Is Gay Marriage right or wrong?
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheSatiricalAnarchist 1 year ago
|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:||0||7|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.