The Instigator
Spiritualthinker2
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
blaisemonkey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should marriage be redefined to include homosexual unions?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Spiritualthinker2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 70334
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Spiritualthinker2

Con

Before I begin I will like to say two things:

1) I hope this does not turn into a popularity contest, meaning that if I lose it's because I laid out a poor argument that didn't connect all the dots or answer the most important objections correctly and not because my position is unpopular.

2) I'm arguing from the book by Frank Turek titled "Protecting America's Immune System: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage Without Using the Bible".

If I use other sources, I will try to remember to state them. I am not trying to plagiarize anyone or anything so if I use a source anyone is familiar with and I forget to state it as a source, please tell me I forgot to mention my source. Whoever takes me up on this debate, I hope that person argues the points and not against my persons or the persons of the sources I'm using unless doing so plays a relevant role in the argument and I will try to do the same in return. I hope this doesn't turn into a match of insults since this is a very emotional topic for many people. I'm not trying to be offensive, judgmental, or mean but sometimes the truth hurts.

Here's my argument

Traditional marriage is the immune system of civilization. When our marriages are strong, our civilization is strong; when they are weak, individuals and communities suffer. Traditional marriage protects the very foundation of civilization"the procreating family unit. Only traditional marriage can procreate and consistently provide a nurturing and stable environment for the growth and maturation of children. (In this sense, the most basic and effective "form of government" is the traditional two-parent family.) Statistically, children and adults inside of traditional marriage are much better off socially, physically, financially, mentally, and emotionally than those outside traditional of marriage. Those outside of traditional marriage are not only worse off personally by those measures, but they cost society billions of dollars in social welfare and law enforcement expenses. Homosexual behavior is destructive to those who engage in it and to the public in general. Same-Sex Marriage would not improve but worsen this problem. The law is a great teacher"it encourages or discourages behavior.

Since the law is a great teacher, legalization of Same-Sex Marriage or civil unions would put society"s stamp of approval on homosexual behavior. This endorsement would:
o Equate Same-Sex Marriage with traditional marriage, thereby teaching citizens the
socially disastrous ideas that traditional marriage is no better than any other
relationship, and marriage is not a prerequisite for children.
o Disconnect marriage from childbearing by making marriage just about coupling.
This would result in soaring cohabitation and illegitimacy and painful costs to children
and society.
o Encourage more homosexual behavior, which is inherently destructive.
o Result in higher medical, health insurance, and tax costs to the general public.
o Provide legal grounds to restrict or prohibit religious freedom.

Much of this is already happening in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage. All objections"including those that cite "discrimination" or "equal rights""are fallacious and I will hopefully get a chance to explain if this debate goes on. As not to over do it as this is my first debate on this website, I will stop here for now to see who will answer my challenge. I believe that this is an issue that seriously needs to be addressed because if we as a nation are going to change the traditional pillars that once held our great society together, we should at least try to understand exactly what we are getting in return and see if there are any negative side effects down the line. I honestly believe that homosexual marriage is an attack on America's and any nation's natural immune system which is strong traditional families and anyone in their right mind would not let an attack on their immune system go unnoticed and unchecked.
blaisemonkey

Pro

First of all I would like to say that legalizing same-sex marriage would not provide legal grounds to restrict religious freedom. The Reason for that is nobody is forcing people to be involved in homosexual activity. "Encourage more homosexual behavior, which is inherently destructive." This argument is invalid because even if same-sex marriage is legalized that wouldn't make all the hate toward gays go away. "Disconnect marriage from childbearing by making marriage just about coupling. This would result in soaring cohabitation and illegitimacy and painful costs to children and society." Marriage should not be about childbearing and about a couple's love for each other. "Equate Same-Sex Marrige with traditional marriage, thereby teaching citizens the socially disastrous ideas that traditional marriage is no better than any other relationship, and marriage is not a prerequisite for children." Like I already said Marriage is about love not children. "Result in higher medical, health insurance, and tax costs to the general public." Well I can't really answer that.
Debate Round No. 1
Spiritualthinker2

Con

This is my point by point counter argument. If you want to read my rebuttals, simply look for the ----MY RESPONSE spaces.

MY OPPONENT: First off all I would like to say that legalizing same-sex marriage would not provide legal grounds to restrict religious freedom. The Reason for that is nobody is forcing people to be involved in homosexual activity.

------------MY RESPONSE: Thanks for accepting my challenge and I hope this debate remains civil. Although I'm a Christian, once again I will try to make my case WITHOUT using the Bible. With regards to what you said, that's not true at all. Keep in mind that I'm only speaking about what's going on in America (USA). Anyone can look on the web and check news archives and find multiple stories of religious (specifically Christian) business owners who have been penalized by the law for not catering to homosexual related events under the guise of "discrimination" and religious bigotry. If homosexual behavior is protected by law (via same-sex marriage is now legal), then under the law homosexuals can use legal action to go after anyone who they believe has "discriminated" against their behavior including religious institutions. Once again, all one must do is look around the internet and check news archives for such cases.

MY OPPONENT: "Encourage more homosexual behavior, which is inherently destructive." This argument is invalid because even if same-sex marriage is legalized that wouldn't make all the hate toward gays go away.

------------MY RESPONSE: This particular argument is that homosexual behavior is inherently destructive....especially medically and psychologically. Because it is inherently destructive, the law should not encourage homosexual behavior. Even if no one hated homosexuals, that still wouldn't negate the fact that homosexual behavior is inherently destructive, is not a benefit to society, and shouldn't be encouraged or promoted by government. Why should the government and society tolerate, let alone promote, destructive behavior of any kind?

MY OPPONENT: "Disconnect marriage from childbearing by making marriage just about coupling. This would result in soaring cohabitation and illegitimacy and painful costs to children and society." Marriage should not be about childbearing and about a couple's love for each other.

------------MY RESPONSE: When it comes to marriage, love is a good thing to have but guess what? Love does not decide whether or not something should be defined as a marriage. One of the reasons societies choose to recognize marriages (natural marriages) is because of the possibility of off-spring and marriage usually seeks the well being of the male, female, and any potential off-spring they may have. Marriage is an institution that caters to the well-being of off-spring and if you detach child bearing from the institution of marriage, what other natural institution is going to cater to the well being of children? If heterosexual unions could not naturally produce off-spring, then homosexual unions could easily be equated to heterosexual unions but since that isn't the case, homosexual unions can not and should not be equated to that of heterosexual unions. The possibility of naturally producing off-spring will always separate the two unions and plus all societies benefit from off-spring. For any culture to continue thriving, there has to be a constant flow of off-spring and since heterosexual unions naturally produce off-spring, societies around the world should be focused on trying to keep heterosexual families strong and united so that any possible children can grow up and be productive members of their communities and societies. Homosexual unions cannot naturally cater to such notions and that's another reason why societies do not benefit from homosexual unions thus homosexual unions should not be viewed as marriages. Homosexual love is not a benefit to society.

MY OPPONENT: "Equate Same-Sex Marrige with traditional marriage, thereby teaching citizens the socially disastrous ideas that traditional marriage is no better than any other relationship, and marriage is not a prerequisite for children." Like I already said Marriage is about love not children.

------------MY RESPONSE: And like I just stated above, marriage is a natural institution that caters to the well-being of children. Love is a good thing but love alone does not naturally define a marriage. Why not? Because love is merely an emotion and if people are going to change natural social institutions, emotions alone shouldn't be the reason why an institution should be changed. You can "love" someone Sunday but by Saturday you're plotting their murder.

MY OPPONENT: "Result in higher medical, health insurance, and tax costs to the general public." Well I can't really answer that.

------------MY RESPONSE: How does homosexual behavior result in higher medical bills, higher health insurance, and higher tax costs? Homosexual sex is a quick way to acquire and spread STDs, HIV, and AIDS. If homosexual behavior is promoted or seen as okay behavior, more homosexuals will likely engage in homosexual sexual behavior which will likely increase the amount of STDs that are being spread between homosexuals and heterosexuals that choose to engage in sexual behavior with homosexuals. More people getting STDs will not only result in public health risks (Africa for example) but will also result in more medical procedures and resources being used to help fix the problem(s). Since medical procedures and resources aren't cheap, chances are that medical lobbyists will convince the policy makers on Capital Hill to get the tax payers (which is you and me) to pay the tab while giving the bill a deceiving name so that the tax payers dose not know they're paying for homosexuals to engage in destructive sexual behavior. Homosexuals get their way while John Q citizen pays the bill? How is that "equality"?
blaisemonkey

Pro

blaisemonkey forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Spiritualthinker2

Con

I don't know what is going on with my opponent but they've failed to make a counter argument in the allotted time limit. I hope everything is well with them. Anyway. Homosexuals have a habit of making people think that homosexuality is not a behavior but is something innate like skin color (for example) and therefore they and other pro-homosexual advocates argue as if homosexuals are a racial class that is being treated like 2nd class citizens and denied rights. In America, homosexuals are not being denied anything especially the institution of marriage. Homosexuals can enter the institution of marriage the same as anyone else assuming they're willing to abide by the rules set forth by the institution:

1) one man and one woman
2) both parties must be of legal age or get parent/legal guardian consent
3) both parties cannot be closely related (no incest)
4) both parties cannot already be married (no polygamy)
5) human marriages only (no bestiality for example)

but the problem is that homosexuals do not want to abide by the rules because the rules do not suit their homosexual behavior. People are equal because of dignity but not all behaviors are equal (because some behaviors are harmful and even deadly) and should not be treated or seen as such. Homosexual behavior does not benefit society (it does more harm than good) and thus should not be encouraged or promoted. Homosexuals do not want equal rights, they want special privileges and exemption from the rules. How? If you do not want to abide by the rules but you still want to reap the rewards, that's not equal rights. That is special privileges and maybe even favoritism. Where's the equality in that?

If homosexuals and their advocates want to cry "discrimination" because of the rules listed above, then technically, bachelors could cry discrimination since marriage requires two people, minors could cry discrimination, incest couples could cry discrimination, polygamists could cry discrimination, and people wishing to marry their pets could cry discrimination since these rules do not allow for the behavior of such people.

I said this in the comment section but I think it needs to be repeated. Access to marriage is not a civil right. In America, our civil rights are very specific rights that are accorded to individuals because of their status as humans. These rights are based on universal characteristics, not on feelings, desires,"orientations," or volitional conduct. Our civil rights are the following:

1) freedom of religion (or conscious);
2) freedom of speech;
3) freedom of press;
4) freedom of assembly;
5) the right to vote;
6) the right to life;
7) freedom from involuntary servitude;
8) the right to equality in public places;
9) the right to due process of law;
10) the right to equal protection under the law.

Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. The government can legitimately define an institution and limit its membership in accordance with that definition or the government can choose not to recognize any institutions (including marriage) at all.

Conclusion: Protect our National Immune System (This next part comes from the book I'm arguing from that I mentioned in the 1st round of this debate.)

How should we respond to the call for same-sex marriage? If we allow our emotional affection for our gay friends and relatives to interfere with sound reasoning, we risk making the same mistake that my friend"s parents made"endorsing behavior that will hurt our loved ones. But our mistake will not hurt one person just once"it will hurt future generations repeatedly. Legalizing same-sex marriage will teach future generations the false ideas that:

a. Homosexual behavior is just as moral and healthy as heterosexual behavior;
b. Same-sex marriage is just as moral and beneficial as traditional marriage;
c. Moms and dads offer nothing uniquely beneficial to the care and development of children
(homosexual couples always deny children either their mom or dad);
d. Marriage is no longer about procreation, just coupling. Therefore, if you want to have children, there"s really no reason to get married.

These are false and dangerous ideas. Those that accept them stand to hurt themselves and others. We must face the facts of nature-- homosexual relationships can not produce the benefits of heterosexual unions. Therefore, our laws should not be changed to pretend otherwise. After all, laws can"t change the facts of nature. A new law can"t magically transfer the natural procreative abilities of men and women and the benefits of traditional marriage to homosexuals. Nor can it erase the serious health problems that result from homosexual behavior. A new law legalizing same-sex marriage would only serve to deceive people into thinking that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are equally beneficial. Such legally-endorsed deception would be a dangerous

SOURCE: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage Page: 15 By Frank Turek, co-author of Legislating Morality and I Don"t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist www.ImpactApologetics.com

Yet that deception is exactly what homosexual activists are counting on to validate their lifestyle. Only traditional marriage can secure a healthy future for our children and our entire civilization. Therefore, it alone deserves privileged legal support. So despite what our homosexual loved ones may want, we must not make the mistake of my friend"s parents. Love requires that we stand firm. And the most loving policy for them and the rest of our country is to legally protect marriage--our national immune system. Due to an activist judiciary, a Constitutional Amendment appears to be the only way we can ensure that marriage remains solely the union of one man and one woman.

(end of book quote)

I tried to cross every T and dote every I but since my opponent does not seem to take this debate seriously (for some reason), I hope I answered enough objections to at least give on lookers something to think about with regards to why definition of marriage should not be redefined to include same-sex unions. Thank you.
blaisemonkey

Pro

blaisemonkey forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Spiritualthinker2 2 years ago
Spiritualthinker2
To Fascist_Ferret

If you believe that homosexual behavior is not inherently destructive to society, why not challenge me to a debate about it. I'll be glad to explain how homosexual behavior negatively effects everyone in society....the religious and non-religious alike.
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 2 years ago
Fascist_Ferret
Why is homosexuality inherently destructive to society? Oh wait, it's not. Homosexuality occurs in all of nature. It's not even a rare occurrence. The only thing homosexuality destroys is traditional, bigoted, religious values. You know what IS inherently destructive to society? Religion. Specifically, Abrahamic religion. Murdering tens of millions for 3000 years. And that is a conservative estimate, most likely in the hundreds of millions.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Though that's true, the federal government give certain benefits to marriages then Civil Rights couples.
Posted by Spiritualthinker2 2 years ago
Spiritualthinker2
To Iannan13

Access to marriage is not a civil right. In America, our civil rights are very specific rights that are accorded to individuals because of their status as humans. These rights are based on universal characteristics, not on feelings, desires,"orientations," or volitional conduct. Our civil rights are the following:

1) freedom of religion (or conscious);
2) freedom of speech;
3) freedom of press;
4) freedom of assembly;
5) the right to vote;
6) the right to life;
7) freedom from involuntary servitude;
8) the right to equality in public places;
9) the right to due process of law;
10) the right to equal protection under the law.

Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. The government can legitimately define an institution and limit its membership in accordance with that definition or the government can choose not to recognize any institutions (including marriage) at all.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
This is to ensure equal rights. Civil Unions do not have the same rights as those in marriages do.
Posted by Spiritualthinker2 2 years ago
Spiritualthinker2
To Iannan13

Why should civil unions be recognized as marriages? I know this is a emotional topic and emotions often do run high when such things are being debated but keep in mind that if we are going to redefine institutional and social pillars that play crucial roles in society, the burden of proof is on the people/person who are trying to make the changes.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Hey, could we argue the other way around stating that Civil Unions should be all translated into legally recognized marriage?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Spiritualthinker2blaisemonkeyTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
Spiritualthinker2blaisemonkeyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice job pro! It was a triple jump face plant in the feces pile thanks the the trolling efforts of the blaisemonkster!