The Instigator
officialniaaa
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KaleBevilacqua
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

What Are Your Views On Gay Marriage As A Whole? Yes or No?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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...
KaleBevilacqua
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,534 times Debate No: 38012
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

officialniaaa

Con

Im not here to offend anybody, just want a good debate. Good luck to my opponent.
KaleBevilacqua

Pro

I believe that gay marriage is acceptable, and disallowing it is discriminatory. I would love to have a debate with you; please don't forfeit.

1) There is nothing unethical or immoral about people of the same gender marrying. Nobody is harmed. People quite often are opposed to it due to their personal disgusted reactions to homosexuality, often regarding traditional dogma rather than ethics and justice. Opponent must provide information stating that gay marriage (or marriage, as I like to call it) is a violation of morals.

2) One may argue that it goes against the definition of marriage. However, the dictionary definition is defined by marriages in our present society, not vice versa. In fact, some cultures have different definitions of marriage. The essence of a marriage in our culture is to provide legal benefits to life-long partners, and there is no objective reason that people of the same gender should be excluded. To refer to point one, no harm will be done by altering the definition.

3) One may say a child needs a father and a mother.
a) Marriage does not necessarily involve children or sex. If a medically sterile person wanted to marry someone of the opposite gender, you would not oppose.
b) Many children are raised by one parent. People do not have an issue with this; thus, the scare about same-sex parenting simply stems from homophobia.
c) To say that a mother and father are fundamentally different is gender stereotyping. It may not be the case: for instance, a man and a woman may be very alike in many ways, whereas a man and a man may be quite different.
d) Children who are raised by gay parents end up just fine.
Sources: http://www.futurity.org...
http://www.bu.edu...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
The gist of all those articles show that there is no difference between children raised by straight or gay parents.

In what ways do you object to these points?
Debate Round No. 1
officialniaaa

Con

First, I would like to thank my opponent for debating me on this touchy subject. I would also like to say I am not against gay people, I have friends who are gay and some teachers that are gay too! I have no problem with them being gay. Personally, I just wouldn't go to a gay wedding because I don't believe in the overall idea. Let this debate begin:

I am AGAINST gay marriage in this debate because of religious views, the concept and idea, and the examples that it sets for the future generations. I will break up these topics and debate them in different sections of this debate. Gay marriage stated from the bible: Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination. The definition of abomination according to Encyclopedia Britannica is a thing that causes disgust or hatred. Therefore god is saying that to sleep with a person of the same sex is a disgust. Personally, I don't believe it is a disgust but it is against morals. I think to sleep with a person of the same sex can be prevented if you just convince yourself that it can be over and that you don"t always have to listen to your heart. Gay marriage has tons of aspects that can be proved to change your mindset and ways of living. Another bible verse : http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. It kind of speaks for itself right? I would write more but im scared it will automatically forfeit me. And actually studies prove that a child raised in a household with gay married couples are more uneasy and more likely to be bullied by other persons. And if a man and a man get married it obviously wont be the same as if a female and a male did. I used your sources and they are not up to date sources and times have changed since then. I agree with your point that many children are raised by 1 parent. If you are raised by a gay couple you might feel that need that it is normal and it is ok. Personally, I don't want my kid in the future to come home and tell me that they have a girlfriend and its scary because they are a girl. I dont want the future generation to do this. Same sex marriage also doesn't induce babies and in the law of god's will it is wrong and not the same. Your own source http://www.bu.edu... states that gay marriage is misconduct and defys the laws of science. See? Some of your sources even agree that in some cases gay marriage is incorrect. Marriage infact does include a love -life and over 85% of mothers want kids. over 68% of males want children. You can always adopt yeah but you have to assume the worse while debating. Its not my job to tell you how to win. 'To say that a mother and father are fundamentally different is gender stereotyping' quoted by you is a very umm not to be mean but idiotic remark. Its not stereotyping when its physically obvious. If they both have the same private part then thats obvious its not stereotyping. The definition of stereotyping is an opinion of image of something in your head so that point right there, is wrong.
KaleBevilacqua

Pro

1) Your religion plays no role in the government. It would discriminate to those who are not Christian (or any other religion opposed to homosexuality) to base laws on the Bible. We are in a country of religious freedom. If you think being gay offends your god, by all means, don't be gay! Supporters do not encourage or force people to be gay; rather, they simply allow those who are to be treated as equals. We're not going to infringe on your right to be a Christian by making you gay. Allowing gay marriage won't make more gay people exist. Gay folks already exist as a sizable minority; passing the law will simply allow the already-existing-as-gay people to share legal benefits with their lifelong partners.
(Also: the Law in Leviticus does not apply to Christians anymore. Jesus came to uphold the Law. Plus, as I said, marriage does not directly regard sex, and those verses only regard intercourse. Not a Christian, and it plays no role in whether gay marriage should be legalized--just thought I'd point it out.)

2) Yes, children with gay parents are more likely to be bullied. But kids who are deemed ugly are also more likely to be bullied! Does that mean we should grant them plastic surgery to "fix" what is causing the bullying? It is not their parents that are the problem on the kid's well-being; it is the bullying. Bullying is never moral or justified, and unlike being gay, it actually causes direct harm on people. Still, this does not regard gay marriage: as I said, marriage doesn't necessarily involve raising children. What should be fought against to create peace is bullying, not same-sex parenting.

3) Yes, the genitalia of a male and a female are different. I am not trying to deny that. But what you are saying is that a mere reproductive organ has sole bearing on one's mindset and parenting ideals. It is possible for a man to parent in the same way as a woman. To say their parenting is different, that a father and a father cannot parent in the same way as a father and a mother, is stereotyping.

I would love to hear more from you.
Debate Round No. 2
officialniaaa

Con

My opponent says religion plays no role in government. UMMM WHAT!? Why do we as a nation have official religions and things as if? If religion played no role in government, Obama wouldn't be making decisions like he is. If religion did not play a role in government, China would not be making Buddhist-based decisions. And what do you mean the law in Leviticus does not apply anymore!? That makes 0 sense. The bible is the bible. The words have been spoken. Jesus didn't come to the Earth and just take it back! And kids who are deemed ugly don't even matter in this situation. They are a complete different mass way of life! My opponent has also gone against their own case by saying that it isn't stereotyping when it is. I had provided you with the definition of stereotype as a opinion or personal judgement of someone else correct? And as a child to have parents with different private parts doesn't matter. Guys have DNA that some girls don't. Men are men. If you have 2 dad's they can never be a female and they cant physically do what a female could do sexually and mentally. That child still does not have the experience of having a mother and a father. Marriage does directly regard sex. God basically says he puts male and female together to reproduce. Bullying also does play a HUGEEEEEE part in same-sex marriage. Bullying leads to suicide. Also, children being around people who share a love for another person around who likes someone of the same gender is going to feel it is right. The parents will like it is setting a great example for these children in the world today. Time isn't worth it. If we have people who get older and older feeling the need to love someone of the same gender is right reproduction is interrupting and that causes the population to go down. A male and a female have two different mindsets. You said "Yes, the genitalia of a male and a female are different. I am not trying to deny that. But what you are saying is that a mere reproductive organ has sole bearing on one's mindset and parenting ideals. It is possible for a man to parent in the same way as a woman. To say their parenting is different, that a father and a father cannot parent in the same way as a father and a mother, is stereotyping." As a child you are taught to grow up as your own and your own sex interests. What makes people change? I don't know. I do know that stereotyping is not the case . Its just fact. A female could give more to a baby and child than a man could. Breast feeding, doctors appt, bathing, and caring for. Even the mindset and voice of female is different. Again, these traits are all physical and not mental.
KaleBevilacqua

Pro

1) Yes, bullying can lead to suicide. But that is a slippery slope--where is the proof that gay marriage will directly cause suicide? As I said, gay people already exist. Simply allowing them to marry won't change the fact that they exist. Also, are you saying that the bullying is justified by placing the blame on the homosexuality rather than the bullying. Bullying is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, as it is not okay. If kids who are deemed ugly don't matter in this situation, then why is the bullying they face unacceptable, but bullying gay people considered justifiable?

2) The United States does not have an official religion. In fact, it's been stated in the Constitution, in the Treaty of Tripoli, and by our founding father Thomas Jefferson. By basing laws on religion, that is infringing on the right to religious freedom and thus violating one of our country's legal foundations. As for China, just because they make Buddhism-based decisions doesn't mean everyone must be Buddhist--in fact, according to demographics, China is mainly an atheist country! The Buddhism-based laws tend to regard peace, which is the foundation of the Buddhist belief system. Peace regards ethics, so their stance is justified and not religious-based.

3) As you said, there are physical differences in DNA and anatomy between males and females. There are also some minor mental differences: for instance, males are better at visualizing shapes and direction, whereas female brains have better spatial detection. What does this imply about their parenting abilities? Nothing. What does this say about whether then should marry? Absolutely nothing!
What if a female, by rare chance, happened to be good at visualizing shapes and was awful at spatial detection? She would not be like a female mentally, but the law would still allow her to marry a man. Or what if a man's penis were removed? He could still legally marry a woman, even though they sexually could not function the way they typically should together. Besides, what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom! What if a male and a female who did not have sex in a conventional manner wanted to get married?
Also, marriage does not regard sex NOWADAYS. It is regarded as a legal union for shared legal benefits between lifelong partners. As previously stated, a medically infertile person would not be legally exempt from getting married, thus proving that marriage isn't about sex. Plus, what about the married folks who never have kids? The law doesn't have a problem with them; they are still viewed in the courtroom as a valid marriage.

4) Why does it matter if the population goes down? The world is not going to end if fewer children are born. In fact, the earth is running out of resources, so fewer people may be the solution if everyone were to be nourished and healthy. Gay people only exist as a minority, and whether they are permitted to marry won't change the numbers of gay people existing.

5) It is crazy that you suggest a man bathe, care for, or take a child to doctor's appointments. Plenty of people (such as me) are raised by single fathers and are perfectly cared for. Some others aren't fully cared for by their mothers. And not all moms choose to breastfeed: in fact, formula feeding is becoming more accepted nowadays. Nothing wrong with that; after all, this isn't a breastfeeding vs. formula debate. And what does the voice have to do with parenting? Will people with strange and/or gender-neutral voices be deemed bad parents?

Points 3-5) This does not have to do with marriage, though. Fifty-three percent of children are now born to unmarried parents, not to mention the married folks who choose not to have kids (see point four). Marriage and sex don't have to be lumped together. Thus, this does not determine whether gay marriage is acceptable--just gay parenting. (Which is another debate in itself.)
As for Biblical views, they do not and should not apply to all Americans (see point one). Regarding other nations, I believe freedom of religion is a good institution granting human rights and not forcing beliefs on others. People can have morals and laws without religion being brought into the equation.
Debate Round No. 3
officialniaaa

Con

officialniaaa forfeited this round.
KaleBevilacqua

Pro

I hope folks can see why I am in favor of gay marriage and why the opposing arguments are faulty.
Debate Round No. 4
officialniaaa

Con

officialniaaa forfeited this round.
KaleBevilacqua

Pro

Well, I suppose it is now voting time. Who's going to win?
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by IwinYoulose333 3 years ago
IwinYoulose333
And you say we are not teaching kids to be gay, which is true, but is not popular media subconsciously saying that being gay is normal, and should be accepted as such? that is what I mean by "teaching."
Posted by IwinYoulose333 3 years ago
IwinYoulose333
Oh. Lol. I suggest you try and change that.
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
I'm actually not gay. Must've clicked the wrong thing when setting up my profile.

Plus, we're not TEACHING kids to be gay. Gay people have always existed; we're simply allowing them to be accepted and tolerated for their differences, to end injustice and unfair treatment.

Even if they're not going to have kids, who cares? Would you discourage a heterosexual child who said he didn't want to have kids when he grew up? What about people who have absolutely zero interest in dating, sex, or marriage (asexual aromantic people)? Should we teach children that they are not okay?

It is, in a strange way, the same reasoning as the Weight Watchers tips. It's the reasoning "if you can't call it immoral, call it unhealthy." If you can't say sex between men is bad or wrong, say it's detrimental. "I don't disapprove, I'm just concerned" is friendlier than "being gay is terrible and I can't really justify it with facts," but I'm pretty sure it means the exact same thing.
Posted by IwinYoulose333 3 years ago
IwinYoulose333
oops same comment twice
Posted by IwinYoulose333 3 years ago
IwinYoulose333
KaleBevilacqua, I do not wish to offend you, as I see you are gay, but I ask you should we teach being gay to our children, and in schools if gay couples cannot physically reproduce without the aid of the other gender? I am not saying it should not be mentioned, i just belive that when it is taught, people should understand that gay couples can never have children without the other gender's aid.
Posted by IwinYoulose333 3 years ago
IwinYoulose333
KaleBevilacqua, I do not wish to offend you, as I see you are gay, but I ask you should we teach being gay to our children, and in schools if gay couples cannot physically reproduce without the aid of the other gender? I am not saying it should not be mentioned, i just belive that when it is taught, people should understand that gay couples can never have children without the other gender's aid.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Actually, homosexuality can have evolutionary benefits within colony type situations. Mention it in our debate if you wish, IWYL! :D
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
Not treating someone normally is immoral and unfair.
Posted by IwinYoulose333 3 years ago
IwinYoulose333
You misunderstand my meaning in your third point. I do not wish for gays to be harmed, tormented, or punished in any way shape or form. That would go against my personal religion. All I meant was that they should not expect to be treated normally, nor should being gay be taught as something usual or normal.

As for your first point, I must say that I do not personally believe in evolution. AS for homosexuality occurring in other organisms, I ask you this: even if it occurs, to what purpose? It is any species, including humans, moral duty to carry on their existence through reproduction. Now since humans are such a large race, obviously not all need to reproduce to sustain the population, but most all animals will find mates, and the cannot reproduce without the opposite sex.

I cannot refute your second point without delving into my own religious views, and offending a high number of people, so I will say this, can we not agree to disagree on this point?
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
1. Perhaps not chimpanzees, but homosexuality occurs in plenty of other species, spanning the mammal, bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, and even insect groups! This includes some primates (other than humans, obviously). And this isn't an evolution debate, but we did not evolve directly from monkeys or chimpanzees.

2. Marriage isn't about having kids. As I said, 53 percent of children are born to unmarried parents nowadays, not to mention the married couples who choose not to have children. Nonetheless, the childless couples are still viewed as a married couple in the courtroom. Thus, marriage and child-bearing need not be lumped together as one issue. Plus, would you object to a medically infertile person marrying? That person can't have children, after all.

3. What is wrong with not being normal? Gay people have always existed; simply allowing them to exist in peace without being treated unfairly is a good thing. We're not pushing homosexuality onto people--that would be a completely different issue, and something to be concerned about. This is simply to allow acceptance for other people's differences. There are some people who arbitrarily have absolutely no interest in relationships or sex--would you push them to get married because "it's not normal"? Would you be so fiercely against treating them fairly because they don't fit the norm? Folks tend to have less of a problem with this kind of people, proving that negative reactions to homosexuality are not out of concern, but out of negative knee-jerk reaction.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
officialniaaaKaleBevilacquaTied
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: You cant say idiotic, and things like that. Sources and arguments to Pro because Con used too many fallacies. Mostly "poisoning the well" and non sequitur fallacies.
Vote Placed by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
officialniaaaKaleBevilacquaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro since Con forfeited and also called one of Pro's remarks idiotic. Arguments to Pro since he used proof to back up his contentions and refuted most of Con's religious points. Sources to Pro since well, he actually used them.