The Instigator
panda_lover123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CriticalThinkingMachine
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Should gay marriage 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 614 times Debate No: 33677
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

panda_lover123

Pro

Should gay marriage be legal? Yes!! If a male would like to be with a male their should not be a law saying they can't be together because they are of the same sex. It's the same thing with women, women should be able to have the right to love men and women and their should not be a law that keeps them from being together just because they are of the same sex!!
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Thank you to Panda_Lover123 for instigating this debate.

My opponent’s opening statement is that if one man wants to be with another man, there should not be a law saying that they cannot be together, and the same goes for women. First of all, there is no law saying that two men cannot “be together”, or that two women cannot “be together.” The law says that two men cannot get married to each other. That’s different, but I’ll assume that my opponent mean that two men should be allowed to get married, or that two women should be allowed to get married.

Since I am the opposition, I will be arguing against this proposal.

I will now turn it over to Pro to make his arguments. Then I will rebut and make my own arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
panda_lover123

Pro

Yes that is what I was trying to say,thank you for clarifying for me. I believe that gays should be able to marry in every state
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

I thought that Pro was going to present arguments for his case, but he did not, so I have nothing to rebut. I will begin with my own arguments.

[1] reductio ad absurdum: A logical argument form called reductio ad absurdum points out how a belief leads to absurdities, then the belief should be rejected. If we change the definition of marriage to appease gay people, then we have to be fair and change it for all other groups. We have to allow people who engage in bestiality to marry animals. We have to allow incestuous family members to marry each other. We have to allow pedophiliac adults to marry children. We would also have to allow people to marry inanimate objects (not that it would happen, but the principle remains). But allowing these is absurd, so we should not allow gay marriage either. If gay marriage supporters believe that the law should be changed for people who want to enter into gay marriages but not changed for people who want to marry their pets, their spouses, children, or objects, they have to explain why. Until then, support for gay marriage remains absurd.

[2] inequality: The reason why gay relationships should not be given equal marital rights as heterosexual relationships is because gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual
relationships. This country was founded on the principle that we are all born equal (that as citizens we are all equal, no one is superhuman or sub-human) , not that we should always treat people equally regardless of the circumstances. Do we give the same punishment to someone who stole something as we do to someone who is a mass murderer? Of course not. We give proportional treatment, not equal treatment.

There are several facts that reveal to us the conclusion that homosexuality is not simply an equal alternative to heterosexuality and therefore should not be treated with equal rights.

(a) biology: Heterosexual relationships can produce offspring while homosexual ones cannot. Procreation is essential for the survival of the human race. If you gave gay people their own country (a country in which only gay people lived and had only homosexual relationships), in a century it would be empty because there would be no way to reproduce. Homosexual relationships depend on heterosexual relationships for their very existence.

Now of course there are cases in which people cannot conceive. But this does not refute my argument. It does not mean that these people are immoral. It is recognized as a biological mistake that they cannot conceive. Their bodies normally would conceive if an error had not occurred, but a homosexual biological union was never meant to procreate. Procreation is not the only purpose of sex, but it is one of the purposes in healthy sexual union.

Why should homosexual unions be legitimized if they cannot even meet one of the key purposes of sexual union? Biology is on the side of gay marriage opponents.

b) sexual anatomy: Even aside from biology, there is anatomical inequality. Penises and vaginas fit together like hands and gloves, or keys and locks. They compliment each other. There is balance. You can’t fit a penis into a penis or a vagina into a vagina, and anal intercourse is unsanitary and unhealthy. Why should we legitimize an imbalanced a and non-complimentary union?

(c) holistic anatomy: Men and women’s bodies as wholes also compliment each other. Men’s bodies are larger, more muscular and rugged than women’s, which are softer, smaller, and suppler. A man’s ruggedness is supposed to complete a woman’s tenderness, and vice versa. Again, there is balance and symmetry in heterosexual unions, but this is missing from homosexual unions. A male homosexual relationship is missing the tenderness, and a female homosexual relationship is missing the ruggedness.

(
d) spirit: The same principle of manliness and womanliness applies to men and women’s mind and spirits as well. Men, in having a rugged personality, are complementary to the tender personalities of women, and vice versa. Homosexual relationships lack either one of these, or only have both because one or both of the individuals in the relationship are trying to play both the male and female role, and hence are not being fully male or fully female.

[3] low percentage: If homosexuality were an equal alternative to heterosexuality, then we would expect that there would be an equal amount of homosexuality and heterosexuality, but that is not the case. Less than five percent of the population is gay.1 This adds to the reasons to believe that homosexuality is a kind of biological mistake.

Because homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, it does not deserve equal rights in cases where sexuality is involved, such as marriage. We should only treat homosexuality with equal rights when the homosexuality is not relevant to the case at hand, which is true in most cases. In marriage, however, it is relevant because it marriage involves sexuality, and because homosexuality is not equal
to heterosexuality, it does not deserve equal rights.
Debate Round No. 2
panda_lover123

Pro

panda_lover123 forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

My opponent has forfeited.

Since he has provided zero arguments for his case and I have presented several for mine, I should be awarded argument points. I should also be awarded conduct since forfeiting without providing a reason is rude. Grammar/spelling and sources can be called a tie.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I forgot my source:

1- for the percentage of gay people:
http://www.theatlantic.com...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
panda_lover123CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not present proper arguments. Con provided thoughtful analysis on the subject, statistics, and a conductive argument. Pro made nothing more than a bare assertion. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
panda_lover123CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
panda_lover123CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither Con nor Pro provided sources and both have decent spelling and grammar. However, Pro did not present arguments, and Con's arguments were actually quite convincing. Moreover, Pro had quite poor conduct with his forfeiting. A huge win for Con.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
panda_lover123CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.