The Instigator
Maya9
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
ptc
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points

There is no logical reason why gay marriage should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 6/29/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,328 times Debate No: 4540
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (18)

 

Maya9

Pro

Since the topic of my last debate of this subject and turned into an argument of states' rights (which was not what I intended), I wanted to start another debate making my stance more clear.

My position is simple: There is no logical reason why gay marriage should be banned. I will allow my opponent to speak first and give his/her reasons why he/she thinks gay marriage should be banned.
ptc

Con

I completely disagree with Pro's argument here (well, that's why I am Con I guess :P)

Alright,
If we think about gay marriages "logically" then it should indeed be banned. Lets go to the basics of marriage system -- why marriage system exist in the first place?

1. Like every other species on this planet, human beings needs to follow reproduction system rules -- sexual intercourse between a male and a female is a necessary (may not be sufficient though) condition to sustain our species on this planet. Gay (or lesbian) marriages will disturb the natural law of reproduction, which logically equivalent to abandon our future generations and so should be banned.

2. If we see society around us, it's conspicuous that "family-system" is an essential component of its very foundation. At its basics, two persons of different gender come together, reproduce, grow children, children grew up, children get married, reproduce, and the cycle continues. Now why family-system is necessary and be considered logical? Well, let's take a "proof by contradiction" approach. Lets say there doesn't exist a family-system at all. Still lets say, people of different gender occasionally come together and reproduce to sustain our species. Now there will be human babies but can this kind of system ensure their survival? A baby needs support from grown-up human beings in it's forming years (at basic, it needs mother's milk, rest of the support system contains food, shelter, cloths etc). Without a family system, it's hard to ensure this support. Also when human beings get old, they need somewhat similar support system from younger generation. A family system basically enforces these required responsibilities on individuals and that's why it's a necessary part of our society. Gay (or lesbian) marriages, are in a sense, against the existing family system because these couples won't have own babies in the first place.

Now an activity which will disturb the natural reproduction system that's necessary to survival of our species and can affect the family-system which is foundation of human society should certainly be banned, shouldn't it?

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
Maya9

Pro

"1. Like every other species on this planet, human beings needs to follow reproduction system rules -- sexual intercourse between a male and a female is a necessary (may not be sufficient though) condition to sustain our species on this planet. Gay (or lesbian) marriages will disturb the natural law of reproduction, which logically equivalent to abandon our future generations and so should be banned. "

Sexual intercourse between a male and female is indeed necessary to sustain our species, but marriage is not. Marriage is not a pre-condition for sexual intercourse. Converesly, many people who are married rarely or never have sex. Of those who do have sex, many do not conceive children. Furthermore, homosexual marriages do not prevent heterosexual people from marrying or having sex.

"2. If we see society around us, it's conspicuous that "family-system" is an essential component of its very foundation. At its basics, two persons of different gender come together, reproduce, grow children, children grew up, children get married, reproduce, and the cycle continues. Now why family-system is necessary and be considered logical? Well, let's take a "proof by contradiction" approach. Lets say there doesn't exist a family-system at all. Still lets say, people of different gender occasionally come together and reproduce to sustain our species. Now there will be human babies but can this kind of system ensure their survival? A baby needs support from grown-up human beings in it's forming years (at basic, it needs mother's milk, rest of the support system contains food, shelter, cloths etc). Without a family system, it's hard to ensure this support. Also when human beings get old, they need somewhat similar support system from younger generation. A family system basically enforces these required responsibilities on individuals and that's why it's a necessary part of our society. Gay (or lesbian) marriages, are in a sense, against the existing family system because these couples won't have own babies in the first place."

Many species that are sustained through sexual reproduction (the vast majority, in fact) do just fine without a family system. In most of these species, the mother is responsible for caring for the young. Being that there are sources other than breast milk available to humans to nourish infants, a father would also be perfectly capable of caring for children. Though caring fo children together makes things easier, it is not necessary. Again, homosexual marriages in no way interferes with the ability of heterosexuals to marry, reproduce, or raise families. Also, a homosexual marriage could actually provide a family system to care for children orphaned or uncared for by their biological parents.

Homosexual marriages don't "disturb" anything. Homosexuals won't suddenly turn heterosexual and go off to have children if they aren't allowed to marry. Heterosexuals won't be deterred from marrying or reproducing (or magically turn gay) if homosexual couples are allowed to marry. Your arguments are completely flawed.
ptc

Con

All your arguments have an inherent flaw and that's that they assume homosexual marriages will always be small in percentage compared to heterosexual marriage and so wouldn't disturb society at large. In fact, this assumption itself indicates that you consider this type of relationship an exception and not norm. Let's say, for a moment, we assume that logically there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriages. Now it means we should not have any issue if everyone around opts for that type of relationship. But if you think logically, this is indeed not the case. Homosexual relationships are against the natural law of reproduction and so they can't sustain our species. Well, now just to survive our species, lets say people of opposite sex come together and gave birth to children. But this type of reproduction system doesn't ensure proper support system to younger generation that existing family-system provides; and which is based on heterosexual relationship. In heterosexual relationship, a kid gets required support from it's parents because it belongs to them -- there is a natural bond of love that ensure this support. Now there are cases where kids are grown up by parents who are not really the biological parents but those are again exceptions and not norm. And when making a logical choice, norm values more and not a few exceptions. As I mentioned in R1, human society is based on the concept of family system. Now yes, there might be species which do not have family system in their worlds but as an intelligent species, human beings have accepted family-system because we see a value in it. And the family cycle is driven by heterosexual marriages as it leads to next generation and ensures required support in their forming years.

Having sex is different than marriage. If two homosexuals have sex then that fact itself doesn't disturb the family system. But when we consider marriages between two people of same gender, it certainly affects the well-established family-system.

Now again, if we see the nature's recommendation, then it suggests a sexual relationship between a man and a woman as this relationship is further conformed to our reproduction system -- which is a very essence of survival for any species. So whether we think naturally or logically, homosexual marriages don't make sense.
Debate Round No. 2
Maya9

Pro

Red is blue. Red is blue. Red is blue. Now look around. Is everything that was red now blue? I didn't think so. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

"All your arguments have an inherent flaw and that's that they assume homosexual marriages will always be small in percentage compared to heterosexual marriage and so wouldn't disturb society at large. In fact, this assumption itself indicates that you consider this type of relationship an exception and not norm. Let's say, for a moment, we assume that logically there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriages. Now it means we should not have any issue if everyone around opts for that type of relationship."

First, whether or not homosexual relationships are the exception or the norm is irrelevant.

Second, you seem to be operating under the false assumption that people "opt" for one sexual orientation or another. They do not. For instance, when did you opt to be heterosexual? Quod erat demonstrandum. Though people do choose whether or not to act on their sexual desires, banning gay marriages is not going to magically make homosexuals want to act heterosexually.

"But this type of reproduction system doesn't ensure proper support system to younger generation that existing family-system provides; and which is based on heterosexual relationship. In heterosexual relationship, a kid gets required support from it's parents because it belongs to them -- there is a natural bond of love that ensure this support."

Again, you make the false assumption that a family system is required to properly raise children. I have already demonstrated that this is not true. It is quite possible to raise children outside of a family system, or within a family system based on a homosexual relationship. There is no less a supportive bond of love between homosexual couples than heterosexual couples. Furthermore, many married parents continue to raise children even when they are no longer in love.

"Now yes, there might be species which do not have family system in their worlds but as an intelligent species, human beings have accepted family-system because we see a value in it."

That just doesn't make any sense. There are numerous non-human species that raise young within family systems, demonstrating that family systems have nothing to do with human intellect. Humans did not choose to live in families; they do so because it is part of their instinct. Family system provide practical security, but they are not strictly necessary.

"Having sex is different than marriage. If two homosexuals have sex then that fact itself doesn't disturb the family system. But when we consider marriages between two people of same gender, it certainly affects the well-established family-system."

Again, how does this "disturb" anything? How does the act of a homosexual couple marrying deter heterosexual couples from marrying?

You keep repeating the same illogical arguments, even though I have already revealed their flaws. You are banging your head against the wall. I submit that your views do not come from logic at all, but from petty bigotry seeking to justify itself as logic. Be advised: the vail is extremely transparent.
ptc

Con

ptc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dark_faery_gyrl 8 years ago
dark_faery_gyrl
I am pro because we im america live in a free country. And if people say that we are not allowed to marry a person we love then it doesn't seem very free does it? I think that you should be able to marry who you want. When you want as well.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
If you want a debate, you've got it.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
//I would contend that religion (at least traditional religion) DOES automatically equal fear. Fear of death and fear of freedom, for starters.//

That's just an ignorant statement. Really simply ignorant :\ It reflects more on what you contend than on religion.

And this isn't my debate, so I won't argue it. IF you think there are no reasons, then challenge me. I'll accept.

And Weird (lol) makes a good point as well.
Posted by Wierdkp326 8 years ago
Wierdkp326
The logical reason is fairly simple, PTC isn't saying it, but it's there. Unfortunately, you guy's are not debating the presence of a logical reason, but instead debating the ethics of it... I don't know if anyone is really going to win in this one.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
I didn't say that there were no reasons. I said that there were no LOGICAL reasons.

There are indeed two sides to every argument, but that does not make both sides valid. That is the whole point of logical debate.

I would contend that religion (at least traditional religion) DOES automatically equal fear. Fear of death and fear of freedom, for starters.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
I understand claims made in the heat of the round, but to continue to assert that there are NO reasons at all that could possibly disagree with you is, imo, naieve.

I agree that homophobia and ignorance do play a role against gay marriage (a practice I support). But to say there are NO reasons is as ignorant as the reasoning you are fighting; as hard as it may sound, there are two sides to every argument.

And religion does not automatically equal fear.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
That's the thing: there aren't any "fair" reasons on that side of the debate. That was the whole point of this. These opinions about homosexuality come from fear and ignorance.
Posted by Wierdkp326 8 years ago
Wierdkp326
Maya, it's a little over the line to assert that the reasoning behind your opponent's opinion is bigotry or petty. He may be failing to express his views in as clear of a manner as desired, but that doesn't mean that what he is saying is unwarranted. There are plenty of fair reasons on both sides of this debate, but don't attack the person, just the substance of their argument.
Posted by Wierdkp326 8 years ago
Wierdkp326
Con, I think you lost yourself in your second argument. You seem to be mixing (poorly), two separate ideas together to form an argument here... I think you're saying that 1. Humans need a family system and 2. Marriage is that system.... But that's an argument for parenting, and not necessarily related to gay marriage....
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
asglkajsdasgklasdfsadaskl;gas;dkjag;amkm akl'gaf

I felt like I should contribute to the conversation.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Maya9ptcTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Maya9ptcTied
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 theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
Maya9ptcTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Maya9ptcTied
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 indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
Maya9ptcTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
Maya9ptcTied
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 kaleidoughscope 8 years ago
kaleidoughscope
Maya9ptcTied
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 righteous-reply 8 years ago
righteous-reply
Maya9ptcTied
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 lorca 8 years ago
lorca
Maya9ptcTied
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 ZeXiOn 8 years ago
ZeXiOn
Maya9ptcTied
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