Was gay marriage legalisation in the U.S. justified?
Debate Rounds (3)
First off, what is marriage intended to be. Marriage is Defined as the legal recognition of a man and a women married under a church, usually. This means that the marriage is performed under the church. Now the church has certain rules, which states that gay marriage is not part of the church. If you want to be in the church, you cannot have gay marriage. Now how can you justifiably argue that the church should be forced to allow gays to marry? That's like telling a women's club they must admit men, or a sailboat club must admit motor boats. This is just not acceptable. If the church, a closed club, will only admit people that it deems will follow its rules, then it should only have to accept those people, not anyone else. This is why gay marriage should not be legal, as it forces the church to recognise and ordain, gay marriages.
My next point is, we are teaching our children that this is right, it is normal. This is in some opinions not correct. If the primary goal of a species is to reproduce, and homosexuals are not reproducing, there must be a flaw in their genetic code that allows this to happen. It is simply not normal, nor scientifically explainable that homosexuality is normal within the confines of the human race. It also exposes our young impressionable children to possibly harmful material. Have you not seen the pride parades, with men and women with little to no clothes on? How can this be deemed fit to our children? Allowing these people to marry and be deemed normal in society, will encourage this type of behaviour. If we encourage our children to not reproduce, in the long stretch, we may run out of mating pairs (not likely at all but oh well). How can we allow the human race to degrade this far?
I understand most of this is homophobic and I apologise to all reading it. This is only for the sake of debate and it hurts me to write this, but debating is fun so why not! Thank you and I look forward to your reply.
Your first point was that churches (or any place of worship ) should not have to marry couples they believe should not be getting married, and gay marriage goes against the principles of churches and other religiously affiliated orders. However, this point can be easily refuted, as it is possibly for two people to get married outside the sphere of religion, and priests have the authority to refuse to marry a couple. Justices of the Peace give secular weddings to couples, meaning two gay people can marry without infringing on the rights of a priest or similar religious leader.
Your second point was that the gay marriage legalisation teaches children that being gay is right and normal. Being gay has had no proven negative effect on society, and though religions may teach that homosexuality is a sin, the U.S. is not a theocracy and the teachings of religion should have no effect on politics. Religions such as Christianity believe in abstinence before marriage, and yet that is not a law in the U.S. What a religion deems wrong should be inconsequential to government if there is no evidence that the act is wrong. Furthermore, as normal is usually defined as 'typical' or 'natural,' being gay is both. Evidence of homosexuality and homosexual behaviors have been found throughout history and the animal kingdom.
Your third point was that the primary goal of the human race is to procreate, and that homosexuality prevents that goal. The fact is that the U.S. and the whole Earth is overpopulated, especially in terms of environmental impact. Therefore, procreation is not a valid concern. Furthermore, gay people are capable of procreation, and if procreation became a necessary act to sustain the human race, homosexuals would be able to participate, even if they did not enjoy heterosexual intercourse.
Your fourth point was that gay marriage legalisation would lead to gay prides parades, which expose children to nudity. If a parent does not want their children to see a gay pride parade because of nudity, then the parent should simply avoid gay pride parades. Secondly, there have been gay pride parades since before gay marriage legalisation, and you have prevented no evidence that gay pride parades will increase in the long term because of gay marriage legalisation.
Thank you for accepting my challenge and especially for giving a respectful response. I'm glad to hear you don't believe in your homophobic arguments. Have a good night.
My opponent has crafted an incredibly strong rebuttal section during the last round, but there are a few flaws in his reasoning. The fact that teaching sexual education in schools is now having to include teaching about homosexual intercourse and how to safely interact with homosexuals, is being taught exposes our children to the impacts of homosexuality. With a child of a religion that does not approve of homosexuality, this can pose a harmful effect to this child, as learning about homosexuality is part of the school curriculum.
Next even though there is homosexuality demonstrated in some parts of the animal kingdom, does not mean that homosexuality is the right part on the evolutionary path for humans. If this poses dire consequences for the human race, will the next argument be that chimps can get AIDS also?
The most important rebuttal is the one about procreating. Numerous studies state that having sexual intercourse amount gay or lesbian couples are causes and transfers of STD's. If the cause of AIDS is from gay intercourse, then how can we say that if it is necessary to sustain the human race that these STD infected creatures would have usable sperm, or would infect the rest of the human race. The next fact is how certain are you that homosexuals would actually consent to reproduce with someone outside of their attraction zone. If a homosexual is only interested in males, this could cause a problem in your strategy could it not?
In response to your fourth rebuttal I would like to point out that annual pride parades will still continue, and with a very educated guess I can easily say that there will be Pride Parades on the anniversary of the legalisation of gay marriage for years to come. Just because I cannot gather data as it was only legalised a little while ago, does not mean that other facts and inferences are not valid.
Now that I have finished my rebuttals I would like to move on to my constructive speech.
Homosexual marriages are one thing, but I would now like to take a look at the after effects of these marriages. After a couple becomes married, they would have a chile, in the natural order, but a same sex couple would adopt a child. It is for a child's best interests that it have both a father and a mother. A child of a same sex relationship will always be deprived of a father or a mother, and will live with two people, whom which he/she shares no natural connection to.
Evidence suggests that children raised by homosexuals are more likely to grow up with gender or sexual disorders. This harms are children and produces more of the same which will create and infinite cycle creating more and more homosexual couples, who will create these same problems.
My next point is that it defeats the states purpose of benefitting marriage. One of the main reasons why the United States bestows so many benefits on marriage is that it creates the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate and sheltered up bring of a child. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthens the society. Homosexual "marriage" does not provide these benefits. It's sole purpose is for the gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature.
Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services and are more sexually faithful, because of the domestication of the wife. If a homosexual marriage is to occur the male would not get the same mellowing effect creating less domesticated more rowdy men who are more likely to cheat. This means that gay marriage should not be legal because it deprives society of good mellow and hardworking men.
All of these reasons that I have stated above and in my previous arguments is why I must believe (not truly, purely for sport) that this resolution that gay marriage should be legal, will and must fall. Thank you.
I wanted to refute your rebuttals in order, but the best way to do so is to jump to the middle. In your most important rebuttal, you claim that gay sex is the cause and method of transfer of many STD's, especially AIDS. However, WebMD makes it clear that STD's are spread through vaginal, anal, or oral sex or contact. This means both heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals transmit STDs such as HIV/AIDS. Gay intercourse is not the sole cause of STDs, so banning gay marriage will not rid the world of STDs. In fact, the spread of STDs is the most easily prevented by getting vaccinated, using protection, and ensuring your sexual partners aren't contagious. Furthermore, having many sexual partners is often found in those who catch and transmit STDs, and typically when somebody married their number of sexual partners decreases to just one, making that married couple safer from STDs.
In your second rebuttal, you stated that gay marriage will/has led to sex education classes at schools discussing homosexuality, unfairly exposing students who believe homosexuality is wrong to a prolonged discussion of it. But what is more important, somebody's right to a marriage, or somebody's petty anger at being frustrated? Furthermore, teaching gay/bi students how to have safe sexual intercourse will limit the number of STDs in those populations, and since you are so concerned about STDs spreading, this should be a relief to you. Also, students are always given the option to opt out of a sex ed class. Any child who doesn't want to hear about gay sex should simply opt out of the class and receive their information about sex ed from their parents.
In more than one of your rebuttals you bring up that homosexuality is not on the right evolutionary path for humans, bringing up my argument that animals display homosexual tendencies, and that homosexuals couldn't sustain a declining human population. As I pointed out earlier, the argument that gay people are somehow "wrong" because they cannot procreate is irrelevant a) in an overpopulated world and b) in a world where artificial insemination can impregnate women without any heterosexual intercourse required. Gay men can donate sperm, lesbians can undergo processes to receive sperm, and the world will keep on spinning.
Furthermore, your rebuttal on pride parades is similiarly irrelevant, as anyone who does not want to witness a pride parade should simply avoid one.
In your constructive arguments you state that gay marriages harm any children involve and that men are bettered by marriage. You have no evidence to back up these claims, especially the tired old saying "Children need a mother and a father." In fact, the institutuon of marriage doesn't always involve children and should not be about children . Many elderly and couples with an infertile man/women cannot have a child and yet are still allowed to marry. What about single parents? Should they be forced to give up their children? In fact, about 6% of married women choose not to have children. Does their marriage mean any less?
In fact, evidence suggests that children of gay parents are happier and healthier than children of straight parents, and I have proof, unlike any of your arguments.
And, your claim that marriage with a woman betters men is unsupported, rooted in stereotypes, and offensive (men do not need women to be good people or to be complete in any way). You say gay marriage deprives society of these better men, yet as a gay man would most likely not marry a women, gay men would not ever be "bettered" without the presence of gay marriage.
As I have debunked all of your arguments that gay marriage is wrong, it is abundantly clear that gay marriage is only considered wrong because society deems it immoral. Once upon a time society deemed interracial marriages immoral for the same lack of reasons, and interracial is generally considered favourable in American society.
If religion is your reason gay marriage is wrong, then keep in mind America has a separation of church and state.
Gay intercourse was the creating of many of today's deadliest and most harmful ST-D's. If we allow this to continue, what new disease will turn up next?! My next point is that gay marriage will lead to sex education classes discussing gay sex. I would now like to point out that students will be tested on what they learn in Sex Ed and will affect their grade average, so they are forced in a way to stay and listen to this topic being discussed. My point in a nutshell, about gay's not procreating is that it will spread the STD's that the gay community has created, allowing for a more infected world.
I would now like to ask why I should avoid pride parades. I should add more time to my already long drive to work to avoid seeing gay men with nearly or no clothes on!? I do not believe that this is right, although that is a discussion for another day.
Just because 6% of all married women choose to give up children (a frightening small number indeed) it is their choice, but most of these women would not be fit to raise a child anyways. The institution of marriage was always to allow children, as it was to allow women to have children, with compromising their religion.
To finish off my debate it is for these reasons that I believe that this resolution must and will fall. Thank you!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cites sources and provides web links to support his/her arguments. Con does not provide any support to back up their claim.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.