The Instigator
faye_seventeen17
Con (against)
Losing
34 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points

THIS HOUSE WOULD LEGALLY RECOGNIZE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,353 times Debate No: 4183
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (23)

 

faye_seventeen17

Con

okay. basically homosexuals are those we call as "gays, lesbians, etc"
in the other hand, marriage is a sacred sacrament that needs to be respected.

if we would allow this homosexuals to marry, we would actually deprive the culture of the society with which, they are used to men-women marriages.

with the given explanations. i believe that it's best set in the Philippines since homosexual marriages here are not yet allowed
Danielle

Pro

"marriage is a sacred sacrament that needs to be respected."

Yes, I agree. I believe that gay men and women can respect marriage just as much as heterosexuals. You cannot/have not proven otherwise.

"if we would allow this homosexuals to marry, we would actually deprive the culture of the society"

Wouldn't expanding the parameters of marriage actually encourage new cultural frontiers in society? I mean I think I understand what you're trying to get at (though I vehemently disagree); however, so far in this debate you have not provided anywhere near adequate factual evidence nor relative statements to prove this or any of your claims to be true.
Debate Round No. 1
faye_seventeen17

Con

The are actually different cases if we would legally recognize homosexual marriages. Here are some of them.

1. Right vs. privilege: Gay activists talk about the "right" to get married. Yet in the next sentence they talk about obtaining a marriage license. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, the state must have a standard for issuing a license. We don't give a license to anyone who wants to drive a car. You must know basic information and demonstrate an ability to drive. We don't grant a medical license to just anyone. Someone must demonstrate a level of competence. Marriage isn't a right, it is a privilege that the state can and should regulate.

2. Devalues marriage: Giving same-sex couples the right to marry devalues true marriage. Imagine if at the next awards ceremony, everyone received an award. Would anyone value the award if everyone received one? Any adult is permitted to marry another adult of the opposite sex. But you can't marry a child, you can't marry a blood relative, you can't marry someone already married, you can't marry someone of the same sex.

3. Basic biology: Homosexual relations deny the self-evident truth that male and female bodies complement each other. Human sexuality and procreation is based upon a man and a woman coming together as one flesh. Marriage between a man and a woman promotes procreation and makes intimate sexual activity orderly and socially accountable.

4. Public health: Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body. The International Journal of Epidemiology reports that the life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 10 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, researchers estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently 20 years of age will not reach their 65th birthday.

5. Counterfeit: Arbitrarily granting a marriage license to a same-sex couple doesn't constitute marriage. It is a counterfeit of true marriage. It is like trying to tape two same-sex electrical plugs together to form an electrical current.

6. Monogamy/fidelity: Same-sex marriage will not be monogamous. One lesbian writer calls gay marriage "monogamy without fidelity." Another homosexual columnist writes of "a broader understanding of commitment." A recent Dutch study found that homosexual relationships last, on average, about 1-1/2 years and that men in those relationships have an average of eight partners per year outside their main partnership.

7. Children: Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal family unit. It promotes procreation and ensures the benefits of child rearing by the distinct attributes of both father and mother. Two research papers by Timothy Dailey for Family Research Council (Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk and Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse) document concerns about children raised in gay marriages.

9. Majority rule: A recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that public opposition to gay marriage is increasing. In July, 53 percent opposed same-sex marriage. By October 59 percent were opposed to same-sex marriage.

10. Popular vote: States legislatures have already spoken to the issue of same-sex marriages. Thirty-seven states have already passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. In 1996 Congress also passed a national DOMA.

11. Religion: The Bible teaches that homosexuality is not natural and is wrong (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Other religions also concur with this judgment.

12. Emotional: Gays and lesbians are relationally broken people. Just as in heterosexual marriage, two broken people cannot produce a whole, healthy unit. However, heterosexuals can get help for their brokenness and repair the relationship, but the relationships of homosexual couples are intrinsically and irreparably flawed.

source: http://www.probe.org...
Danielle

Pro

1. RIGHT vs. PRIVILEGE

Marriage is not a right that should be exclusive to heterosexuals. By your logic, it is more morally acceptable for a lying, cheating, stealing, murdering heterosexual couple to experience and to be granted the privilege of marriage as opposed to a loving and law abiding homosexual couple. If you're going to put restrictions on who can and cannot get married, judging someone's moral character and worthiness based on their orientation is completely prejudice and entirely illogical. For this point to stand, you must prove to me why "bad" heterosexual couples have more of a right to marry than "good" homosexual couples.

2. DAVALUING MARRIAGE

Britney Spears married a guy who was practically a stranger for a relationship that lasted 55 hours, yet gay couples who have been together in loving and healthy partnerships for years are denied this opportunity...? I would like my opponent to describe to me in detail how allowing a gay couple to marry devalues marriage. One's value of their marriage should not be based on others but on themselves.

Melanie Edwards of The Batt agrees, "The law doesn't prevent people from marrying solely from financial benefit. It makes no moral statements about those who marry despite a 65-year age difference. A marriage certificate is blandly given to drunken individuals who just met in a casino. Legal marriage has nothing to do with the 'sanctity' of the institute. It provides legal protections to consenting couples to promote the stability of their relationship, and thus the state. The law does not judge the morality of the relationship ... equal rights must be offered to all under the law." This assertion is the premise of my position in this debate.

Anyway, Pro pointed out that you cannot marry children, blood relatives or another who is already married. I would first like to point out that there are and always have been exceptions to all of these flawed examples. I would also like to point out that marrying children is wrong for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with homosexuality. You can also legally marry someone under age 18 with parental consent.

The comparison between blood relatives and homosexuality is abusive and unnecessary. Marriage exists to unite and create families, whereas siblings or blood relatives are already part of one family. Besides, I'm not even sure I agree with out-lawing the marriage between blood relatives, but that's a whole other debate. And finally, you absolutely can marry someone who is already married. It's called polygamy and it is not only accepted but encouraged in many religious communities. Further, divorce is now legal whereas it wasn't in the past, and women are no longer seen as 'property' in a marriage. Inter-racial marriage is also now legally permissable. So as you can see, we are always modifying what is and isn't "acceptable" in terms of marriage.

3. BASIC BIOLOGY

The term "sexual preference" hasn't been considered politically correct ever since the 1980s; that term suggests one has a choice in determining who they are attracted to and/or love. However biological studies actually support the notion that homosexual feelings or tendencies are involuntary, therefore the biology argument actually works in my favor... unless of course you believe in restricting the right to marry based on genetic differences, such as excluding marriage to people who are tall or have brown hair.

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com...

4. PUBLIC HEALTH

Okay the PUBLIC'S health is not put in jeopardy based on the life expectancy of gay men. I highly doubt that my life expectancy is affected because of gay men or whether or not they get married. Therefore this abusive argument has absolutely no purpose in this debate. Whether or not homosexuality is moral is not in question; whether gay marriage should be legalized is the topic of discussion. Therefore, one's life expectancy should have nothing to do with your argument... unless you're saying that nobody passed middle age should be allowed to marry, because their life expectancy is shorter and therefore their marriage won't be as substantial. OR, you could restrict marriage rights to people who are not of perfect health, and who suffer from ailments such as obesity, diabetes, cancer, or any other circumstance that would affect their health.

5. COUNTERFEIT

This argument was so incredibly asinine that I don't even know how to respond to it. My opponent calls gay marriage a counterfeit of "true" marriage and uses an example of electrical plugs to prove this point. Give me a break. This argument should be completely excluded, unless Pro proves why 2 electrical plugs should be the basis of comparison for the complexity of human beings.

6. MONOGAMY/FIDELITY

Pro suggests that monogamy is exclusive to heterosexuals. This suggestion is absurd given the fact that 60% of married individuals have or will engage in extramarital affairs (and this research is based only on those who come forward -- http://menstuff.org...). I say that Pro's ridiculous comment is unwarranted unless she proves it. Quoting (but not citing) a mysterious "lesbian author" is not proof of a homosexual's willingness to cheat on their partner. How can you use heterosexuals as the basis for comparison when heterosexual couples are not the best candidates for monogamy (as multiple studies prove)? Further, not everyone believes in monogamy anyway - including heterosexuals - and it would be wrong to determine who can and cannot get married based on a complete generalization such as what groups have longer lasting relationships. That's like saying on average, Italian relationships last longer than Filipino relationships, so Filipinos should not be granted the privilege of marriage.

7. CHILDREN

... So infertile couples should not be allowed to marry because they cannot produce children? Right. As if our orphanages aren't filled enough already. That plus the fact that over-population is one of the biggest environmental concerns right now only leads us to conclude that not having kids would NOT be the worst thing for society. Plus, gay couples can have children just as straight couples can have children. I know plenty of lesbian mothers and gay men who plan on adopting in the future, or having a surrogate give birth to their child. This argument is void. The suggestion that gay couples will only raise gay children is also quite laughable. That's like saying straight couples will only raise straight children, which is obviously not true. It is also disrespectful to assume a child must live in a mother/father household in order to receive the proper love and care. We as a society do not forbid single parenting.

9. (You skipped #8 btw) MAJORITY RULE

HaHa your stats come from a RELIGIOUS forum. Talked about biased. My source implies that 50% of Americans support gay marriage (http://boston.com...). Besides, what the majority/minority believe is not always moral -- this is kind of a moot point.

10. DOMA

The 37 states that have banned gay marriage are all "Red States" or Republican states. What does this have to do with anything? Laws change all the time. Slavery was allowed in 37+ states at one time -- that doesn't make it right. Popular opinion is a poor basis for law.

11. RELIGION

The United States of America is not a theocracy. I have no interest in your religious arguments.

12. EMOTIONAL

Homosexuals are relationally broken people? I think the only thing that's broken is your ability to see right from wrong, and the link to your supposed source. I'd also like to say that by your standards, anyone you deem "broken" should not be able to marry, including heterosexuals.
Debate Round No. 2
faye_seventeen17

Con

faye_seventeen17 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

My opponent forfeited the round and her account has been deleted. Vote PRO, as CON has failed to meet her burden and/or respond to my points.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Debateuhbull 8 years ago
Debateuhbull
I find it weird that Lwerd isn't winning this debate in terms of votes, seeing as CON didn't even finish his side of the debate. People should vote on debates based on the skill of the debaters, not on their personal views! Not everyone debating on this website adheres to their own views while debating anyway.

Anywho, well done Lwerd, you blatantly deserve this debate! I'd like to debate this topic at some point!
Posted by imjustme 8 years ago
imjustme
Britney analogy pawns. lol
Posted by sarsin 8 years ago
sarsin
The whole part about devaluing marriage with Brittney was pure gold. I use that same argument on my wackier relatives. My favorite is my father-in-law will go rabid about the "sanctity" of marriage when he himself is divorced from my mother-in-law.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
libertarian,

I agree that Pro is probably prejudice - and I appreciate your vote - but I would prefer if you waited until the debate was finished before deciding who you think won. I'm pretty confident that I can out-debate my opponent on this issue, as it is one that I feel very strongly about and know for a fact that Pro has not/cannot PROVE the resolution to be true. At best she can argue her misguided and judgmental points (like she has been so far), but in my opinion - and hopefully many others - I can prove why these should not be regarded as "facts" so keep reading! :)
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
Not only is Faye a bad debater. She's prejudice. LWerd's got my votes as of now.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
Huzzah for biased religous websites *rolls eyes* The research from this site is unreferenced, and frankly false.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
faye_seventeen17DanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: 0-0
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
faye_seventeen17DanielleTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
faye_seventeen17DanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
faye_seventeen17DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
faye_seventeen17DanielleTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Debateuhbull 8 years ago
Debateuhbull
faye_seventeen17DanielleTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Protagoras 8 years ago
Protagoras
faye_seventeen17DanielleTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by DorothyDorothy 8 years ago
DorothyDorothy
faye_seventeen17DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by HungryAssassin 8 years ago
HungryAssassin
faye_seventeen17DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by GleefulJoker 8 years ago
GleefulJoker
faye_seventeen17DanielleTied
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