The Instigator
MisterDoctorPepper
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Ab_M
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Why does it concern you if two gays marry?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 369 times Debate No: 72898
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

MisterDoctorPepper

Pro

So, my debate for today is, "why should one be concerned if two men or two women marry each other?"
It is THEIR choice, not yours, no matter if it contradicts what your religion says. And no, just because killing people is okay in ISIS, doesn't mean it's okay in America, so don't bring that nonsense up.

Also, this is a civilized debate. No name calling if things don't go your way. No swearing or profanities.
I'm a devote Catholic and I fully support gay rights, by the way. (Don't say i'm not a true Christian, it's my belief. You do what you want, I do what I want.)
Ab_M

Con

Pre-argument clarification:
a) The resolution does not ask whether homosexuality is right or wrong; it asks why we should care about gay marriage.
b) As Con, I understand my burden to be to give reasons that gay marriage should raise concern.
c) As Christians, I think Pro and I can agree that homosexuality is a sin. I think we can also agree that we're all sinners, and no one has the right to judge someone else just because they sin differently than them.
d) I believe homosexuality should be legal, but no one should have to recognize a gay couple as married.

Arguments:
1. Gay marriage would make anti-discrimination laws
infringe on freedom of expression. No business should be allowed to discriminate against gay people (ex. supermarkets cannot refuse them service), but no business or person should be required to support gay marriage either (ex. A pastor should be allowed to refuse to marry a gay couple). The supermarket is only being asked to treat all people equallly; to serve someone is not to endorse their marriage. The pastor, though, would be required by anti-discrimination laws to endorse their wedding, which he may not approve of.
2. As Christians, we should support laws that are morally sound. We should not want the government to make sins illegal (ex. we should not advocate that homosexuality be made illegal), but we should not support government endorsement of sin (by defining marriage to include homosexual couples).
3. It defeats the government's purpose in giving marriage benefits. The government gives marriage benefits in order to promote parents that can adequately raise families, and ultimately promote high moral standards for society. In order to adequately raise families, gay couples must be able to raise children, but they always deny a child either a father or a mother, a psychological and developmental need of a child, and they are also unable to have children. They also do not set high moral standards for society; they promote homosexuality.
Debate Round No. 1
MisterDoctorPepper

Pro

MisterDoctorPepper forfeited this round.
Ab_M

Con

Ab_M forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MisterDoctorPepper

Pro

MisterDoctorPepper forfeited this round.
Ab_M

Con

I apologize for the forfeit; I've been very busy and forgot about it. I will use this round to expand on my third point. The government's justification and purpose for spending resources on marriage benefits is to promote a relationship that usually leads to children who have been well raised and can contribute to a moral society in the next generation. Gay couples do not fall into this category for three reasons, which can be considered subpoints of my argument #3.
1. Gay couples do not naturally lead to children. The government must realize that to promote heterosexual marriage is to promote the growth of the next generation.
2. "The social scientific evidence,...suggests that there remain unique advantages to a parenting structure consisting of both a mother and a father,...Therefore it remains rational for government to provide distinctive recognition and incentive to that proven parenting structure through the status of marriage." There are countless scientific studies proving this point, and this link (pg 17-25 of the PDF) summarizes and cites the most notable ones: http://www.adfmedia.org...
3. Children of gay couples will be raised with immoral standards. I have supported the immorality of homosexuality with clarification point c), and with clarification point d) and argument #2, I have shown that the legal recognition of gay marriage would be harmful to society because it promotes sin. Now I want to transfer that point to parenting: the legal recognition of gay marriage would not only promote sin among adults, but it would promote families that raise children who believe this flawed system of morality. We are not asking the government to take a stand AGAINST gay marriage, but we should not support its ENDORSEMENT of sin. Just like gays are fighting for the government to endorse their moral beliefs, it is our job to fight for the government not to. Then it is the government's job to choose a winner.
Debate Round No. 3
MisterDoctorPepper

Pro

MisterDoctorPepper forfeited this round.
Ab_M

Con

I have presented two constructive arguments that Pro has not responded to. Because of this, I believe that as of right now, Con has earned your vote.
Debate Round No. 4
MisterDoctorPepper

Pro

MisterDoctorPepper forfeited this round.
Ab_M

Con

As Pro has not responded to any of my arguments, and not made any arguments of his own for me to respond to, I hold that a vote for Con is warranted.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.