The Instigator
srsly
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jcmiamiu7
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Homosexual partnership

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Jcmiamiu7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 72748
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

srsly

Pro

Churches and other places of worship have a constitutional right to deny gay and lesbian marriages because it is against their religious belief. However, homosexual partnership must not be discriminated must not be discriminated and should entail the same legal recognition and benefits of heterosexual marriage.

Round 1 : challenge acceptance/introduction and first argument from contender
Round 2 I will refute the argument and we will take it from there

One rule: God and natural law are invalid points of debate
Jcmiamiu7

Con

I accept this debate. My stance is that gay couples should have no problem living together for their entire lives, but the state should not recognize the Union of two people of the same sex.

First let me define marriage as a union between a man and a woman for procreation. I know I cannot use natural law, but for all of human and even animal history, a male and a female unite. 2 people of the same sex getting married and receiving the same benefits as a straight couple is only a recent argument that had never occurred to anyone before modern times. No matter what anyone can say, marriage is not a law, it's an institution that predates all countries.
Now I will start my arguments
I will list 4 points:

1. Marriage is for the purpose of pro creation and is open to interpretation if you expand the definition of who can marry who. The institution of marrige itself is for the purpose of pro creation. Why do animals, when seeking a mate, always find one of the opposite sex. We have seen animals engage in homosexual behavior, but this is mainly for dominance purposes and we have never found any circumstance where an animal mates with another animal of the same sex for life. Why would the government even recognize marriage in the first place through tax benefits, if not to encourage reproduction? We mate with one partner because it is the most efficient and beneficiary way to run a society.

And redefining marriage would be opening up a word to new discussion, and allowing people to interpret it in different ways. Marriage is not just about loving someone, as I love my parents, but that doesn't mean I can marry them out of love. For example, two men in New Zealand got married several years ago, over the shared love of rugby. While many people in the straight and lgbt community condemned this, it still displays that a lack of a solid definition means it is open to individual scrupulosity. And from there, where is anyone to stop a man from marrying a boy, and so on. You can deny it, but it is forthcoming. And at some point, the practice of marriage will become useless due to a lack of meaning. It is unavoidable that as the definition expands, at some point the government will retract tax benefits and such due to a lack of reason to have them.

2. The state only recognizing traditional marriages keeps the family tree and structured order of society stable. A family consists of a mother, father, and usually children who they have produced. These children go on to do the same as they grow, creating a stable and sufficient society. It has been shown that straight men and women cheat less than homosexuals [1], and in that sense set a better example for the child of how to raise a family. Gay relationships are, in many cases, soley about sex and attachment. If you feel a strong attachment to someone, it must be love, and sex comes after. But due to this, cheating seems like less of a problem because sex is sex, and pleasure dominates the senses. This brings me to my next point, that children are best raised by a straight couple. Gay couples are more likely to have issues at the house [2] and are more likely to have drug behavior. Kids of gay couples are also more likely to engage in premature sexual activity, drug use, and become homosexual themselves [3], which, in the end, should not be seen as a positive thing.

3. Making homosexual marriage legal will force the government to give tax breaks to people that it wasn't intended for, just for the sake of politics correctness. Tax breaks were intended for straight couples, to promote core families and reproduction, but this cannot happen if anyone can recieve tax breaks for any union. This is apart of the cultural phenomenon that is greed. Everyone wants what they don't have. It is pleasure of the eyes here. But anyway, this would force the government to give off tax breaks just to smile and give a good handshake to a LGBT leader, when in reality this is essentially burning money.

4. Recognizing gay marriage is a deterrent to society and will crack at the foundations of our civilization. Forcing acceptance of gay marriage will chip away at our society. When people don't accept it, often they are forced by law into sensitivity training. The sexual revolution has peaked now, with the end goal of total societal view that anyone should be able to have sex with anyone whenever. It's acceptance is not voluntary, it works it's way into society by impressing it's views on people in a bully like style, labeling non- conformist bigots and racists and so on. The divorce rate is extremely high, and people view marriage as an extended relationship, not a lifelong commitment. This is the cultural point. That gay marriage cracks at society and how we know it by destroying the basic building block of human relationships.

Gay marriage does not benefit society as heterosexual marriage does, it only pleasures the couple, who gain the benefits of marriage. And, as many gay rights activists will admit, the end goal is to eliminate marriage altogether [4] through a saturated definition of the word, one that is unchanged for thousands of years.

I also recommend anyone reading this far reads this article: http://www.frc.org...

[1]- http://www.examiner.com...
[2]- http://science.jburroughs.org...
[3]- http://www.frc.org...
[4]- http://illinoisfamily.org...
Debate Round No. 1
srsly

Pro

The contender makes a surprisingly good and respectable argument.

The contender has stated that marriage is defined as a male and female unity for procreation, therefore same sex couples are disqualified for recognition of unity because they cannot procreate. This is a cultural perspective established from fabricated traditionalism, like marriage itself. Truth is there is no universally accepted definition of marriage since qualifications and celebrations of marriage vary from culture to culture. Since marriage in of itself is culturally sanctioned , our government should have no authority over any definition of marriage. Partnership in a free country should be recognized by the words "I do". In conclusion the government cannot impose any religious or cultural discrepancies on it's population.

When you strip away the cultural and religious contexts, marriage is frankly somewhat redundant. Therefore I concede that tax and other monetary benefits to couples is unethical....unless maybe a child is between them.

The contender argues that same sex parents endanger the welfare of a child because the "necessary" dynamics of male and female parents aren't present. I refute this by stating that gender roles are shadowed by the importance of parents who are loving and provide and cater to their needs while raising them with empathy. Mr. Zach Wahls, an upstanding young man who was raised by lesbian parents has been subject to scrutiny and ridicule throughout his life because of his lesbian parents. I am confident in concluding that problems in family dynamics and cheating/divorce with homo vs hetero caretakers is irrelevant.

The contender argues that children of homosexual couples are more likely to engage in drug use, premarital sex and maladaptive behavior in general. Unsurprising considering the scrutiny and ridicule Zach endured in grade school. Any adolescent feeling like an outcast and having no place in socialization is at higher risk of self destructive, immediate reward seeking behavior with no mindfulness of the future. Additionally, not all drug use and adolescent sex is maladaptive, and, with regard to sex many experts agree that 15-19 is an ideal age to start. Also, animalistic, raw sex for fun is not intrinsically wrong outside of religious and cultural contexts.

It is clear at this point that harmful behaviors exhibited by homosexuals and their children are not exclusive to homosexuals and nor are the problematic family dynamics causing burden. The root of these issues transcends both sexual orientations, and I argue a change in mainstream perception will correct many, if not all of these root problems. When cultural and religious influences are no longer in context, acceptance prevails and contentment of both parties reign.

I may not have have been able to address every point in this response but I shall address that later.
Jcmiamiu7

Con

I thank my opponent for his thorough argument, and here is my rebuttal.

1. This is false. While the celebration and qualification of marriage varies from culture to culture, it in no way removes the fact that the two people are getting married. And marriage is not a cultural fabrication, because every culture in the world we've ever encountered has had a form of marriage, and never between two people of the same sex. While two same sex people might have sex, they would've never been married until very very recently. Even in the animal kingdom marriage is apparent, with mammals choosing a mate for lige. Again, this makes the system efficient and organized. So in general, marriage is a very apparent and real thing that th government should sanction, because that encourages traditional marriages and therefore pro creation. You have to understand, tradition isn't fabricated, it's how things were in the past and how they were naturally. And because of all this, I would argue that gay marriage, not marriage in general, is a creation of our modern culture. The idea that two people of the same sex could create a sanctioned and also infertile union is ludicrous, as it makes little sense to treat these couples the same as straight couples.

And this is why straight marriage should be given benefits. It promotes the practice altogether, which we must remember is necessary and beneficial.

2. While these claims certainly would be fine in a utopian world where reality is relative, but that's not how anything works. It is not debatable that a child needs a mother and father to fully develop naturally and effectively. That is how it was meant to be, and while that is technically against the rules to say it is correct. Why would all cultures across the globe act in such a way even without intercontinental interaction? Because it's how a child should be raised. Take for example, the baby boomers. This generation of rebellious young people and countercultural attitudes was essentially caused by world war 2. Millions of young men die, and as a result leave millions of children at home with no father, causing a major disconnect between generations and making them feel essentallly lost. The family dynamic is something greater than just love. The people that created you take care of you, and so on. This is how life works. And my second, and probably most effective example is that of black culture nowadays. Yes, there are plenty of upstanding black men in this world and many are finding their way. But we cannot ignore the fact that about 70% of black children are born out of wedlock [1], and about 33% will be incarcerated in their lifetime [2]. This is not due to white racism as many claim, but due to a disconnect in the black family. The main difference between African American culture and the rest of American culture is that black Americans tend to live their lives without a stable household, without a stable father, and almost always with drug use involved. I know there are many exceptions, but the facts don't lie here. The instability of the black household does not provide a stable ground for living a prosperous life in most areas of the country. This, to me, proves the necessity of a full household.

3. Here lies a major misconception about growing up in that sort of a household. To say that a child would be an outcast due to having 2 gay parents is ignoring the present situation we have. This culture we have now is much different from that of even the previous generation. In fact, the majority of Generation Ys support gay marriage, and are extremely open minded. I can tell you from observing that at least at my school, the homosexuals were treated with if anything, more niceness and if anyone were to insult them, they would be promptly chewed out my most people around. Even ignoring all this, everyone finds friends. There are people to identify with. Generally, the gay kids in school find and hang out with other gay or extremely open minded kids, who tolerate and treat them in a different way. So why is the drug, suicide, and std rate for homosexuals much, much higher than that of say, the computer geeks at school. The ones that will be the future programmers, who may have very few friends. These psychological impacts are about what you do, not where you are. If you're doing what you believe to be just and moral, you should have no problem living your life. Regret is one of the main causes of depression [3], and in the gay community I believe this is caused by confusion over what is right at an early age.

In your last point, let me point out again that culture did not create marriage. Marriage has always existed and is a fundamental law of existence that is beyond us. The idea of opposite pairs is something that comes natural to the universe, and is not one of our creations. And I would again argue that the loss of a vital parent figure is a cause of problematic family lifestyles. A good testament to this is looking at the hippies of the 60s or many black families today: it is what happens when you choose to disregard the importance of marriage.

My last point for this round has to be that we here are "reeducating" the population to conform to something we just declared to be the correct way of thinking. Our country is no longer built on individuals, but on people trying to create a utopian society with no imperfections. In the pursuit of progress, is destroying an infinitely long institution really necessary? This counter culture is, in my opinion, based on the gay community creating a bullying culture that uses peer pressure and boycotts to bring the general population into their ring.

[1]-http://m.chron.com...
[2]- http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[3]- http://www.aarp.org...
Debate Round No. 2
srsly

Pro

srsly forfeited this round.
Jcmiamiu7

Con

I extend my arguments to the next round
Debate Round No. 3
srsly

Pro

srsly forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
srsly

Pro

srsly forfeited this round.
Jcmiamiu7

Con

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
srslyJcmiamiu7Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
srslyJcmiamiu7Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff