture. After a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result, loses its cohesion, it's impetus, and it's purpose. A process that's irreversible: "The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs."
psyduck

Con

Despite what you might believe, gay marriage is about equality. You said there's a cottage industry dedicated to gay marriage. I hardly see the harm in that, boosting the economy and all.

Now allow me to refute your arguments.

1) gay marriage is less monogamous,

If the lack of monogamy is a problem, then banning marriage would hardly help. That'd be like banning medicine because sick people use it. Andrew Sullivan's main point was that the lack of societal support for their monogamy may be the reason why [1]. Also, allowing gay marriage won't be an instant change because the culture would need time to adjust as well.

Second off, monogamy isn't objectively better as you assert. On average, sexual frequency tapers off in a long-term relationship [2]. Also, couples won't use condoms, which will lead to an increased chance of STD's in the all-too-common case of infidelity [2]. The Mosuo people of Luga Lake don't practice monogamy. They find it constraining and question why people who stop loving each other would be forced to stay together. They recognize love isn't permanent.

Thirdly, it's veritableness is questionable. Andrew Sullivan's opinions do not represent all gay people. There are plenty of men who cheat with their wives and vice versa, and in a deceitful manner. Should marriage be banned for everyone because of the infidelity of others?

2) liberal sexual morality will cause society to lose its drive

I really don't think the United States of America is comparable to primitive tribes and civilizations. We're concerned about developing infrastructure and advanced technologies. They were worried about finding food and growing their numbers.

"The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs."

The Mosuo people would disagree.

3) gay people are more likely to contract diseases

AIDS is rampant in the homosexual community. Again, I don't see how banning gay marriage would help fix that.

4) gay people are child molesters

If one third of cases recorded involved a homosexual man, then who was involved in the other two thirds? Also, how many of those cases involved catholic priests? As far as I can tell, the whole not-getting-married route does not really help to abate this action. Also, this is a really misunderstood issue because child molesters' sexual preference really can't be compared to a normal one. It's not as if people attracted to adults of the same sex are a risk to suddenly molest a child.

5) children are better off being raised by a mother and father.

First off, it drives me nuts that you didn't cite your sources. Merely stating "surveys say" does not allow me the chance to review their highly questionable conclusions without speculating their method. Also, this is gay adoption, not gay marriage, so it's off topic. While I do disagree with your point, I'd like to stay focused on the issue of our debate.

6) gay marriage causes more illegitimate child births, and crime in turn.

Again, what surveys are you looking at? Off the bat, this seems to be a case of correlation, not causation. Also, the idea that people won't want to get married anymore because gay people are allowed to is unfounded, not proven, and absurd.

7) gay sex isn't normal

What gives you the right to decide that?

[1]http://www.slate.com...
[2]http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Jackthemarine86

Pro

Despite what you might believe, gay marriage is about equality. You said there's a cottage industry dedicated to gay marriage. I hardly see the harm in that, boosting the economy and all.

Ok, I brought up more than one point when I began this debate. One was homosexual marriage and the other homosexual lifestyle; How it"s detrimental and not necessarily about equality. I went on to explain that the homosexual lifestyle can adversely affect society and the homosexual as an individual. Please keep these distinct observations in mind, and refrain from taking all of my points as an argument against only one.
The equality to get married is existent " the recognition of the marriage by the government, however, is not equal. There"s a distinct difference between the two. The propaganda says that gays do not have equal rights to get married.
The law states you can get married and have it recognized. It just has to be to a member of the opposite sex. There"s a reason why it"s been that way, and during my responses, you may grasp the reason. When you change the requirements, due to preference of sexual orientation, the law becomes something about personal desires and not what"s best for society.
Here"s an illustration behind what I mean
There"s a big difference between treating people equally and treating behavior equally. We do not recognize all behavior as equal. The terms heterosexual and homosexual are used to define sexual behavioral preferences. When you look on your birth certificate, you will see your name and your sex .. it says male or female. So we are defined as people being male or female" not heterosexual or homosexual.
gay marriage is less monogamous,

"If the lack of monogamy is a problem, then banning marriage would hardly help. That'd be like banning medicine because sick people use it. Andrew Sullivan's main point was that the lack of societal support for their monogamy may be the reason why [1]. Also, allowing gay marriage won't be an instant change because the culture would need time to adjust as well."
Ok, here: If you know that AIDS and other STDs run rampant in the homosexual community, and that is not enough to dissuade you from living that lifestyle, or convince you to practice monogamy, what makes YOU think that societal support or legalizing gay marriage will change that?
"If the lack of monogamy is a problem, then banning marriage would hardly help."
The lack of monogamy is the very point I am making. If the subject of marriage in the homosexual community is really about equality, then it begs to question why they are fighting for a right that statistics and studies show do not really fit with their particular lifestyle.
Funny you used Andrew Sullivan, even though you say he doesn"t represent all gay people. I reiterate: Andrew Sullivan has even claimed that he doesn't believe that gay monogamy is possible. Instead, he claims that homosexuals "need" multiple partners! Apparently monogamy is not "flexible" enough for homosexuals. He calls monogamy a "stifling model of heterosexual morality" and thinks homosexuals have a greater "understanding for the need for extramarital outlets." Furthermore, Sullivan believes heterosexuals could learn from the promiscuity of homosexuals. He writes," something of the gay relationship"s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds."
When you stated monogamy isn"t objectively better because sexual frequency tapers off in a long-term relationship " That"s frankly not a good argument. It would seem that argument is derivative of the mindset that monogamy is strictly about sexual longevity.
I"m married with kids, and I can tell you first-hand that marriage is about much more than sex. It"s about much more than love. It"s about commitment through thick and thin. Some people who get married, actually take marriage as a vow of devotion to one another. In marriage, there is sex and love, but also bond of trust, and for the majority of married couples, procreation. That married couple now has responsibility, not only to one another, but to those children to raise them, nurture them emotionally, and educate them in order to be productive members of society contributing to society"s existence.
"There are plenty of men who cheat with their wives and vice versa, and in a deceitful manner. Should marriage be banned for everyone because of the infidelity of others?"
No, it should not, because I have already provided the information which shows the benefits to society and children that come from a heterosexual marriage. And for the percentage of men who do not cheat, those particular marriages could arguably be considered a major contribution to society. By the way, women cheat too.
I really don't think the United States of America is comparable to primitive tribes and civilizations. We're concerned about developing infrastructure and advanced technologies. They were worried about finding food and growing their numbers.

"The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs."

The Mosuo people would disagree.

I"d have to disagree with your refute of Unwin"s studies. Those civilizations he studied encompassed the Roman, Sumerian, and Babylonian empire. How old is the United States of America? 237 years, going on 238. The Roman Empire spanned over 1,300 years. And they were worried about more than finding food or growing their numbers "
In fact:" The inventions and innovations which were generated in the Roman Empire profoundly altered the lives of the ancient people and continue to be used in cultures around the world today. Advancements in the construction of roads and buildings, indoor plumbing, aqueducts, and even fast-drying cement were either invented or improved upon by the Romans. The calendar used in the West derives from the one created by Julius Caesar, and the names of the days of the week (in the romance languages) and months of the year also come from Rome. Apartment complexes (known as `insula), public toilets, locks and keys, newspapers, even socks all were developed by the Romans as were shoes, a postal system (modeled after the Persians), cosmetics, the magnifying glass, and the concept of satire in literature. During the time of the empire, significant developments were also advanced in the fields of medicine, law, religion, government, and warfare. The Romans were adept at borrowing from, and improving upon, those inventions or concepts they found among the indigenous populace of the regions they conquered. It is therefore difficult to say what is an `original" Roman invention and what is an innovation on a pre-existing concept, technique, or tool. It can safely be said, however, that the Roman Empire left an enduring legacy which continues to affect the way in which people live even today." http://www.ancient.eu.com.... And that just covers the Roman empire.
The Sumerian empire spanned about 4,200 years and their list of accomplishments are also note-worthy out-side increasing numbers and looking for food: http://www.ancient.eu.com... .

Your example of the Mosuo people are an exception to the rule.
Just because there is an example of a society which operates outside of traditional monogamy, that does not refute the value of traditional monogamy as a whole. It also does not refute the years of study conducted by Unwin. Furthermore, you failed to include a key aspect in the Mosuo culture: "While it is possible for a Mosuo woman to change partners as often as she likes, few Mosuo women have more than one partner at a time." A term called "serial monogamy"- So monogamy, nonetheless. Lugu Lake Mosuo Cultural Development Association (2006). The Mosuo: Walking Marriages.
I find it interesting that when I made my point with Unwin, you dismissed the tribes of his research as being irrelevant, yet opted to provide a tribe of about 40,000 individuals as an example to refute my point.

"AIDS is rampant in the homosexual community. Again, I don't see how banning gay marriage would help fix that."
I go back to my beginning statement in this rebuttal. This specific point is not necessarily an argument against gay marriage, as much as to point out the detriment of the lifestyle to the homosexual as an individual, and society.

The United States and other countries recognize this detriment as well: Specifically, the United States recognizes the lifestyle being detrimental, hence the current ban against donated blood from men who have sex with other men. If it were natural and "..is not detrimental to society in anyway whatsoever", as you claimed, why the ban in our country and other countries? Better yet, if you needed blood, and it were legal, would you knowingly accept blood from a man you knew to be gay without thinking twice? If you had the choice between a heterosexual and homosexual"s blood, given no background or info in that setting, what would you gamble with? http://en.wikipedia.org...
I"d post a link to substantiate AIDS being prevalent in the homosexual community, but I don"t think that fact will be disputed.

"First off, it drives me nuts that you didn't cite your sources. Merely stating "surveys say" does not allow me the chance to review their highly questionable conclusions without speculating their method. Also, this is gay adoption, not gay marriage, so it's off topic. While I do disagree with your point, I'd like to stay focused on the issue of our debate."
It"s not off topic. This is a detriment to society " one of the key topics I brought up when I started this debate.
Children from natural marriages (man and woman) are seven times less likely to live in poverty, six times less likely to commit suicide, less than half as likely to commit crime, less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, and they develop better academically and socially.
However, children from fatherless homes are seven times more likely to live in poverty, six times more likely to commit suicide, more than twice as likely to commit crime, more than twice as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock, worse off academically and socially " and account for 60 percent of Amercia"s rapists, 63 percent of America"s youth suicide, 70 percent of America"s long-term prison inmates and reform school attendees, 71 percent of America"s teenage pregnancies, 72 percent of America"s adolescent murderers, 85 percent of America"s youth prisoners, 85 percent of America"s youth with behavioral disorders, and 90 percent of America"s runaways.
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com...
I have already pointed out that homosexual couples effectively remove either the father or the mother from the home. They claim that there"s no difference, but a far more recent study says other-wise:
http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu...
This study was conducted utilizing an impressive 20% of Canada"s 2006 Census, and at the time of this census, Canada"s same-sex couples had enjoyed all taxation and government benefits since 1997 and legal same-sex marriage since 2005.
The study concluded that children of married opposite-sex families have a high graduation rate compared to the others; children of lesbian families have a very low graduation rate compared to the others; and the other four types (common law heterosexual couple, single mother, single father, and gay male couple) are similar to each other and lie in between the married opposite-sex household and lesbian household extremes. Allen summarizes his findings on the effect of parent and child genders in same-sex households as follows:

"the results on high school graduation rates suggest that children living in both gay and lesbian households struggle compared to children from opposite sex married households. In general, it appears that these children are only about 65% as likely to graduate from high school compared to the [married opposite-sex] control group"a difference that holds whether conditioned on controls or not. When the households are broken down by child gender it appears that daughters are struggling more than sons, and that daughters of gay [male] parents have strikingly low graduation rates.

The latter conclusions are worthy of greater clarity, because they are the first findings that can really address the effects of fatherlessness or motherlessness on boys and girls in same-sex households. These data indicate that the specific gender mix of a same-sex household makes a "dramatic difference" in the association with child graduation. Girls in lesbian households were only 45% as likely to graduate compared to girls from homes with both a mother and a father. More strikingly, girls from gay male households were only 15% as likely to graduate as girls from an opposite-sex household. A parallel comparison for boys in lesbian households found them to be 76% as likely to graduate as their male peers in opposite-sex households. Finally, boys in gay male households were found to be 61% more likely to graduate than boys in opposite-sex households. However, Allen added that the results for boys, unlike those for girls, were not statistically significant.

Looking at these differences from another angle, Allen"s findings indicated that in gay male households, sons achieved a 72% graduation rate and daughters achieved a 43% graduation rate. For lesbian households, the graduate rates were 48% for boys and 55% for girls. Allen notes that such differences seem inconsistent with blanket claims of discrimination as an explanation for these findings, which he summarizes as indicating "sons do better with fathers, and daughters do better with mothers."

And this is just covering the subject of education.

"gay marriage causes more illegitimate child births, and crime in turn."
Here you go:

"Demand for Same Sex Marriage: Evidence from the United States, Canada, and Europe," http://www.marriagedebate.com...

gay sex isn't normal
Actually, I said .."there"s nothing inherently loving, healthy, or natural about inserting a penis into the anus."
Yeah, the standard response is, "It"s natural or normal for me because it"s what I prefer." And I don"t mean "natural" in the sense of preference, but "natural" in the sense as to how the human body is designed to function. You and I have all manner of "natural" desires to do things that are physically destructive, (tobacco use, getting drunk, violence, etc.,) and those things often feel good. However, we don"t excuse those behaviors because they come "naturally". Hence anti-smoking adds, "Don"t be THAT guy" posters, etc.,.
Sorry, but the human body was not designed for anal intercourse. Science already shows the function of the anus. Its sole purpose is to excrete waste. Notice everyone has the same body part designed to excrete waste, yet we possess unique body parts for sexual functions.
The same way science shows the functions of the vagina and penis. Furthermore, it is in line with what human bodies are designed to do " not what they desire to do.
I"d also like to point out that heterosexuals couples have been known to perform this kind of sexual activity as well. I"d apply the same argument to them as well. The following provides a link as to the purpose of the anus:
http://www.health24.com...
Since the beginning of time, the anus has also been accepted by many cultures as an erogenous zone, explaining the act of anal stimulation. The anal walls are rich in nerve endings that can give a feeling of pleasure. Many homosexual and heterosexual people practice this form of intercourse.
However, anal sex should always be practiced with a condom and a good water-based lubricant. It is very possible for the walls of the rectum to be torn either through a very solid stool, or by rough anal sex. This puts the receiver at a much higher risk of HIV, sexually transmitted infections, and other bacterial infections.

What gives you the right to decide that?

What gives you the right to ask that question?

I"d also like to add some illustrations as to how homosexuality and homosexual marriage have and will possibly affect society:
Freedom of speech and religion will be restricted: Any disagreement with homosexuality or homosexual marriage will automatically be deemed as hate speech and intolerance. Regardless of how cordial it is stated. It"s already happening. I, personally, have already been accused of being intolerant, which I find hypocritical on the part of my accusers if you actually look up the definition of tolerance. The people accusing me of being intolerant are being intolerant. The only tolerance granted will be reserved for those who support the homosexual activist position. And that"s not tolerance at all. Funny thing: How can you demonstrate tolerance unless you know another person"s opinion? How can you express an opinion unless you speak it or write it?
Here are some examples:
http://www.lifesitenews.com...
In Lexington, Ky., a T-shirt shop called Hands On Originals was approached by the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization about printing shirts for the group. The T-shirt company politely declined and even sought out quotes and gave the group referrals to other T-shirt printers, along with comparable prices. They were promptly sued by the group under Lexington"s anti-discriminatory laws and forced to comply with a lengthy investigation.
Christian photographers Elane Photography in New Mexico were approached by a same sex couple looking to hire a wedding photographer. Elane Photography politely declined citing their Christian faith and were sued by the couple under the state"s anti-discriminatory laws, and won. In New Mexico you apparently have no right to your free expression and practice of faith any longer.
Owners of a small, privately owned inn in Vermont declined to host a same sex wedding reception due to their religious views and were sued.
A same-sex couple from California sued a Hawaiian bed and breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman for not allowing them to rent a room.
A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church.
Canada and Sweden already restrict speech against homosexuality to the point that even pastors have been fined or jailed:
http://townhall.com...
Possibilities and things that are happening:
Social Security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) in order to pay survivor support benefits to homosexual "widows" and "widowers"
Medical insurance premiums will rise to offset the higher health care costs associated with homosexual behavior, i.e., AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases. Furthermore premiums would rise further if insurance companies are mandated to cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples.
Employee benefits will be reduced as employers are mandated to spread their limited benefit dollars to include homosexual partners. Limited benefit dollars given to homosexuals must come from somewhere; indeed, they will probably be taken away from everyone else "including married couples raising children.
Homosexuals will probably be given legal preference to adopt due to their inability to procreate. In other words, not granted equal rights, but super rights. So kids become trophies that validate the normality of their lifestyle.
Children will be indoctrinated without parental consent to accept homosexual behavior and same sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage (Already taking place in the public schools of California and Massachusetts) " granted, this one is a stretch to me because even though it"s a concern, as the parent, they could opt to put them in a private school, or homeschool.
The workplace will attempt to indoctrinate you. If you refuse to be a "team player", you could lose your job . This is already happening in the Military. On the record, you have to agree with the lifestyle, and say it"s ok. Off the record, if you are not on duty, and you explain your personal opinion to someone else, you will experience a backlash if another person listening takes offense.
If none of what I have presented is a sign of how homosexuality is detrimental to society, then I would daresay you"re being intellectually dishonest. However, to make the absolute assertion that it does not have a detrimental effect on society anyway whatsoever is a pretty bold statement. I posted what my beliefs were about the subject and provided the reasons why. If you"re going to refute, with absolute certainty, then the burden of proof would be to show how it is not detrimental, and how it equates as equally in contributing to our past, present, and future society the way heterosexual marriage has. And maybe that"s part of the reason why societies past have placed a higher value on heterosexual marriages and grant them benefits they do not grant homosexual couples in marriage " because Governments past have recognized how heterosexual marriage actually contributes to society.
I apologize for not writing sooner, but I had to take my wife to the hospital yesterday and we didn"t get home until midnight. I thought about relinquishing the debate, but she has felt well enough for me to rotate between taking care of her, the kids, and finishing this final rebuttal.
Thanks for debating with me!
psyduck

Con

Being a homosexual in America pretty much sucks for the most part. I won't deny that. AIDS runs in the community and they are heavily discriminated against. That doesn't make them detrimental to society.

You assert that homosexuality equals having multiple partners at a time. It's not the same thing. If you wanted to argue that having multiple partners at a time is detrimental to society, that should have been your topic. There is a plethora of reasons why homosexuals might have multiple partners more frequently (they by no means have a monopoly on it). One is that they are not allowed to by married. Another is that they are more prone to question traditional relationship structure. That doesn't mean that "the homosexual lifestyle" involves having multiple partners. The "homosexual lifestyle" is simply living out your life having sex with the same gender.

I hope you realize that labeling people by sexual orientation at birth is both unnecessary and impossible.

You claim that gay sex is detrimental to the individual because of the risk of contracting AIDS. It really doesn't matter what we say here. It's there choice to go for it or not. But keep this quote in mind: "A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."

They are fighting for gay marriage because it IS about equality. And you are generalizing to this absurd degree. You find a stat that says gay people are more likely to sleep around, and then you assume that all gay people are utterly incapable of living a monogamous life. It's absurd.

You're right about the sex defining a good relationship. What I should have said was that people fall out of love. I used the Mosuo people to demonstrate a society with less constricting marital laws.

You've provided no evidence of the benefits of society to a heterosexual marriage. Children don't come from marriage. They come from sex. And raising your children together does not rely on a ceremony. The difference you didn't point out is societal acceptance. That perhaps is the largest factor in raising a child: his/her family status.

I didn't know Unwin study involved the Roman Empire. To claim that the Roman empire fell because of homosexuality would have to be the stupidest thesis I can imagine.

I'm not going to argue that AIDS is not harmful to society. However gay sex did not create AIDS. There is nothing inherently about gay sex that makes it riskier than hetero sex. It's just that diseases have spreading patterns and AIDS started with the homosexual community in the US. To say that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong because of AIDS is like saying playing outside is wrong because of car accidents.

That study on children in a homosexual household doesn't factor out societal pressure in its conclusions, so it is as much about the inherent nature of being raised that way as it is about society's treatment of people being raised that way. It's just statistical gathering and doesn't factor in aspects such as bullying, making friends, teacher-student interaction, etc.

Regarding your source in the comment section, it's hardly convincing. There source references one anthropologist by who conducted his research by looking at statistics and ascribing an imaginative explanation to it. The only data he was basing his opinion on was the correlation between registering homosexual partnerships (not marriage) and children being born out of wedlock in Scandinavia. The source does even mention that there was a rise in out-of-wedlock babies before the legalization of gay marriage in 3 out of four countries.

But also, the source mentions nothing about crime. In the US, we can see how children raised in broken homes are more likely to commit crimes, but the out-of-wedlock kids they are talking about are still living with both their parents. They just see no reason to get married right away. Typically they do get married by their second child. There is no evidence that marriage is any better for society over cohabitation.

I should have asked what gives the grounds to decide that gay sex isn't normal, my bad.

You state biological purposes. Yes, things are developed to do a certain thing. The trunks of trees are developed to hold its leaves up high where it can reach the sunlight. We chop up those trunks and use its wood to make chairs, houses, guitars, etc. We're using something in a way that it was not originally designed to do. Is that wrong. Innovative ideas are what keeps this world spinning, and if gay men want to stick it up the butt, well, God bless them!

Freedom of speech won't be restricted. Your religion should not serve as a legitimate excuse to discriminate and cause harm to people. Being called intolerant is not you losing your freedom of speech; it's them exercising theirs.

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate. Simple. Locking up people for crimes does not harm society. Not recognizing those crimes harms society.

Medical insurance premiums and social security taxes: there is no loss of assets here. If more money is going into the system, more money is going to come out of the system. You act like it's a loss to society if it goes to gay people (I'm not an expert, but that's what you are claiming will happen., so we'll go with that). Gay people are part of society as well.

Employee benefits going to employees: I fail to see the problem there.

I don't think anybody would be petty enough to adopt a kid for self-validation.

Children should always be allowed and encouraged to question what is being said to them. Talking about the issues is very important. Bullying is a serious issue, and the indoctrination to hate gays is what needs to be curbed.

I don't see how being a team soldier in the military is detrimental to society.

Thanks for allowing me to go through all of that... strength in length I guess.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
GWL-CPA RFD " Part I

Con"s sources were less than reliable than Pro"s and appears to just be opinions of two article authors:

1."Most Gay couples Aren"t Monogamous"? That"s Not Dirty, a Secret or True." By Nathaniel Frank at the organization

This is the opinion of one gay man, Nathaniel Frank. It proves nothing

2."Are Monogamous Relationships Really Better" by Bella DPaulo, Ph.D.

This is the opinion of one woman who is pro-gay. This article cites one reference:

Conley, T. D., Ziegler, A., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., & Valentine, B. (2012). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review.

One problem with the above article is that you can"t view it on the internet; you have to buy it for $25. And, one reviewer states "These studies being described to not provide evidence of similar happiness or intimacy."
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com...

Con did not convince me that marriage will stop the damage caused to society by promoting the idea that homosexual sex is normal, especial to children who are becoming confused as to whether being heterosexual of gay is normal. More teens in America are trying it because they see it in the Hollywood movies and TV as being cool. There is nothing cool about homosexual sex.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
GWL-CPA RFD " Part II

Con mischaracterized the lifestyle of the Mosuo people. And, I have no idea what relevance there is about a small ethnic group of about 40,000, the Mosuo, living in Yunnan and Sichuan Provinces in China. These are heterosexual people; no homosexuals. They also have a primitive family structure. You surely are not comparing this to a modern life in secular countries, e.g., America, UK, etc. The Mosuo practice "Walking marriages", where a woman may give a man permission to visit her for sex. The matriarch, (Ah mi, or elder female in Chinese) is the head of the house, she decides the fate of all those living under the roof. They have open living quarters in each household and there are no private bedrooms or living areas, except for women between certain ages (coming of age " at 13 years of age " she is ready to have babies) who may have their own private rooms. When the women come of age and want a allow someone boy/man she likes to visit, he come to her in the night and comes to her private room, and he returns to his home in the morning, which is also run by an elder female, the matriarch of the household. Anyway, it is a family structure between men and women. There are no known male or female homosexuals; and it homosexuality definitely is not considered normal. It is a myth that Mosuo women are "promiscuous." Few Mosuo women have more than one partner at a time and most relationships are long term.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I am sorry you reject the fact that children raised by gays couples have more problems that children raised by heterosexuals. That is fact based on recent studies, not old studies done by homosexuals trying to prove they are normal when they are not.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
GWL-CPA RFD " Part III

"New Study On Homosexual Parents Tops All Previous Research"
"Conclusion"

"The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever."
http://www.frc.org...

You argument that gay sex is normal defies medical fact. The parts of your body meant for the elimination of feces were not designed for sex. It is wrong for men who practice that on men or women; it is medically unsound. There are many medical studies that discuss this. The fact that you chose to ignore them is amazing. You can"t make those facts go away.

What gives doctors and heterosexual the right to say that gay sex isn"t normal?

How about reality?

I give all points to Pro, except conduct and Spelling and Grammar, which are a tie
Posted by Jackthemarine86 3 years ago
Jackthemarine86
Ok, I'm up for that. You want to start a 2nd Part, or simply keep posting here?
Posted by psyduck 3 years ago
psyduck
Well, you claimed marriage AND lifestyle were detrimental, so Finalfan is just in voting con if he felt that just marriage was not detrimental.

I tried not to ignore any of your points. I don't believe I missed any. We can continue this debate in private if you wish.

but I just thought I'd say the benefit would be self-evident: It'd make people happy. You have to understand the hurt you put on people when you deny them to be themselves.
Posted by Jackthemarine86 3 years ago
Jackthemarine86
Finalfan, the pitfalls in both categories can be compared, but the benefits between them are what distinguishes them. The equality to marry is already existent. The recognition and benefits are not. The rationale behind the recognition an benefits are based upon which relationship category (as a whole) has proven to contribute more to the functioning of a society.

Furthermore, I hope your vote was based upon more than the subject of marriage, as the entire debate was designed to encompass the fact that not only is legalizing homosexual marriage not about equality, but ALSO to point out how the lifestyle (in our out of matrimony) can be detrimental to society.

I was criticized earlier in the debate for not posting any links to the information I was sharing. Yet in my last response and in this comment section, I posted a boatload of links and examples which I believe validate my points. Some were addressed, and others were ignored. Yet most astoundingly, my opponent has only posted two links to back up his arguments and no links for his follow-on arguments. Furthermore, he did not explain with proof (outside of his opinion) what made my information unsubstantiated or invalid. Nor did he provide any proof (outside of his opinion) that my claims were incorrect. Lastly, he didn't even provide any examples of how homosexual marriage would be beneficial to society or how it ever has been. - You can't negate proof or examples in an argument when they are what form the over-all argument. If you're going to do that, you have to have proof the examples are incorrect.
Posted by Jackthemarine86 3 years ago
Jackthemarine86
By the way, I have to apologize.. I posted the wrong link for my argument about illegitimacy rise after the introduction of homosexual marriage. Those stats are actually located in the book Same Sex Marriage which sites the investigative work of anthropologist Steven Kurtz - It can be located at this link: and scroll down to page 14.

http://books.google.com...

The link I provided in my original argument was in reference to the number of homosexuals that actually get married once it is legalized.
Posted by psyduck 3 years ago
psyduck
OMG a wall a text! I'll get to it tomorrow... Hey, hope your wife is doing well.
Posted by Jackthemarine86 3 years ago
Jackthemarine86
For my opponent, I apologize for the format of my last response. I typed it up on a word doc, and when I posted it, it didn't come out exactly the way I had intended. Some areas are quotes from the links I provided. Other statements were ones you made which I am responding to. Hope it's not to difficult to decipher.. I'm a little irritated.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I would love to see your arguments. I hope you see this through.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Kreakin 3 years ago
Kreakin
Jackthemarine86psyduckTied
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: Pro appears to not be able to resist writing about penis's in anus's like some shock tactic. The arguments provided by pro are very weak and frankly close to hate speech in places therefore conduct to Con.Con had a balancd and rational argument stating balanced rebutals o Pros often spurious claims.Cons sources were far more credible on the whole.
Vote Placed by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
Jackthemarine86psyduckTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: See my RFD comments in the Comments Section
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Jackthemarine86psyduckTied
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: Although pro made several attempts at defending his case.. It all seemed to point towards inequality. He basically made a case against marriage in general considering all of the pitfalls he describes are evident in heterosexual marriage as well!