The Instigator
grazilda
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hound
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Same Sex Marriage

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,785 times Debate No: 14090
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

grazilda

Con

For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples.
Many religiously conservative researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Boys and girls have needs that are uniquely met by parents of the opposite gender.
The role of marriage in society is a major topic taught in public schools. If SSM is legalized, schools would be required to teach that same-sex marriage is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage, starting as early as Kindergarten. That would violate the beliefs of many parents.

NOW THE QUESTION IS : IS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IMMORAL?
Hound

Pro

Greetings, Con and everyone else! Sorry to be impetuous, but since I have nothing really better to do :P.

I'll be arguing that SSM (Same-Sex Marriage) is not immoral and I'll even go as far as to say that it's NEEDED.

.;:Rebuttals:;.
"For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples."

Definition of marriage? Let's look at that, shall we?

From http://www.dictionary.com...:
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

As you can see, marriage is considered a union: a bond. It doesn't care whether you're a boy marrying a boy, girl marrying a girl, alien marrying a parrot, etc.

"Many religiously conservative researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Boys and girls have needs that are uniquely met by parents of the opposite gender.
The role of marriage in society is a major topic taught in public schools. If SSM is legalized, schools would be required to teach that same-sex marriage is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage, starting as early as Kindergarten. That would violate the beliefs of many parents."

Of course, religiously conservative researchers! The same ones that think anything that supposedly transgresses their precious values is immoral and EVIL (abortion, homosexuality, etc.) I find it peculiar that you're speaking of children when we're talking about Same-Sex couples. The only way a couple of this category could have kids is by adoption. Yes, let's not give a child a home because it may not thrive well. The same could be said of single mothers and fathers.

Oh, no! Schools will have to be okay with same-sex marriage! Why exactly would they be required to teach it in Kindergarten? Children would already view it as normal if they're growing up in a society with SSM. Regardless, I don't really see the problem in schools having to show an equilibrium between SSM and regular marriage?

NOW THE QUESTION IS : IS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IMMORAL?
Lolno.

Before I end this round, I'd like to point out a comment Con made in the Comments section prior to my acceptance of this debate:
It is a law in our moral understanding and a law also in the eyes of God, that same sex marriage is an immoral act of defying God's law to marriage.

Moral understanding = zeitgeist. Do you realize that people would be A-OK with SSM if they were born into that environment? Immoral act of defying God? Proof? If God supposedly forbids these acts, then why does he allow homosexuality to occur? I know lots of people who've said they don't wish to be homosexual, yet they are. Problem? Not really.

---A few arguments---
I'd like to point out to my audience and opponent that homosexuality is looked down upon in modern society. Why? Because they're born into that mindset and taught by other loopy creationists that it's "immoral" and "evil." It's really not. Even if it was, why forbid it? We're in a nation that allows FREEDOM. Freedom of speech, religion, press, all of that. Why exactly are we so bent on forbidding this, again? Equal rights for all? I don't think so.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
grazilda

Con

Well. thank you for that awesome argument of yours, but let me show you all the religious prerequisite regarding same sex marriage.
The New Testament recognizes the importance of the Genesis creation stories for establishing a "two-sexes" or "other-sex" prerequisite for marriage.
St. Paul clearly understood same-sex intercourse as an affront to the Creator's stamp on gender in Genesis 1-2. In his letter to the Romans, Paul cites two prime examples of humans suppressing the truth about God evident in creation/nature: idolatry and same-sex intercourse (1:18-27). Paul talks first about humans exchanging the Creator for worship of idols made "in the likeness of the image of a perishable human and of birds and animals and reptiles" (1:23); then about "females [who] exchanged the natural use" and "males leaving behind the natural use of the female" to have intercourse with other "males" (1:26-27). This obviously echoes Genesis 1:26-27: "Let us make a human according to our image and . . . likeness; and let them rule over the . . . birds . . . cattle . . . and . . . reptiles. And God created the human in his image, . . . male and female he created them." Taken together, we have not only eight points of correspondence between Gen 1:26-27 and Rom 1:23, 26-27 but also a threefold sequential agreement:
A. God's likeness and image in humans
B. Dominion over the animal kingdom
C. Male-female differentiation
It would be fair to say that if there is no intertextual echo here, then there is no such thing as an intertextual echo, as opposed to direct citation, in all of the New Testament.
What is the point of this echo? Idolatry and same-sex intercourse constitute a frontal assault on the work of the Creator in nature. Those who suppressed the truth about God transparent in creation were more likely to suppress the truth about the complementarity of the sexes transparent in nature, choosing instead to gratify contrary innate impulses.
In 1 Corinthian 6:9 Paul mentions "men who lie with males" (arsenokoitai)—a term formed from the absolute prohibitions of man-male intercourse in Lev 18:22 and 20:13—in a list of offenders that risk not inheriting the kingdom of God. Just as Romans 1:26-27 has Genesis 1:27 in view, so too 1 Corinthians 6:9 has Genesis 2:24 in view (partially cited in 1 Cor 6:16): "For this reason a man . . . shall be joined to his woman (wife) and the two will become one flesh." Taken in the context of Paul's remarks in chs. 5 (a case of adult incest) and 7 (male-female marriage), there is little doubt that Paul understood the offense of "men who lie with males" as the substitution of another male for a female in sexual activity; or, put differently, the abandonment of an other-sex structural prerequisite for a holistic sexual union.
As with the case of the incestuous man, Paul would have found absurd any argument that suggested marriage as a means to avoiding sexual immorality. Same-sex intercourse, like incest, is a far greater instance of sexual immorality than infidelity. If it were otherwise, the church would be compelled to validate all committed incestuous unions. Same-sex intercourse, like man-mother incest, is not substantially improved by the manifestation of fidelity and longevity. Indeed, making the relationship long-term only regularizes the sin.
That Paul did not limit his opposition to homosexual practice only to certain exploitative forms is evident both from his indictment of lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26 and from the advocacy for non-exploitative homoerotic behavior that persisted in many quarters of the Greco-Roman world. Moreover, modern views about "homosexual orientation" would have made little difference to Paul's critique. There were "pagan" moralists and physicians who both posited something akin to homosexual orientation and held such desires to be "contrary to nature" even when given "by nature." We know that Paul viewed sin as an innate impulse, operating in the members of the human body, passed on by an ancestor, and never entirely within human control.
It is not mere coincidence that when Jesus dealt with an issue of sexual behavior in Mark 10:2-12 he cited the same two texts from Genesis, 1:27 and 2:24, that lie behind Paul's critique of homosexual practice. Jesus adopted a "back-to-creation" model of sexuality. He treated Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as normative and prescriptive for the church (Mark 10:6-9). In contending for the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus clearly presupposed the one explicit prerequisite in Gen 1:27 and 2:24; namely, that there be a male and female, man and woman, to effect the "one flesh" reunion.
Jesus was not suggesting that lifelong monogamy was a more important consideration for sexual relations than the heterosexual (i.e. other-sexual) dimension. Rather, he narrowed further an already carefully circumscribed sexual ethic given to him in the Hebrew Bible. Sexual behavior mattered for Jesus. In the midst of Jesus' sayings on sex in Matthew 5:27-32 appears the following remark: If your eye or hand should threaten your downfall, cut it off. It is better to go into heaven maimed then to have one's whole body be sent to hell.
The unanimous and unequivocal opposition to same-sex intercourse that persisted in early Judaism and in early Christianity leaves little doubt about what Jesus' view was. The portrait of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is of someone who, instead of loosening the law, closed its loopholes and intensified its demands (Matthew 5:17-48). Jesus did devote his ministry to seeking out the "lost" and "sick," such as sexual sinners and the biggest economic exploiters of Jesus' day (tax collectors). Yet he did so in the hope of bringing about their restoration through grateful repentance. He understood the command to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18; cited in Mark 12:30) in its context, which included the command to "reprove your neighbor and so not incur guilt because of him" (Leviticus 19:18). Continual forgiveness was available to those who sinned and repented (Luke 17:3-4). Jesus' requirement for discipleship was self-denial, self-crucifixion, and the losing of one's life (Mark 8:34-37; Matthew 10:38-39). It is time to deconstruct the false portrait of a sexually tolerant Jesus.
Space does not permit a fuller exploration of the evidence from Scripture. For that I refer readers to my books and articles. There I also show, through examination of literary and historical contexts and the history of interpretation, that the story of Sodom in Genesis 19:4-11, like the stories of the Levite at Gibeah in Judges 19:22-25 and Ham's act against Noah in Genesis 9:20-27, is intended as an indictment of male-male intercourse per se, not merely of coercive acts; that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not antiquated purity laws; and indeed that every text in Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations presupposes an unalterable heterosexual requirement. It is a relatively easy matter to demonstrate that in ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity, the only form of "consensual" sexual behavior regarded as a more severe infraction than homosexual practice was bestiality. The historical evidence indicates that every author of Scripture, as well as Jesus, would have been appalled by homosexual relationships, committed or otherwise.
Hound

Pro

Allow me to recapitulate what my opponent said: "Christianity says it's wrong."

My opponent says that what she stated was a "religious prerequisite." How's it a prerequisite if you're going against it? Shouldn't it be forbidden, and not have a requirement? Furthermore, you go on to say "Jesus would be appalled by homosexuality." Impossible to prove, forget historical facts.

Homosexuality is frequent in many cultures and religions. My opponent seems to think that it is exclusive to Christianity. It's not. Some ATHEISTS are homosexual. Some people who don't believe in MORALITY are homosexual. So? Does this doom them to Hell? No one knows, but it is not immoral when looking at the fact that our nation supposedly gives freedom.

Since my opponent did not rebut anything I said, I suppose she agrees indeed that society would get used to growing up with homosexual marriages. I suppose she agrees that children would not be affected. I suppose she agrees that homosexuals do INDEED, DESERVE the RIGHT to marry whomever they please. Basically, my opponent agrees homosexuals have rights. Loony creationists would be the only ones with the whole religious problem. They can deal with it and learn not to be bigots.

In closing, I'd like to say that homosexuals DESERVE the RIGHT to marry whomever they wish to. Even Congress agreed by repealing DADT. We're moving towards a more egalitarian society.

Oh, one more thing. My opponent totally plagiarized: http://www.robgagnon.net.... Just sayin' ;).

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
grazilda

Con

grazilda forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
grazilda

Con

grazilda forfeited this round.
Hound

Pro

Merry Christmas
Debate Round No. 4
grazilda

Con

grazilda forfeited this round.
Hound

Pro

Happy New Year, everybody.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pat 5 years ago
Pat
A valid debate though by these comments, grazilda's only weakening her case... I'll admit I make fun of gay people (especially a certain teenage pop singer), but I'm just playing around. I wouldn't do it to somebody I knew was truly gay. You know, the typical "Yeah, I saw your dad and you in bed while I was doing your mom" kind of bs. Homosexuals deserve respect and equal rights. Adoption too, as long as they don't encourage their children to adopt their sexuality (?).
Posted by Hound 5 years ago
Hound
So like, I'm guessing we won't be finishing this debate >_>?
Posted by annhasle 5 years ago
annhasle
"maybe for you Antichrists its proper, but proper or improper, in the eyes of the crowd, it's disgusting and yet making a way for them and for their children (if they could have) to suffer."

- If I was the antichrist, I would've blown you up over cyberspace for your bad juju. But, I'm not so feel free to call me 'annhasle'

- Unless the crowd is your family. In society (and I daresay, reality) homosexuals are supported by the masses for marriage and equal rights. I believe it falls under the 14th amendment... You know, that clause you must hate: "Equal protection"

- the only reason a child would suffer from being adopted by a homosexual couple, would be if bigots taunted them for being 'icky' and made their life horrible. So, if you were to stop calling them immoral, their lives would improve. It's up to you.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
"maybe for you Antichrists its proper, but proper or improper, in the eyes of the crowd, it's disgusting and yet making a way for them and for their children (if they could have) to suffer."

1. Actually, a pretty good chunk of "the crowd" agrees that homosexual marriage ought to be legalized.

2. I don't see how it's "disgusting".

3. There's not really a lot of suffering involved. It's not as if their homosexuality turns them into horrendous monsters. Even from a christian perspective, it's no more a sin than cutting your hair, which I'm sure you've done.
Posted by Yurlene 5 years ago
Yurlene
Oh, in your introduction... "Many religiously conservative researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. " Hm... Biased research without appropriate sources doesn't help. Tsk tsk tsk about the plagiarism.
Posted by Yurlene 5 years ago
Yurlene
@ Grazi
You just technically boiled it down to the simple truth. Just because you see it as an "ick" factor doesn't make it wrong. I have known gay and lesbian couples that have been with each other monogamously for over 20 years and more. Yet I see more of my heterosexual friends divorce several times. Before you condemn SSM, let's talk about banning divorce.
Posted by Hound 5 years ago
Hound
You seem like a bigot. No, no... that's not it. You seem more like a typical Christian that thinks everything is wrong with those whom don't follow Jesus.

I mean, are you hearing yourself? LET PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY WANT. It's not immoral. The eyes of the crowd? Your crowd, maybe.

Disgusting? Speculation.

Children wouldn't think so if they grew up in this kind of society. (You know we're already debating this, right?)
Posted by grazilda 5 years ago
grazilda
maybe for you Antichrists its proper, but proper or improper, in the eyes of the crowd, it's disgusting and yet making a way for them and for their children (if they could have) to suffer.
Posted by Hound 5 years ago
Hound
You so should have taken this, ann XD
Posted by annhasle 5 years ago
annhasle
Guess what? They're still human! You might have some weird preconceived notion that homosexual = bad, but there's no logical premise for that. Their culture, their ideas, their thought process, their very being is just like you and me. You know what's different? They like someone who isn't of the opposite sex. And somehow THAT makes it wrong? That arbitrary distinction? Pfft.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
grazildaHoundTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Vote Placed by Hound 5 years ago
Hound
grazildaHoundTied
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