Homosexual marriage should be legal
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
girg
| Started: | 2/20/2012 | Category: | Miscellaneous |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,177 times | Debate No: | 21306 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)
 Pro Homosexual marriage is between one two men or two women, allowing them to be legally bound and have the same benefits of heterosexual couples. The argument is weather to legally allow homosexual marriages or not. Opponent would argue that homosexual marriage should not be legal for whetever reasons they state. |
 |
|
Pro CON Has accepted. Thank you for accepting CON, Please make your opening argument.  Con marriage is the ceremoney through which man and woman unite to procreate, that is to say create a new being. in this way the race of man increase in number on earth.this facility of procreation is absent in gay/lesbian marriage. if gay/lesbian marriage is legalized, a way will be created through which population of human race would decrease in future. therefore gay/lesbian marriage should not be legalized. |
 |
|
Pro The definition of marriage by Merriam Webster is the following:
The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlockc : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
This states nothing about the couple having to be heterosexual. Can you prove that the human population would decrease in the future due directly to gay marriage legalization as you stated? There are gay couples right now and the human population is not decreasing, it is increasing as you can clearly see in this graph: http://www.google.com... I also find your original argument, spelling, and grammar flawed and hard to take seriously. Con well, gay/lesbian people cannot reproduce. if gay marriage is not legalized then gay people will be forced to marry opposite sex. that marriage would result in reproduction. but if gay marriage is legalized then gay people will have their same sex partner and that marriage will not result in reproduction. now consider gay marriage on a larger time scale. suppose in a country there are 8 people.4 men and 4 women. out of 4 men, 2 are gay. out of 4 woman 2 are lesbian.now consider 2 scenarios: case 1: gay marriage is not legalized: those 4 men and women will marry each other and have, say 1 kid each couple.so total number of kids are 4 for 4 couple. case 2: gay marriage is legalized: as 2 gay men and 2 gay women will marry each other. there left 2 straight men and 2 straight women. number of couple will be reduced to 2 from 4. each couple have 1 kid. so we have got only 2 kids. conclusion: in case 1 we have 4 kids and in case 2 we have 2 kids. so almost 50% reduction in number of kids who will be future population. this case represent a point of time. now consider the same case over a period of time in future. there will be at least 50% reduction in population. that's why gay marriage should not be legalized. |
 |
|
Pro Rebuttal: CONS first point: that gay/lesbian couples cannot reproduce and will be forced to marry opposite sex if not legalized. Counter argument: Gay or lesbian couples cannot reproduce, that is biologically correct, however they will not be forced to marry the opposite sex, they will simply remain partners. Rebuttal to cases: Homosexuals are biologically able to reproduce with the opposite sex, however, due to sexual preference, they do not. You compare this to a population of 8 people, and half of them are homosexual. This is not even close to the actual comparison of the united states. The US has approx. 311,600,000 as of July 2011, and no, half of them are homosexual. Your scenarios are poor in the fact they they cover very few situations and are not properly scaled. The vast majority of America is heterosexual. CON has not provided any solid arguments so far on why homosexual marriage should not be legalized so far. US population graph: http://www.google.com... Con obviously gay marriage impact differ widely between countries depending on population. my case is not the case of u.s. it is a general case. but the conclusion of the case is sure: THE POPULATION WOULD REDUCE. the rate of reduction may differ based on gay/straight ratio in the country. so my argument is valid. gay marriage should not be legalised. |
 |
|
Pro Conclusion: CON has simply repeated the same argument throughout the debate, and has NO sources to back his one claim. He has yet to refute my arguments logically, and cannot prove that gay marriage would reduce the population. None of his points are valid until he can back them up with logical reasoning and/or sources. CON has also failed to actually refute any of my arguments. With this, I may declare I have won this debate. Con the case i had shown earlier is a thought experiment and it does not need any source to back it up. here are my other arguments: 1. Religious freedom. Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry. A recent Newsday editorial said opponents "will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation." Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan? Proponents of gay marriage insist that a "religious exemption" will be sufficient to protect the rights of faith-based traditionalists. Maybe, maybe not. 2. Rights of children. Legal equality for gay marriage will mean there can be no discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples in any sphere, including adoption, custody and reproductive services. Social workers showing preference to heterosexual couples in foster care or adoption placement will lose their jobs or face lawsuits. More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion. 3. Whither traditional marriage? Gay marriage may, as its proponents insist, strengthen the ideal of marriage by offering the highest public acceptance only to those in committed relationships. But even gay activists admit they are seeking to change the marriage ideal. Eliminating the complementarity of the sexes in marriage changes its essence. It may be old-fashioned to believe women are still necessary to domesticate sexually predatory men. But most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional. Many gay advocates tacitly admit as much. Andrew Sullivan, in his book "Virtually Normal," writes that the need for "extramarital outlets" should be recognized by partners in a same-sex marriage and that gays should not be constrained by a "single, moralistic model." 4. Education. It is possible the social impact of gay marriage on heterosexual marriage will be negligible. But the changes it will bring to our schools make this unlikely. A California task force appointed in 2001 recommended all curriculums there be changed to include alternative sexual lifestyles. In 2006, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that schools have a duty to teach children that there's moral equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships - and have no obligation to let parents opt their children out of such instruction. 5. Husbands. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in August on California's Proposition 8 - that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage" - confirmed the view that marriage is foremost about sexual choice, not reproduction. Think there are too few marriageable males now? |
 |
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mariahjane 1 year ago
| girg | xxx200 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 6 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: "...forced to marry opposite sex..." Ha...that made me laugh.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 1 year ago
| girg | xxx200 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made fair arguments, and Con's did not successfully refute them. I am surprised that Con has won a single debate.
Vote Placed by phantom 1 year ago
| girg | xxx200 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con made some astounding arguments such as that keeping gay marriage from being legal would make more gay men marry women and thus stimulate the population. Also why would we want a bigger population again? Con had horrible spelling and grammar, and his format was very poorly chosen. Cons arguments; poor and easily refuted
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
| girg | xxx200 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Gay marriage doesnt mean all men will become gay con -______________-
Con has no official reason to backup all the claims he has made from scratch, he has no source at all for his arguments so far...
Its actually 1 out of 10 men are homosexual and 1 out of 20 for lesbians.