The Instigator
SirMaximus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Bray5234
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

People should be allowed to be married to other people of their own sex

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 475 times Debate No: 77312
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

SirMaximus

Pro

In this debate, I am going to argue in favour of same-sex marriage being legal. I disagree with all of the commonly-used arguments against same-sex marriage being legal.

Some people claim that same-sex marriage cannot be legal, because the Bible defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We cannot use the Bible to define what should be legal and what should not be legal, because religion should have no place in politics. By basing our law on the Bible, that would be oppressing people who do not believe what the Bible says, and people who do believe what the Bible says but do not interpret it as defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Some people claim that same-sex marriage cannot be legal, because people of the same sex cannot have biological children together. It is true that many people get married so that they can have biological children, but that should not mean that any marriage where the people involved cannot have biological children is immoral. If 1 or more people involved in a marriage are sterile, should their marriage be considered invalid just because they cannot have biological children together? No.

I welcome anyone to accept this challenge and debate me.
Bray5234

Con

I think that America should have not taken this step towards gay marriage at all. I strongly believe that no man should be with another man. It is just morally wrong. It is in human nature to cringe when seeing two people of the same gender show public displays of affection towards each other.

For example, if you took a none biased kid that has no knowledge of this topic and let him watch a man kiss a woman and a man kiss a man and ask him which one seemed wrong I guarantee you he would say the gay couple.

There are just too many problems with homosexuality. As you stated in your argument, if a gay couple wants to have a child they cannot have one them selves. If you know anything about getting a child in America without conceiving it yourself then you would know it is expensive. So technically speaking it is more expensive to have a child if you are gay.

Bouncing back to my opening statement, America probably looks weak to other countries now. Truly when I think of a gay guy, I think of fragile little man child that's experimenting with sex. Just so you sensitive people know that is exactly how the rest of the world views gays and now they probably think that about America.

Final Words: America stop being so damn sensitive and trying to be politically correct, start saying the truth. If someone is way over weight tell them and try to help them get healthy. Don't be polite! If some faggot is fingering a guys butt, tell them the truth (truth being is that it is disgusting and unnatural).
Debate Round No. 1
SirMaximus

Pro

My opponent says that "It is in human nature to cringe when seeing two people of the same gender show public displays of affection towards each other.

For example, if you took a none biased kid that has no knowledge of this topic and let him watch a man kiss a woman and a man kiss a man and ask him which one seemed wrong I guarantee you he would say the gay couple," but I argue that this is false. Many kids are raised by 2 parents of the same sex, and none of them question it until they hear someone say that it's unnatural.

My opponent says that, since same-sex couples cannot have a biological child together as I have previously stated, they must adopt a child if they want to have a child, which is expensive in America. This is true, but I fail to see why this should be used as a reason to prohibit people of the same sex from marrying. Yes, it's more expensive, but if they want to do something that is more expensive, we should not prohibit them from doing so. If they want to do something, it should be their choice. Even if it is a burden on them because it's more expensive, that in no way adversely affects other people, so they should be allowed to do so.

My opponent says, "Bouncing back to my opening statement, America probably looks weak to other countries now. Truly when I think of a gay guy, I think of fragile little man child that's experimenting with sex. Just so you sensitive people know that is exactly how the rest of the world views gays and now they probably think that about America," but I disagree. My opponent may think of a "fragile little man child that's experimenting with sex" when he thinks of a homosexual man, but my opponent has no proof of this. My opponent also claims that "the rest of the world" views homosexuals that way and now probably thinks of America that way, now that same-sex marriage is legal in America as of June 26, 2015. However, I assert that this is not true. Same-sex marriage is legal in numerous other countries. These countries include but are not limited to Canada, Spain, Sweden, and Argentina.

My opponent in his final words of this round says, "If some faggot is fingering a guys butt, tell them the truth (truth being is that it is disgusting and unnatural)," but again, I argue that this is false. Homosexuality is not unnatural, but rather natural. Homosexuality is found in hundreds of species, but homophobia is found in only one. The people in that species are Homo sapiens, AKA humans. Which seems unnatural now? (Don't give me credit on that, I paraphrased that from a famous quote.)
Bray5234

Con

So my opponent says that (and I quote), "My opponent also claims that "the rest of the world" views homosexuals that way and now probably thinks of America that way, now that same-sex marriage is legal in America as of June 26, 2015. However, I assert that this is not true. Same-sex marriage is legal in numerous other countries. These countries include but are not limited to Canada, Spain, Sweden, and Argentina.

Alright so the rest of the world I stated might have been inaccurate... But half the world has laws against homosexuality. Check this link out: http://www.bbc.com... Look at the map on that site.

My opponent also stated, "For example, if you took a none biased kid that has no knowledge of this topic and let him watch a man kiss a woman and a man kiss a man and ask him which one seemed wrong I guarantee you he would say the gay couple," but I argue that this is false. Many kids are raised by 2 parents of the same sex, and none of them question it until they hear someone say that it's unnatural."

That is a terrible come back. Did you read what I wrote?! I stated if you took a none biased kid that knows nothing about sex nor if a man should be with a man or a woman. Completely neutral human being. Lets say for example a sheltered one just for this experiment. That is what I meant by an unbiased kid. If you take a kid from a gay couple that raises the kid to know that being gay is alright, then of course he is going to not be disturbed by it! He grew up with them brain washing him. Exact same scenario if you were to take a kid from a family that brainwashed him into thinking the kkk is right.

Point being is, being homosexual is morally wrong. To be completely honest I just try to help them and never spew hate from my mouth. But I do not agree with their beliefs at all. There is nothing that makes me more frustrated then a gay couple saying they are christian though, seriously a living oxymoron when I hear about a gay couple that claims to be a christian.
Debate Round No. 2
SirMaximus

Pro

My opponent says that "half the world has laws against homosexuality." This is true. However, who is to say that these laws are right? My opponent has previously stated in Round 1 that the rest of the world thinks of homosexuals as weak, just as my opponent thinks. My opponent has now stated that it was inaccurate to say that the rest of the world thinks of the same way, and I appreciate my opponent's honesty in admitting their mistake. But nevertheless, while it is true that many places in the world have laws against homosexuality and that many people see homosexuals as weak, I argue that this does not advance my opponent's viewpoint. My opponent needs to prove that these laws against homosexuality are morally correct in order to use them to support the argument against same-sex marriage. Otherwise, my opponent would just be using circular reasoning.

My opponent also pointed out that I was wrong in using a child raised by 2 parents of the same sex as an analogy for a child without bias, as a child without bias would be sheltered and therefore not raised by 2 parents. My opponent is correct in pointing out my incorrectness, and I apologize for my mistake. So, consider a hypothetical sheltered kid who has not been raised by any parents. There is no evidence to suggest that this hypothetical child would consider a same-sex couple to be wrong. This claim that my opponent has made is completely unfounded, as there is no evidence to support it.

My opponent says that "being homosexual is morally wrong." My opponent has no proof of this. If my opponent wants to say that being homosexual is morally wrong in order to support the case against same-sex marriage, then my opponent will have to prove that being homosexual is morally wrong, which my opponent has not yet done.

And now, I have a point of my own to make that I have not yet brought up. Just to clarify, this is not a rebuttal of any claim that my opponent has made, but a rebuttal that many opponents of same-sex marriage being legal have made. Many opponents of same-sex marriage being legal claim that it is better for children to be raised by a mother and a father than by two mothers or by two fathers. However, a study, which you can read about at http://www.sciencedaily.com..., debunked this.
Bray5234

Con

You want me to prove that gay marriage is morally wrong? That is easy. Lets start with the majority of the population believes it is incorrect. What proof do I have of this? Well look at the countries in the world that does not allow gay marriage (which includes China). It is obvious that the majority of the world does believe nor allow gay marriage. A "moral" is unique to the individual. However, what is 'right or wrong' is generally decided upon by a society. Based on the fact that there are more people against gay marriage then there are for it makes the concept morally wrong.

As for the point my opponent made (and I quote), "I have a point of my own to make that I have not yet brought up. Just to clarify, this is not a rebuttal of any claim that my opponent has made, but a rebuttal that many opponents of same-sex marriage being legal have made. Many opponents of same-sex marriage being legal claim that it is better for children to be raised by a mother and a father than by two mothers or by two fathers. However, a study, which you can read about at http://www.sciencedaily.com......, debunked this." I as you stated never said this was an issue and I do not believe it is one. Two men or two women raising a child does not negatively impact the child, although there are kids in schools that will "torment" or "bully" the child simply because his parents are gay. If you do not believe me make a single internet search about it. There are even TV episodes of SVU about this. I am not saying kids do not get bullied if their parents are straight, I am just saying that gay parents generally give a testosterone filled angry child the reason he needs to pick on the gay couples child at school.
Debate Round No. 3
SirMaximus

Pro

My opponent claims that, because there are more people who are against same-sex marriage than there are people who are for it, same-sex marriage is morally wrong. This is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy, the fallacy of claiming that something is true because the majority believes it to be true. Just because the majority thinks something does not mean that what the majority thinks is right.

My opponent also says that children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be bullied than children raised by opposite-sex couples are. This is true, and this is because of homophobia. Just because someone gets bullied because of something doesn't mean that the thing for which they are bullied is morally wrong. If someone gets bullied by a racist because they were adopted by and have been raised by black parents, does that mean that the child should no longer be raised by black parents? No.
Bray5234

Con

I am quoting from a website I found, "Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage." (Website: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...)

I think this is quite a valid reason. Yes we have already talked about this but the way this is worded truly speaks facts into possible for a gay couple tothis debate. The quote in lament terms means that it is not have a child without a third party. Meaning that it should not be recognized as a "marriage."
Debate Round No. 4
SirMaximus

Pro

My opponent says that, since same-sex marriage is intrinsically sterile, it cannot be legal. However, I disagree. I argue that marriages don't have to be unsterile in order for them to be valid. Many people marry just to express their love rather than to have children. Who are we to judge these marriages merely because they are not meant to result in biological children? All in all, I argue that sterile marriages are just as valid as unsterile marriages.
Bray5234

Con

Bray5234 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
@TheOpinionist: I'll accept your challenge either just before the challenge expires, or when my debate with Bray5234 ends. Whichever comes first.
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
Sounds great!
Posted by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
@TheOpinionist: Sure, when this debate is done (it can be before the voting period ends, just as long as it's after the actual debating is done).
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
I've really wanted to debate this topic
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
Maximus: dude can I debate this with you later? I can't get an opponent who won't ff
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Ergh, *another* kid in favour of gay marriage zZzZZZzzZZZzzZzzZz

There really is an endless supply of you people.
No votes have been placed for this debate.