The Instigator
BiggBoss
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Kc1999
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should gay & lesbian marriages be legalized in India?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Kc1999
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2014 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,896 times Debate No: 43421
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

BiggBoss

Pro

Today India is a powerful country in various fields, but still there are various issues related to same sex marriages. Recently, the Supreme Court of India ruled homosexuality to be a criminal offence .
MY CASE :-
Gay or a lesbian does not change the fact that they are human and they have equal rights too. though, sometimes it may be shocking for one to meet such a personality at first, but later it will subside and we will get used to it.
we must not look down upon people such because they are not following normal way of life afterall if everyone does the same thing then we are no different than robots. Similarly, a famous & popular painter Leonardo Da Vinci was Gay, but apart of being gay he was much intelligent personality and had contributed to the society a lot through his influential work and paintings. According to me, Supercourt of India should
revert back his decision and gay and lesbian marriages should be legalized in India, so that every homo-sexual being in India will live with his beloved one happily.
Kc1999

Con

Today, India remains a highly religious and ultraconservative country, and the issues related to same sex marriages and homosexuality in India is not surprising at all. As my opponent states, on December the 11th, 2013, the Indian Supreme Court criminalized homosexuality. This legislation outlaws the act of having sexual intercourse with the same gender, and also criminalizes other homosexual actions, such as marriage. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com...)

I would like to remind all readers that India is a very conservative society, one of the most conservative in the world, and is the home of many religions. Hinduism and Buddhism originated from India, while Islam became an prominent figure in the 16th Century with the conquests of Akbar. Christianity is also a prominent minority, due to the British colonization of Indian territories in the 18th Century. Therefore, the 2009 legislation, which decriminalized all many acts of homosexuality was met with very fierce resistance from this alliance. The rare and contradictory alliance between three religions, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam, argued the homosexuality was not natural, and therefore must be opposed at all times.


And the world also cannot be accorded to the opponent and the opponent only. We live in a rational world. Why must we care about your opinion?

The Supreme Court of India reverted this decision constitutionally, by the willl of the people of India, by the need of it's elected representatives. Therefore, the decision to revert the Legalization of 2009 is a legitimate act by the Supreme Court and the Democratically elected representatives of the people of India!

Debate Round No. 1
BiggBoss

Pro

as per Con argument and points , I think his points are quiet out of track and lack lustre. He didn't have some strong points why it shouldn't be legalized.

MY CASE :-


1. Con's point that India is ultraconservative country is just baseless as India has never been so ultra-conservative country as compared to her neighbouring countries like pakistan, afghanistan, china etc. Nowadays, India has happily accepted the change in various fields.

2.Con's argument that homosexuality is not natural, i really don't agree with this point as who are we to decide that is it natural or not,now if a person chooses that he is attracted to some person of the same sex, then as karma said, we should live and let live . Without hyper reacting we can just accept the facts and move on..



Just the way you enjoy your freedom, let them enjoy theirs
If a person finds comfort and gets emotional support from a person of the same sex and is attracted to him/her , well its their choice, their life, their decision to live it their way. They are not going to harm you.
Kc1999

Con

1. India is indeed very conservative (http://content.time.com...), especially about sexual intercouse. The opponent has stated that "India has happily changed in various fields" are very unsupported. The opponent has not given us any examples about how it change, and he only states that. And in fact, Indian society is still largely conservative: the New Democratic Alliance and the Bharatiya Janata Party are two examples of conservative parties, and support for them combined accounts for more than the opposing Indian National Congress. This proves that Indian society is still conservative, and traditions are very important.

2. Homosexuality is condemnable by the three religions I have stated: Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. In Christianity, Roman One of the New Testament condemns this practice. In the Koran, the story of "The People of Lut" has also appeared and condemns this pratice ias unnatural. In Hindu, the Manu Smriti also condemns and calls on the convicted to get "his/her head shaved, her two fingers cut, and to ride a donkey through the town. The opponent tells me to accept the facts, and so I shall accept these facts: Indian society is very conservative and also religious, and the three main religion in India condemns the pratice. The opponent cites no religion or no source whatsoever, and yet he condemns me for not citing anything: is homosexuality natural it is condemned by three of the world's most believed in faiths?


There are numerous cases of LGBT protests turning violent, especially those of the Stonewall Incident, when LGBT activists attacked innocent civilians. Is that "no harm done"? This could happen in India, especially with the massive intolerance of the Indian people. I would like to end with a quote:
"Homosexuality is against Indian culture, against nature and against science. We are regressing, going back to when we were almost like animals. The SC had protected our culture."


Please vote con in the following ballot.



Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Heyy ppl read the argument, then have an opinion. :)
Posted by BiggBoss 3 years ago
BiggBoss
heyy guys and gals vote for PRO...:)..
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Hello Big Boss; please increase the character limit. It is getting hard for me to cite my sources.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 2Sense 3 years ago
2Sense
BiggBossKc1999Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: My objective outlook is that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and therefore should not be outlawed. But both Pro and Con failed to actually substantiate why it should be legalized or outlawed, rather they just use circumstantial situations of the present that made little to no difference of the correct legal action that should be taken in regards to SSM. I disagree with Con's transparent views, but I also didn't like how Pro described homosexuality as not being the "normal" lifestyle. Normal is subjective, and honestly bears little reason as to why people should be treated unfairly. Overall, this debate what somewhat disappointing. Both lose.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
BiggBossKc1999Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were red herrings that were irrelevant to the debate. For instance, he argues that India is ultraconservative when that has nothing to do with whether gay marriages should be legalized as that is a moral issue. They ought to be(moral) is different than they can't currently be legalized(practical). Con makes this fallacy of equivocation throughout all his rounds, and does not address his opponent's relative arguments such as his moral argument for gay marriages. Hence, I'm awarding Pro both conduct and arguments for Con's irrelevant arguments and the fact that he ignored Pro's points or arguments. Con was the only one who used sources, so I can't really decide whose sources where the most reliable. Cod had better grammar. For instance, pro says, "According to me, Supercourt of India should revert back his decision" which is grammatically wrong as the Supercourt is not a male but a court of law.
Vote Placed by Milliarde 3 years ago
Milliarde
BiggBossKc1999Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: S&G to con. Sources to con for being the only one to use sources. Arguments to con for having a more coherent argument with a couple sources to back up his statements. Pro's arguments aren't necessarily bad, just lacking substance besides personal feelings.