The Instigator
godessofthedarkness
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 436 times Debate No: 69335
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

godessofthedarkness

Pro

Gay Marriage is a complicated issue because of all the prosecution Gays and other people from the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transexual) community get because of who they are. While others may argue that Gay people and Gay marriage is against The Bible and is uncivilized,this position is misguided.Evidence shows that Gay people were never in the Bible. God never said, "Kill the homosexuals!" God created all of us equal with the power to make our own decisions and just because someones decision is different than yours, does not make it wrong or unholy. This is true because saying that Gay marriage is uncivilized is an opinion. I am here to state the facts.

First of all, Being Gay is proven not to be some sort of mental sickness. about 3.5 percent of the population in America is supposedly, homosexual. Most people who admit they are Gay, say that they were supposedly, "Born Gay," and that they have been that way ever since they can remember. Others that say they are Openly Gay say that they just one day noticed someone of the same gender that they became quite fond of. Critics may argue that Gay marriage is a violation of tradition,But Allie Jo, a member of Teenink.com states, "Why should other people be able to choose who marries who? If a man and a woman get married, no one seems to care. They are two people who feel affection for one another and those two people want to start a family. If we change the scenario a little bit and a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, try to get married it causes uproar. They are not allowed to be married or raise a family together."

Another reason that we should legalize Gay marriage is that it wouldn"t make a difference anywhere. It would be just another beautiful declaration of vows. While some may say that If Gay Marriage is legalized then The population will decline dramatically, that is proven to be false. The reason for this is that Gay people can adopt, which is a great thing for society because that would mean less homeless children around the world.

My third and final reason for my cause is that People will be happier. I know. I know. It sounds like an opinion right? wrong. According to http://www.apa.org..., Higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder and substance use or dependence in lesbian and gay youth. This can be because of discrimination, or bullying from other classmates and parents. Studies show, that If we legalize gay Marriage, gay people won"t be so ashamed of unveiling their true colours. And while some people may argue that If we legalize Homosexual marriage, "The gays will do horrible things to our children." This is proven to be an opinion. Some people call the Gays "Monsters." But let me ask you one thing, What did the homosexuals ever do to you? Did they bully you like you bully them? A better question to ask is, Who is the real monster?
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, godessofthedarkness for instigating this debate.

Preface:

I need to make it abundantly clear what my line of argument will not be. My arguments are not:

1) Homosexuality is a mental disease, sickness or any other kind of pathology

2) Homosexuals do not deserve basic human rights

3) Homosexuals are incapable of raising children

Now that the above is clear, my general argument will:

  1. 1. Determine the nature of marriage
  2. 2. Determine whether there is intrinsic social value
  3. 3. On the chance that 2 is confirmed, justify governments in treating this intrinsic social value with differentiated treatment (i.e. not recognising homosexual relationships as marriage etc.)


In order to understand what can qualify as ‘should be’ (i.e. gay marriage should be legal), we first need to understand what marriage is and why it is that way. I champion the conjugal view, which is that marriage, via the view of essentialism, exists with three essential aspects:


  1. 1. Comprehensive union
  2. 2. A special link to children
  3. 3. Monogamy

It is with these three essential components that marriage forms. Allow me to demonstrate:


A1. Comprehensive union


Premise: The body is part of the person. A person is not inseparable from their body in a metaphysical sense. To move someone’s arm is to move a person. To move someone’s bike is not to move a person.

What counts as a comprehensive union?: From this premise, we can begin to understand what exactly entails comprehensive unity, but more importantly, why this bodily unity is necessary. Let us say Airmax and his banhammer pledge to ban everyone on DDO, till death do them part. Does that make them married? No. You can replace DDO-modding with any non-sexual activity and no one from this partnership will be married. It is sexual exclusivity, which acknowledges a special kind of union, which is an essential component of comprehensive union -- two people must unite organically (i.e. in a special way). Let me show you why:

Organic unity: Now, for people to unite organically, much like the organs of a body unite to sustain life, people’s bodies require coordination to a biological end. For you see, without connecting to another, an individual is always incomplete, in regards to sexual reproduction. In coitus, both bodies become one.

Important notes:

Some important notes to take from this logical progression is that a comprehensive union is NOT dependent on conception. In other words, it does not matter if children are formed in coitus because the comprehensive union is comprehensive without them.

Another important note is that homosexual union defies comprehensive union, much like sticking a tree-branch into a vagina (not recommended) is not considered enough for marriage, nor kissing or hugging, nor does homosexual sex meet the requirements for marriage. This is not to say that homosexual sex is an abomination, or that homosexual love is illegitimate, rather that homosexual union is not comprehensive union.

Further value in comprehensive union:

Heterosexual sex is in itself valuable due to it being the only way in which life can come into existence.

Value of comprehensive union:

A clear-cut, logical explanation of a comprehensive union avoids an infinite regression of arbitrary delineations (i.e. arguments wherein marriage is just about “happiness” quickly run into trouble due to their lack in valid distinctions, as “happiness”).


A2: A special link to children


As indicated by the complete union present in marriage, marriage then becomes orientated towards child-bearing and rearing.

Critical point #1: a CRITICAL distinction to be made here is that child-birth and/or rearing are NOT necessary for a marriage to be a marriage, rather they can be a natural result of the marriage. In other words, marriage has a special (intrinsic) link to children, but that does not mean that the (extrinsic) birth of children is necessary for a marriage to be a marriage.

Critical point #2: infertile heterosexual couples can still be married, despite not necessarily having the ability to procreate. Take this analogy: a cricket team (heterosexual union) is naturally structured towards winning a game of cricket (procreation). However, in the event that a cricket team does not win a cricket game (does not procreate), then this does not mean a cricket team is not a cricket team (heterosexual union is not heterosexual union).

On this point, same-sex partnerships cannot be considered marriages due to this essential orientation to children.

Heterosexual relationships, on average, are better at raising children than homosexual unions: This is not to say that homosexuals parents are damaging to children, rather that they are, on balance, inferior to heterosexual parents. Signed by seventy scholars, I offer you the Witherspoon researched paper: Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles [1]. This paper, which collaborates dozens of researched papers, drew the conclusion that: “children fare best on virtually every indicator of wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents”. The studies that controlled for factors such as poverty and genetics found children reared in intact, heterosexual marriages have quote:

1. The best literacy and graduation rates
2. The lowest rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicide
3. A strong sense of identity, lower rates of teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancy and lower rates of sexual abuse
4. Lower rates of aggression, attention deficit disorders, delinquency and incarceration

Evolutionary psychology: “Genes producing effects that increase their replicative success will replace other genes, producing evolution over time. Adaptations are selected and evolve because they promote inclusive fitness” [2]. This manifests in parents having a natural inclination to take best care of their own children, meaning that parents will raise non-biological children poorer, all things being equal, because that was the behaviour that would have left parents most likely to continue their biological lineage.

Heterosexual marriage is special in being the best environment to raise a child. It is not that homosexuals cannot raise children properly, but rather there should be a distinction in terms made for the quality of child-rearing institutions, that heterosexual marriage is best designed for child-rearing whilst homosexual union is less so.


A3: Monogamy


Via this element of marriage, the union deepens the potential for excellence in child-birth, child-rearing and whatever other reasons heterosexual couples have for union. Whilst it is true that homosexuals are capable of monogamy, their means to the ends of monogamy is different. Homosexual unions come from a place of partial union, like “happiness”. On the other hand, heterosexual unions that become marriages are complete, in that the union is complete in every facet.

Important point: This is not to say that homosexual unions are useless valueless, rather that they have less social value than complete heterosexual union, and thus a distinction is fair.


Rebuttals


Against the Bible: not an argument made by me.

(1st) Mental illness: I am specifically not making this argument.

“No one seems to care; let them marry”: it would be unjust to consider homosexual union the equivalent of heterosexual union, as I have argued that homosexual union cannot have the essential features required in order to be considered a marriage.

Not allowed to raise a family: they can be allowed to raise a family and not get married; these are not mutually exclusive.

(2nd) Gays can adopt: not a reason to grant marriage rights, as shown in my arguments.

(3rd) Happiness: a poor qualifier of marriage, as shown in my arguments.

Higher rates of depression etc.: addressed under discrimination.

Discrimination: it is not discrimination to treat people differently based on relevant distinctions. Stop wrongly telling people that they are being discriminated against; it is hurting them.


References

[1] http://tinyurl.com...

[2] http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 1
godessofthedarkness

Pro

godessofthedarkness forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

It looks like my opponent has forfeited, hence all of my rebuttal has gone uncontested. Please vote for me :)
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
godessofthedarknessZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
godessofthedarknessZarroetteTied
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: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro actually builds a somewhat-compelling case. Con then comes in and presents counter-arguments as well as her own, which were unfortunately left standing unchallenged by the end of the debate. Due to the lack of rebuttals from Pro, Pro drops the BOP, thus Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Both utilized strong sources for their arguments. I am leaning a little more towards Con due to quantity, but quality-wise they both utilized sources appropriately.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 year ago
bsh1
godessofthedarknessZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel the irony of me voting on this debate is funny...but anyway, Zarroette's arguments were uncontested, Pro drops her case, and forfeits. Zarroette was also the only one to offer sources. Vote goes Con.