Should Gay Marriage(adoption and all other normal rights) Be Allowed In The U.S.?
Debate Rounds (5)
I will start this debate by clearing up main arguments that are used by the "con" members of the gay marriage issue I will do this by going over said arguments and debunking them.
1. Well My Religion Is Against It, So Ban It.
Umm.... ever heard of this great thing called separation of church and state, here let me quote it for you.
Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Do you know what this means? Yes, you can be a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist and practice your religion but you CANNOT (or the government cannot) makes laws based off of this religion. Do you know what that means? Your religion in this case, is in fact, irrelevant.
2. Well they cant have kids so..no marriage
One, this is irrelevant, people have kids out of marriage all the time, two they can adopt or use a surrogate, three wait... if people who cant have kids shouldn't get married, shouldn't you argue against marriage with infertile couples, old people that cannot longer give birth, and couples who just don't want to have kids? Just gay people because they're icky? Oh.
3.Marriage has been around thousands of years! Why redefine it?
Just so you know, marriage has been redefined ALL THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
Because blacks can marry whites, divorce is legal and not thought as a MAJOR scandal. Read http://www.nber.org... for more info.
4. Gay Marriage would Tear Apart Society!
Really? Name one society or empire that was DIRECTLY torn apart by homosexual marriage. One.
5. (probably the worst) Gays Have HIV!!!!!!!!
*sigh* why would getting married make gays have any less sex? I mean...just...what? This makes no sense.
6.Gay parents shouldn't adopt because you need both masculine and feminine!
Well you know while we're at it lets ban single mothers and fathers from raising children too, because as you know those people raised by single parents such as Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George Washington (who's father died when he was 11), and Thomas Jefferson (whos father died when he was 14). Those people were just, absolutely horrible.
Ok now that we have that out of the way let me explain why this should be legalized.
Well it provides equal rights to literally thousands of Americans who cant get married.
It helps give children loving homes in adoption centers.
There is no real reason not to let people do what thousands of people, ADULTS want to consent to.
In conclusion, almost all major arguments anti-gay marriage activists make are easily disproven, and gay marriage is another step in equal rights for all people in The United States of America.
A common argument stated by the pro-gay marriage community is that 'love is love.' Using this to define marriage is VERY loose and people will take advantage of it. If love is love, then why can't I marry myself? Your whole argument falls apart.
The standard is in fact consenting adults that pose no hazardous situations.
Bestiality- You could never know if an animal consented to marriage therefore it is impossible to legalize marriage for an animal
Incest- Inbreeding causes lots of genetic problems to occur therefore is hazardous
Polygamy- Unless somebody is marrying like 300 people to get tax cuts then Polygamy is completely fine
Pedophilia- A child is to young to truly know if she consents therefore Pedophilia also falls away
This provides very tight standards to marriage and with it you argument falls away completely.
The slippery slope argument is wrong, it makes unrealistic claims, and doesn't look at any standards, it has been thoroughly disproven.
And I do wait to her what you come up with next time. :)
One of your rebuttal points, "Incest- Inbreeding causes lots of genetic problems to occur therefore is hazardous" really contradicts your views. I hate to get into the nitty-gritty details, but homosexual sex is REALLY harmful for the body.
Would you say homosexuality is supported by nature? No. Humans are not anatomically built to reproduce through homosexuality. How are we expected to evolve in a good direction with these type of actions? It is not natural, and is very harmful to the body. If you really want me to, I can go into further detail but I would rather not because it is pretty gnarly.
Which leads me to conclude again that your arguments are well, wrong. Just factually incorrect.
However, in response to some of your claims: Like I said, I don't care what people do in their own homes. That does not however, mean I think that they should receive legal recognition and benefits nation-wide. You just compared the gay rights movement to that of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to produce children because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.
I would also like to have a link to a list of those 200 species in nature that can homosexually reproduce and create offspring.
A final point is it is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex marriage. A child of a same-sex marriage will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
To counter your civil rights movements. Umm.. its exactly the same, EXCACTLY, as its not a changeable trait, and just because we haven't found a gene does not mean its not genetic, and if you really want to go with the whole "well until someone finds the gene it doesn't exist" we could apply that argument to lots of things, like, well God. But that's for another argument. Science supports Being Gay is not a choice. Psychologists determine that your personality is developed within 2-6 weeks of birth and is not changeable. Please read this to further educate yourself on the topic http://www.livescience.com...
Please, stop making the same points so I won't have to keep dredging up the same counter arguments.
NATURAL, it does not matter whether you can REPRODUCE, natural means by definition of its root word and base OCCURING IN NATURE which homosexuality does, you also never addressed my infertile couples argument, or old [people argument, leaving a lot of my claims completely unanswered meaning either you ignored them, you don't have an answer for them, or you didn't read my argument fully, all of which are very bad for your case.
For a list of the animals who display homosexuality go here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
I already answered this claim, tons of famous people grew up with only one parent and to quote frc.org who did a study on this very topic the conclusion was indeed:
""The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, "Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents.""
Please read my arguments before reposting the same arguments, I already answered a lot of your arguments.
The meaning of natural means occurring in nature, which homosexuality does, therefore it is by definition natural. The ability of reproduction is irrelevant.
Homosexual parents raise children just as good as heterosexual parents, this is shown by several research studies, and proved by many famous figures with no masculine and feminine and were raised amazingly.
Homosexuality is an inherited trait, people don't choose to be gay, it is exactly like the civil rights union see my previous argument.
You dropped SEVERAL of my arguments just plain ignoring them for whatever reason.
I conclude AGAIN, the exact same thing, that your arguments are invalid, not based on evidence, and extremely weak. I conclude the exact same thing because you brought up several of the same points in a different format, which I disproved again.
I don't mean to sound immature, but you are wrong, sexuality and race are very different things. Race is 100% unchangeable. Homosexuality is not natural man. I say this because the only hard evidence that we have--the biological evidence--clearly indicates that it is a disorder, in that homosexuality represents a tendency to want to use body parts for some purpose other than that for which they were designed. The penis and vagina are certainly constructed for male-female intercourse. Their complimentary shapes, the location of highly sensitive nerve endings show, without a doubt, the Divine (or evolutionary, if you will) intent.
Infertile couples is different. They are still a man and woman who could raise a child well with both a mother and father in the house. But again, you never answered this question, do you agree that on AVERAGE it is better for children to be raised with the paternal influence of a father and mother? Every study shows it is bud. So yes, there are some great single parents out there, and maybe even some great homosexual ones.
I will present this argument to you again, because you failed to address it and I think this is the crux of the issue here: How would you define 'marriage'? Your answer is vital. And please don't try to argue that 'everyone's definition of marriage can be different.' No, just don't be that guy.
a state of confusion.
"tiresome days of mess and disorder"
synonyms: untidiness, disorderliness, mess, disarray, chaos, confusion; More
a muddle, a shambles
"he hates disorder"
"the disruption of peaceful and law-abiding behavior.
"recurrent food crises led to periodic outbreaks of disorder"
synonyms: unrest, disturbance, disruption, upheaval, turmoil, mayhem, pandemonium; More
violence, fighting, rioting, lawlessness, anarchy;
breach of the peace, fracas, rumpus, ruckus, melee
"incidents of public disorder"
antonyms: order, peace
a disruption of mental functions; a disease or abnormal condition.
plural noun: disorders
synonyms: disease, infection, complaint, condition, affliction, malady, sickness, illness, ailment, infirmity, irregularity
"a blood disorder"
verb: disorder; 3rd person present: disorders; past tense: disordered; past participle: disordered; gerund or present participle: disordering
disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of.
"she went to comb her disordered hair"
synonyms: untidy, unkempt, messy, in a mess, mussed (up), mussy; More
disorganized, chaotic, confused, jumbled, muddled, shambolic
"her gray hair was disordered"
disrupt the healthy or normal functioning of.
"a patient who is mentally disordered"
synonyms: dysfunctional, disturbed, unsettled, unbalanced, upset
"a disordered digestive system"
Homosexuality does not fall into these definitions. Yes homosexuality is not race, but it is (as evidence points to) unchangeable. You are not Gay. You are not sexually attracted to men. Are you able to have sex with a man? Yes. Would you enjoy it, or like it to any extent. Probably Not. Could You Ever Like Men Sexually? No. Because you are naturally attracted to women, you are naturally heterosexual. You did not choose to be attracted to women, or to not be attracted to men, you can choose who you date, you can choose who you have sex with, yes you can choose all of those things, but you cant choose whether you are physically attracted to that person or not. That's evidence against you, actual evidence/
Its Natural. Its Natural. It Occurs In Nature, Natural, I'm not sure why you are arguing against this fact I'm so sorry but you happen to be wrong. You are FACTUALLY wrong. I really don't want to go over this again. And no, you have absolutely zero evidence supporting it is a disorder. They function just as well as anyone else. Not a disorder. If there penis was unable to create sperm, that is a disorder, if the vagina could not allow babies to be created, that's a disorder. When someone or something cannot FUNCTION PROPERLY. As for a mental disorder, no, their mental capacity is just as well, MAN.
As for your "on average" umm...no. Neither is better, really neither, they are both showing the exact same amount of intelligence and everything else as masculinity and femininity is NOT ONLY AQUIRED THROUGH PARENTS. You always talk about "hard evidence" "studies show" yet you gave no quotes, no links, not studies, No Evidence.
Its like me saying "The sky is purple, hundreds of studies show it" then I say none of this evidence, none of these studies. It doesn't hold up, Don't just say stuff and expect me to just "take your word for it" like your whole "I don't want to get into how its harmful or give any evidence but its like so totally is". I quoted a study that goes DIRECTLY AGAINST YOUR POINT. This claim is disproved due to your lack of evidence and the evidence against it.
What is my definition of marriage? Marriage is something two consenting adults do. Something that someone who is old enough to marry decides with someone else that age that will not majorly effect their offspring or themselves. That is my definition of marriage. That is what I think though. Merriam Webster said it best
"A union between a man and a women or two people of the same-sex"
The definition of marriage goes directly against your point.
My final conclusion is that you have little to no evidence supporting your point scientifically and any claims you made was disproven by both my former evidence or my evidence in this final round.
Than This Debate.
And I Bid You Farewell
Second, you feel quite strongly on this issue as I can tell. I am sorry to have offended you with my comments. Please don't get your panties in a wad.
You have had many good points on this issue and I have certainly changed my viewpoints. However, two main things stand i the way of me accepting homosexuality.
1. The fact that based on your reasoning, everyone's definition of marriage will change. I am sure our ancestors never imagined that today's definition of marriage could include a man with a man or a woman with a woman. Today, incest, pedophilia, bestiality and polygamy may seem 'unnatural' and 'wrong' but based on your reasoning (e.g. You said "That is my definition of marriage. That is what I think though."), someone else could argue that it is 'natural' and not 'wrong.'
2. The whole gay rights movement has gone out of control. They now protest trample anyone who even disagrees with them, take the Christian bakeries for example. They exercise their Constitutional rights, and look where they end up now. The LGBT community has gone so overboard that they loose any compassion that they could have gotten from me, and I suspect many others. For a group of people campaigning for equal rights to love, they sure do radiate a lot of hate.
3. And finally.....YOUR MOM (just kidding)
So anyways, yeah thanks for a good debate, and I would be glad to debate you in a topic I am more familiar with. I realize that this one might have been rather one-sided, but please recognize that I learned information on the fly. Simple logical reasons are on my side, as well as the sheer common sense of simplicity and tradition.
Love you bruh, and... WE SHALL MEET AGAIN!!!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 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:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. Sources to Pro because she's the only one who employed them. Both of you, take care with your conduct. Pro, you got a little heated in there - put some distance between yourself and the debate. Con, being a little flippant in your responses doesn't help.
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.