The Instigator
mbrownie
Con (against)
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)

Should Gay Marriages Be Legal?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
mbrownie has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2016 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 699 times Debate No: 97619
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

mbrownie

Con

I don't think gay marriages should be legal- I don't even think being or admitting to being a gay person should be legal.
I am a true Christian- I follow Him and spread his love- but did He really create us for this? Lesbians, and sex, and everything on the internet, and even gay marriages now. What is the world coming to? Why would guys like guys. We humans were meant for men and women, not men and men or woman and woman. Is being gay or a lesbian really what w were made for?
I don't think so! God created us so we can serve Him, worship Him, thank Him for all that He has done for us. We aren't made for guys to be with guys, why can't anybody see that?
We aren't supposed to be gay.
Capitalistslave

Pro

Since my opponent didn't really offer anything substantive in the first round, I'll just state my position and where I am going to go with this debate. My opponent should offer logical explanations for their position rather than just state their position or making unsubstantiated claims in the second round.

First, I do not believe there is any harm in being gay or having gay marriages, it harms no one so there is no reason for it to be illegal. Second, I am going to argue that sexuality develops from genetic, prenatal, and environmental sources and is not a choice, so it naturally happens that people are gay. Thirdly, I'll point out that homosexuality is also present in animals, which would also help prove that there is no reason to be opposed to homosexuality or gay marriage.
Debate Round No. 1
mbrownie

Con

My first argument was apparently not 'substantial', so I will add two cases to the second round
As I believe in God, I will not add anymore Christian beliefs.
In Africa, aids started because if homosexual males and lesbians females. Now aids has traveled to America, where people continue to share it when nobody realizes they have aids.
Aids causes death, as there is no apparent cure right now for aids, so if we continue being gay and homosexual and things like that, aids not only spreads through sex, but that as well.
What kind if environment would people or children experience if their parents are both make and male, or female and female? Males don't have the sensitivity females have, and females don't have the male qualities.
And since my opponent claims that animals do it, we are not animals. As animal like we act, that doesn't cause us to automatically do everything the animals do.
Capitalistslave

Pro

My opponent claimed that Aids came from homosexuality, however that is not true at all. Scientists "believe that the chimpanzee version of the immunodeficiency virus (called simian immunodeficiency virus or SIV) most likely was transmitted to humans and mutated into HIV when humans hunted these chimpanzees for meat and came into contact with their infected blood. " [1] Therefore, aids didn't come from homosexuality.

The reason why AIDS is most prevalent among homosexual males is because of malicious intent by people who wanted to end homosexuality. AIDS was introduced to America through hepatitis B vaccinations. People infected the first vaccination experiments with HIV, and used gay men as guinea pigs for the experiment [2] This is the only reason why AIDS is more prevalent among gay men. Had the experiments used straight men and women, it would be more prevalent among them.

My opponent claimed that families would be impacted on having to same-sex parents. However I would argue that children of same-sex parents are perfectly fine. One study conducted by Jennifer L. Wainright, Stephen T. Russell, and Charlotte J. Patterson, it was found that "Adolescents with same-sex parents were more connected at school than were those living with opposite-sex parents [and] found no differences as a function of gender for psychosocial adjustment or school functioning. As expected, there were no significant interactions between gender and family type for psychological adjustment or school outcomes."[3] In other words, there is no negative effect from having same-sex parents, and in fact, it was found they were more connected at school. In a way, it could be argued it is better to have same-sex parents then. I know of no scientific study that found that same-sex parents negatively impact the children.

Now, I will continue on to my arguments. I shall first point out that sexuality is not a choice and therefore it can't just be stopped like my opponent suggests. Sexuality is determined by genetic, prenatal, and environmental factors.

The first evidence that genetic and prenatal factors help determine sexuality is with twin studies. Identical twins are significantly more likely to be homosexual if their twin was, in comparison to fraternal twins [see table 19.2 on page 271 of source 4] While it is not the case that 100% of the time the identical twin will be homosexual if the other one is, there is an increased chance for it which suggests that some of the determinants of sexual orientation happen at birth. In addition, many studies have found significant linkage between a difference within the X chromosome of males and whether they will be homosexual [4, pg 273]

In addition, another study done by J. Michael Bailey,Michael P. Dunne, and Nicholas G. Martin published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, showed that people with similar environmental factors, such as those which would cause gender nonconformity, and those with the same genes(such as identical twins) were significantly more likely to be homosexual [5]

Since homosexuality is not a choice, it makes no sense to tell them they should stop being gay and behave heterosexually. There is no harm to anyone else for gay marriages to be legal. Who does it harm? Homosexuality also harms no one else except possibly the ones involved in sex if one of them is infected with HIV. There are protections against the spread of HIV, one can have protected sex. If you have sex unprotected, that is partially your own fault if you get an STD.

Sources:
[1] http://www.theaidsinstitute.org...
[2] http://www.rense.com...
[3] https://www.researchgate.net...
[4] https://genepi.qimr.edu.au...
[5] https://www.researchgate.net...
Debate Round No. 2
mbrownie

Con

My opponent says that AIDS came from chimpanzees, but in reality, nobody knows what it comes from. According to theaidsinstitute.org, "Over decades, the virus slowly spread across Africa and later into other parts of the world. The earliest known case of infection with HIV-1 in a human was detected in a blood sample collected in 1959 from a man in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (How he became infected is not known.)"
As the aids institute says; HOW HE BECAME AFFECTED IS NOT KNOWN. (Just to reassure some, I was not yelling just trying to make the sentence easier to find and to be seen easier.)

Just because you call it 'marriage' doesn't make it actually marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, so gay marriage would actually, legally, not be marriage. It would even deny the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Gay marriage always denies children a father or mother. "It is in the child's best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother." Gay marriage actually created a naturally sterile union, instead of a family like how marriage between a man and woman should actually be.

Gay marriage defeats the State's Purpose of Marriage. "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." So gay 'marriage' doesn't provide the conditions. The primary purpose is the gratification personally of two people whose union is sterile by nature.

For those who don't know, sterile means to not be able to produce children or young.

By letting gay marriage be legal, the Stat becomes the official and active promoter. It calls on public officials to officiate at a new ceremony, and even orders public schools to teach the acceptability to children, and also "punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval." Objecting parents would see their children exposed to more things about this new 'morality', because of businesses offering wedding services forcing them to provide them for gay or lesbian unions, and rental property owners would have to agree to accept gay or lesbian couples as tenants.

"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.""
"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."

Sources:
www.dictionary.com/browse/sterile
https://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Capitalistslave

Pro

I just stated that scientists believe HIV came from chimpanzees, that's from the same source you're using. You need to look at the whole context of it. It's not fully known where the earliest case of HIV came from, but scientists believe HIV came from contact with chimp blood. Either way, it disproved your claim that it came from homosexuality. My opponent conceded that it didn't necessarily come from homosexuality, since they are now saying the origin is unknown.

Actually, yes calling it marriage does make it marriage, so long as majority of people are using it that way. Language changes all the time, for example, gay used to mean happy, but now it means homosexual. Marriage used to mean a union between men and women, it now means a union between any two consenting adults and that has been what majority of western nations are defining it as. I suspect I don't need to offer a source for this claim since it should be common knowledge that most western nations are defining marriage between any two consenting adults. Since I did make the claim that majority of people consider marriage to be between two consenting adults, I shall provide a source for that. As you can see, 55% of people in America believe gay marriage is fine [1], which means the definition of marriage has changed since majority of people are using it to mean something different from what it used to mean.

I'm upset that libertarian now means something else than what it used to mean, but it doesn't change the fact that libertarian now means a small-government, laissez-faire capitalist in America(In Europe its original definition is still being used). Libertarian used to mean an anarcho-communist, but language changes and so do definitions.

As I pointed out before with a study, gay marriage has no negative effect on children, so when my opponent claims it is in the best interest for a child to have both a mother and a father, it means nothing unless they back up that claim. From what I've provided, it's good for children to have either same-sex parents or opposite-sex parents. I notice they are quoting the source at the bottom that they provided, however this source is full of claims that are not backed up with any study or other evidence.

As for my opponents last paragraph, what is moral and immoral is all dependent upon what society a person lives in, and that changes all of the time too. According to majority of Americans, as I pointed above, gay marriage is moral. Morality is ultimately subjective and dependent upon what the majority agree is moral.

Evidence I have that morality is subjective, is through looking at various cultures. Let's have a comparison between American culture and cultures elsewhere.
For example, in the US it is okay to:
1) eat beef
2) Drink Alcohol and gamble
3) Allow women in school and businesses
4) For women to wear shorts and have faces uncovered.
However: in India it is not okay to eat beef; in Middle Eastern Islamic countries it is not okay to drink Alcohol or gamble; In Afghanistan it is not okay for women to go to school or go into business; and in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan it is not okay for women to wear shorts or have their faces uncovered. [2]

For the reverse, it is wrong in America to:
1) Kill newborn females
2) Perform female genital mutilation
3) For a family member to kill a woman family member who is raped
However, in China and India it is okay to kill newborn females; In many African nations it is okay to perform FGM; and in Somalia and Sudan it is okay for a family member to kill a woman family member who is raped. [2]

Even something like murder is seen as morally okay in some countries in some circumstances.

I base my morality based on "if it harms no one else, it is okay" which I think many people will agree with. Gay marriage harms no one else, and my opponent still hasn't sufficiently proven how it does: they did claim it is bad for children, however they never offered actual evidence.

[1] http://www.pewforum.org...
[2] http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by mbrownie 1 year ago
mbrownie
@STeveisCoCoL the whole point of this debate is to literally debate about it. I'm sorry that you had to be so rude, but I am not complaining, I'm debating.
There's a difference.
So please don't add anything else about how I'm complaining or to 'deal with the gays'.
Thank you,
-mbrownie
Posted by STeveisCoCoL 1 year ago
STeveisCoCoL
too bad deal with the gays . it is legal, and there is nothing you can do about it. stop complaining.
Posted by mbrownie 1 year ago
mbrownie
@ptosis
That does not mean I am not a true Christian.

And besides, the people of Sodom were, and I quote, Genesis 18:20
"Then the Lord said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that reached me. If not, I will know."

So that passage proved that the people of Sodom were wrong and bad. I do not understand your question. But this does not cause me to be a false Christian, I am merely stating that it is a sin. But while it is true that all of our sins are washed away, that doesn't meant that we can still purposely cause sins just because we have had all of our sins washed away.
Posted by Iacov 1 year ago
Iacov
Is it a bad time to mention that the u.s.a is not a theocracy.
Posted by ptosis 1 year ago
ptosis
A True Christian who professes His love refrains from condemnation and therefore I don't believe you are a 'true christian'.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Genesis 19:5
Sodomites" in Genesis are beating down the door of a man named Lot who was entertaining two angels, in the end, Lot offers up his two virgin daughters for gang rape. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. So why do we continue to think it does?

In Hebrew, adamah is a feminine form, and the word has strong connections with woman in theology. And the Lord GR09;d caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and closed the flesh in its place"[And He made it into a woman] and brought her to the man. (Gen. 2:21)

Therefore Adamah is both male/female split into two. Then later the second time from a rib,red Lilith
http://www.chabad.org...

Your brutal opinion reflects the savage outlook with your merciless vilification of what you called sinners. Where is Christ's agape? Are you saying that same sex is the one unforgivable sin?

Mark 3:28-30: "Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin. He said this because they [the Pharisees] were saying, 'He has an evil spirit'."
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.