The Instigator
Bunny2015
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
clarence_pendleton
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Is Gay Marriage right or wrong?

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 1 vote the winner is...
clarence_pendleton
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,127 times Debate No: 78367
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

Bunny2015

Con

Gay marriage is wrong. Simple as that. Regardless of man, religion, or politics. I'm not on the matter of whether or not it should be legal. If it's legal for them to get married than let it be so. After all, religion is separated from the state. Parties do what they can to gain the best support from both the minority and the majority. However, just because it is legal does not make it right. Once again, this isn't an issue on should it be legal, or should it be okay, but an issue on acceptance and most of all moral standing. The reason many people oppose gay marriage is because they know it is wrong or are still holding onto tradition. The excuse that it has been going on for centuries is retired nonsense. Killing, war and disease has been going on for countless years also but we don't think it's right. I'm tired of many people using the same old statements and challenging topics on those who oppose gay marriage. From a religious and non-religious stand point.
clarence_pendleton

Pro

I would first ask that you provide a reason or two that it is wrong, and I'll jump in with thoughts and arguments of my own.
Debate Round No. 1
Bunny2015

Con

Excuse my error in the first post due to the fact I was at a character limit without realization and is new to the workings of the website. So I will take full responsibility on that error. Children raised by same sex couples are not as better off than children who are raised by hetereosexual couples. The view that children will be well being raised by a same sex couple totally goes against what is proven and kept for and is seen throughout most if not all societies. We have seen the devestating effects of children raised in a family home without a father or a mother. Children raised in a home without either parent are more at risk at being out on the streets, locked up, pregnant at an early age, having a drug or alcohol abuse issue or poor educational standards. That is not to say this will always be the case however. But what is to say that simply doubling a father or another mother in the household somehow makes that better?


It also goes against the very act and design of nature iself. Two men or two woman were not meant to be bought together. As used as the argument is, it is still very much true regardless of the opposition against it. You don't see male tigers running off to mate with other male tigers. But who is too say that "homosexual behavior" is not found in nature? Even if it is, would one really use that argument to justify his/her reasoning that gay marriage or homosexual behavior itself is okay? If so, then homocide and incest should be okay too since its also found in nature. Would one really stoop so low as a beast? If so, then we are no more equal than a dog.

Also, the opening of the act and acceptance that gay marriage is "okay" paves the opening to incest. If gay couples and others have the right to marry who they please and be accepted for it, than I shall also have the right to marry a blood related family member with equal acceptance and little opposition from people and state.
clarence_pendleton

Pro

So many points to cover, it is hard to pick just one, so I'll provide a short example of animal kingdom gay relationships first,
in this article http://www.yalescientific.org... it states that 450 different species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior, which, in some cases, is beneficial. Now as far as Gay couples raising kids that are tolerant of homosexual relations only because they've been exposed to it so much, I'm going to state something which should not count as evidence, more as food for thought. I live in an area where I've only known one gay man, and two gay women (who happen to be a happy couple, and wouldn't you know it, disease free.) All three of these individuals were normal people and, not to put them down, not huge friends of mine, seeing as how we don't hang out all too often. And yet, here I am debating their right to marry another homosexual if they wish because it is their right to be happy. homosexuals are not saying they want to marry each other in your backyard, or copulate in your living room, or even persuade you to their style of life. As far as I'm concerned, and this may be a digression, but I'm here to stand up for their rights, not to win the debate, I don't see why this should offend you enough to make a topic of it unless a homosexual has personally tried to force you or someone close to you to marry a homosexual unwillingly.
Debate Round No. 2
Bunny2015

Con

No one is debating their right to marry. What We are debating is the fact of is it right or wrong. If the state wants to make it their right than let them. I believe that marijuana should be legal since alcohol and smoking is. Or course, just becasue it's legal does not make it right or okay. They have the choice to marry. Gay marriage doesn't offend me in a way where I neccessarily feel threatend but what it does is offend me because the gay community (speaking in general) is forcing its views that "its okay to be gay" on everyone else who oppose it. Like Paul Varwell stated, this isn't about rights or sexual liberation but for people to accept a moral wrong as a right. The reasons many gay people were ashamed of coming out off the closet was because they knew they wouldn't be accepted. The best way to get that acceptance is through acceptance by the government. Gays were not even recognized or acknowledge by the government until recently and when they were, they went to pushing towards gay marriage as a way for society to accept them even further. By normalizing it. Yes, in conclusion it does somewhat offend me due to this but not on a deep personal level. Also, like I said before. Are you realy going to use beasts, animals who act on instinct as a justification as to why homosexual behavior is okay? Male lions kill cubs and many other species practice cannabilism and fornification, which may be beneficial but are you seriously going to steep so low as to what animals do? If thats the case than all of which I stated should be legal if were basing it off of that.

Also, the whole disease free couple isn't even worth citing or putting into your statement as a single gay couple does not make up for the vast majority.
clarence_pendleton

Pro

This is a direct quote from one of your comments "Anything that does not happen in nature is considered unnatural. No male animal in the animal kingdom willing goes out and seeks to mate another male animal." I simply provided evidence to the contrary. I do not see where you said that since animals do it doesn't mean we should, and furthermore, I am bringing up their right to marry instead of saying it is right or wrong because all I'm getting here is a consensus on your part that it IS wrong, so I am quit naturally taking the opposite debating stance. and it is a small step from saying something is a moral wrong to saying that people shouldn't be allowed to do it, and I will, as they say, yield the balance of my time so you can explain why it is not just physically incompatible, which you've shown your view on, but why you keep saying it is a moral wrong with absolutely no proof of WHY it is morally wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
Bunny2015

Con

Surprising on how you want me to now on how it is morally wrong. Simple. Its wrong because god said so. But i prefer not to use a religious standpoint on controversial topics. We know from the start what is right or wrong. Children know hat killling is bad without being taught. But unfortunalty what is considered right or wrong lies in the hands of mankind. One day we will say that stealing is okay than the next we will say no. Mankind's morals change. But as a person who believe's in a higher power that witholds moral standards the simple answer on why gay marriage is wrong is simply becasue God said so. But that is a topic for another day. But even by a non-religious view or moral view, gay marriage is wrong regardless by what I have stated.
clarence_pendleton

Pro

Why would it be wrong in any other context except that god said it was wrong, then? I gave you ample opportunity to express that and I have not seen that yet, merely vague references to "viral disease spreading " and the fact that when you put two of the same gender together you get no offspring. again, I will risk losing this round to ask you to expand upon why it is wrong other than deferring upstairs as a sort of shady cop out.
Debate Round No. 4
Bunny2015

Con

The reason on why it would be wrong in any other context is the evidence (once again where my main viewpoints come from) from a biological, scientific and natural stand point. Even a medical one on its damaging effects. The same reason as to why killing, theiving and fornification is wrong and universally acceped by most to be wrong without a god saying that it is. Simply due to the horrific consequences each act bears.
clarence_pendleton

Pro

I fail to see what exactly those looming, after effects, or "consequences" are, exactly. There Is no doubt now that homosexuals are not the only group who transmit and receive std's, birth defects cannot be passed on by two men or women copulating, and finally, it is not shown in nature that this is a wrong act, as it is sometimes an evolutionary advantage. To conclude, I see no valid reason stated here that it is wrong to be homosexual, and I urge those voting not to base their vote on my mediocre rhetoric, but to base it on the actual fact of whether this has led you to believe that homosexuality is right or wrong. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tka25 1 year ago
tka25
That is so gay.
Posted by tka25 1 year ago
tka25
Well first of all, congratulation to those pro gay people, I'm so gay for you guys about the new law (happy)
Since you asked why it is wrong tho, let me tell you why gay is wrong.
As a society, one more gay marriage means less of people in the next generation. Two men were able to produce children if they were to marry opposite sex and now that opportunity of producing children is forever gone. Herein lies the problem. One less of a child means one less of a work labor force. We need more people to compete with China and India. Gay marriage doesn't do good any to the economy and thus the society. This is why I consider gay people very selfish people. Just because they 'feel like' and 'want' to, they are thinking of themselves not the society. Society needs more children at a trend of reducing children even among opposite marriage. Europe, Japan, and Canada is already suffering from too many retiring people and fewer younger generation to carry on the country. Gad And my argument is this: gay people productivity of children is effectively zero. What's worse, they are taking away the opportunities of contributing children to the society. (The decision of gaya from a same sex marriage marrying an opposite sex instead couldve lead to two different families with possibly many children.) What is even worse is that media and government is almost promoting such self-destruction path. Gay marriage harms the society by harming the economy and not producing babies as God commanded us to produce and multiply, AND rule. We cannot rule if we do not have people.
Posted by Bunny2015 1 year ago
Bunny2015
mpederson851

what he stated bother me. I don't have anything against gay people. They are people. But I don't have to agree with your lifestyle to accept and like you. You are not what you do and what you do does not make you. This is the last time I will keep this debate and argument. Also:

Calrence_pendleton didn't have any real sources for my arguments either. Only a link to homosexual animal behavior which I easily refuted.

I'm done.
Posted by Talkingisfun 1 year ago
Talkingisfun
That was a pretty bad debate (although the character limit didn't help). Pro won though. Cons arguments were easily refuted, Pro had better conduct, better arguments, sources and better spelling. No contest really.
Posted by mpederson851 1 year ago
mpederson851
Con did not provide sources or back up his arguments at all. The whole premise is absurd because the idea of what is "right" and "wrong" is totally based on what your personal definition of "right" and "wrong" are. That is why we have laws, to help explain what should universally be right and wrong. This really ins't a debate, its a personal preference. As well, I thought it was interesting that Con said that he had nothing against gay couples, yet stated that that it is wrong. Very contradictory.
Posted by Bunny2015 1 year ago
Bunny2015
I thank everyone and specifically my challenger on participating in my first debate challenge. It was truly a pleasure. Despite some aggressive statements and a mistake on my part it was really fun! As much as I would like to challenge the last debate stance that Clarence_Pendleton stated, I refused to continue on in the comment section. Even more so as challenging what he/she said would only mean repeating myself. This debate was set up, as old as the topic is, to let me see what people would say and I am impressed. After all, debating allows me and others to see both sides of the spectrum. Truly, Thank You.
Posted by clarence_pendleton 1 year ago
clarence_pendleton
bunny, i cant see your argument in round 2, could you post it again somewhere so i could read it? for some reason its showing me as the only argument there and i cant debate what i cant see
Posted by Bunny2015 1 year ago
Bunny2015
In response to missmedic:

Does anyone read what I stated? The very sexual behaviors that the LGBTQ community practices causes them to be a high risk group. Also, children raised by gay parents are not better off. Mankind will do anything to try and change what they have said in order to fit today's agenda. But the effects of children growing up without some type of mother and father figure is still present. In a great number. Proven through ages and different cultures. We can even see it. Mankind is quick to change a view in favor of the popular opinion. That is not to say that some children won't grow up perfectly fine but the risk for damaging effects is greater. That is something we still have to consider.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
here is some that explain you bunny.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://www.pbs.org...
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
You don't do research, or you would know these things.
There is no high risk group, only high risk behaviors.
As for gay parents, research shows that you are wrong.
http://www.aamft.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.medicaldaily.com...
http://www.bu.edu...
http://www.gaystarnews.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheSatiricalAnarchist 1 year ago
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Bunny2015clarence_pendletonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments are nonsensically full of loopholes, double-standards and incoherent counter-claims. Pro's conduct was much more appealing and logical.