The Instigator
Rosalie
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
MMarathe
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should Gay Marriage be Legalized?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
Rosalie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 748 times Debate No: 85316
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Rosalie

Pro

The user MMarathe has taken interest in debating this topic with me.

--Resolved: "Should Gay Marriage Be Legalized?"

Terms:

--Gay Marriage: Marriage between two partners of the same-sex.

(https://search.yahoo.com...)

--Legalized- to make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law

(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

--Rules:

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. No trolling
5. No semantics abuse
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss

--Structure:

First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round (rebuttals that follow from the previous round are allowed). Otherwise, arguments and counter-arguments are free to be used the discretion of the debater.

Goodluck!

MMarathe

Con

It should not be legalized as the Human race would never continue as fast as population is rising to the present day-If that makes sense. My point is It should be Illegal as people will benefit more from actually having children.
Debate Round No. 1
Rosalie

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting. I look forward to a great debate!


I will be arguing 2 main points.


1) Denying a gay couple of marriage is unconstitutional.

2) Gay married couples are a benefit.


Gay Marriage as a Right.

[1] "Proponents of legal gay marriage contend that gay marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that same-sex couples should have access to all the benefits enjoyed by different-sex couples."


What's interesting about the constitution is that it mentions nothing about gay marriage, or even traditional marriage. The constitution says nothing about marriage. So, for our government to deny a gay couple to get married is unconstitutional. Basing a decision as to whether or not gay marriage should be legalized is a bias decision. Your decision is based on your beliefs, and morals.


[1] "On July 25, 2014 Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled Florida's gay marriage ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban "serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society."


[2] "Many opponents of same-sex unions, including the group Protect Marriage, argue that marriage “is an essential institution of society,” and should be defended. Supporters of Prop 8, for instance, said homosexual couples should not redefine marriage for heterosexual couples; they worried that children raised by same-sex couples would not fare as well as children raised by a father and a mother; they feared that public schools would teach about gay marriage in a positive light.

Supporters of same-sex unions agree that marriage is fundamental to society. That’s why they believe it should be extended to include all couples, straight or gay. They believe that denying same-sex couples the right to marry – or outright banning gay marriage– violates the 14th discriminates against homosexual couples , they argue."


As we can read, the decision all comes down to what you believe in. Whether or not gay marriage is moral, or immoral is your decision. There have been no proven studies that children that are raised in homosexual families are raised any differently from those raised in a homosexual family.


In fact, a study suggest that [3]"Children raised by same-sex couples have better health and well-being in comparison to their peers... Conducted by Australia's University of Melbourne, the new research aimed to "describe the physical, mental and social well-being" of children with gay and lesbian parents, and "the impact that stigma has on them." On average, children raised by same-sex couples scored six percent higher than the general population when it came to general health and family cohesion."


The study is clear. There is no difference in the child being raised by a hetro, or homo couple, the study just shows that children who are raised by a homosexual couples have a better health, and well-being compared to the children raised by heterosexuals. So, why is there any reason for the government to deny a couple to get married? Why are they worried about their children, if study suggest that children in a homosexual couples are more healthier, and have a stronger well-being.

The Benefit:

There is one main argument I want to make here. More children will be adopted by homosexual couples if they're married.


[4] "A person's ability to be a good parent does not depend on whether he is attracted to and loves someone of the same sex. Many heterosexual couples are raising children in abusive homes and forcing children to live in horrible conditions. It is no more rational to say those parents are good parents because they are heterosexual than it is to say two men or two women raising a child together are bad parents because they are gay. The American Academy of Pediatrics confirms children raised by gay and lesbian parents experience no disadvantages when it comes to psychosocial growth. A well-adjusted, emotionally stable child is not the product of bad parenting."


While heterosexuals are able to have their own children, homosexuals are unable to. By granting them to be married, they are able to adopt unwanted children.


Sources:

[1] http://gaymarriage.procon.org...

[2] http://www.annenbergclassroom.org...

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

[4] http://everydaylife.globalpost.com...

MMarathe

Con

It should not be legalized as the Human race would never continue as fast as population is rising to the present day-If that makes sense. My point is It should be Illegal as people will benefit more from actually having children. The world will die out with no reproduction and will not exist as earth, but as the gay planet.Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Please help us fight for marriage as a Guardian of Truth -- Click here for details.

Click "like" for TRUE marriage!

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

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.

Same-sex "marriage" ignores a child"s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the "family," same-sex "marriage" serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone"s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

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 marry 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.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

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.

7. It Defeats the State"s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual "marriage" does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex "marriage."

If homosexual "marriage" is universally accepted as the present step in sexual "freedom," what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain "avant garde" subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex "marriage" on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: "God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."" (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: "From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife." (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: "The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil." (Gen. 19:24-25)

Special Request: Please consider supporting TFP Student Action as a special Guardian of Truth member. Click here for details.

In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.

As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.

We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.
Debate Round No. 2
Rosalie

Pro

I would like to make it aware to the voters that Con plagiarized his whole argument from this site:


"No plagiarizing" is a fundamental rule on this site. Therfor, I have lost all interest in this debate. Vote Pro for original, unique arguments.
MMarathe

Con

?????What the Freezing Hell????
Debate Round No. 3
Rosalie

Pro

My opponent doesn't seem to understand that he plagiarized. If you take a look at the link I provided, the arguments are 100% identical.

Also, if you really wanted to plagiarize, you should have done a better job and get rid of this---

"Please help us fight for marriage as a Guardian of Truth -- Click here for details."

"Click "like" for TRUE marriage!"

Plagiarizing is bad, but denying it, even where there is hardcore evidence you did it is worse. Vote Pro.
MMarathe

Con

As the Con, i have realized only now that i have done wrong. I am ashamed and very sorry. Even i will vote for the Pro (If i can).
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 9 months ago
DavidMancke
I vote LOL, well done tho Rosalie.

"To shame a coward, one hopes to restore to a man his self-respect." - George Patton
Posted by Ariesx 9 months ago
Ariesx
Yeah, but you like Donald Trump. Trump would not approve of this debate.
Posted by Daniel_Nemes 10 months ago
Daniel_Nemes
Wow.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 10 months ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Guardian of Truth....

My second title, lol.
Posted by PointyDelta 10 months ago
PointyDelta
welp

rip con
Posted by Jerry947 10 months ago
Jerry947
I laughed so hard when I found out that Con plagiarized. It wasn't the actual plagiarism that made me laugh but it was his response to being caught that made me laugh. I wish I had this much fun in my Gay Marriage debates.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 10 months ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Denying a gay couple marriage is not unconstitutional. The Constitution says nothing about marriage, gay or otherwise. It cannot be against or protected by something that does not mention it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by LDG 10 months ago
LDG
RosalieMMaratheTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized.
Vote Placed by lannan13 10 months ago
lannan13
RosalieMMaratheTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con Plagerised as well as conceded.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 10 months ago
RyuuKyuzo
RosalieMMaratheTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized and then conceded.