The Instigator
annaswan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
KinnyS
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

gay is ok

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 2/5/2016 Category: People
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 199 times Debate No: 86110
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

annaswan

Pro

Gay is ok.... we shouldnt be teased or picked on because were gay. We love who we love
KinnyS

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for being willing to debate said topic.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

Gay marriage should NOT be legal for the following reasons:

1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages (1). Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages.

2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality.
To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities.

3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights.

4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty?

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

Now in response to my opponent's assertions:

"let me state that a civil union is not a reasonable compromise for a legal marriage."

Indeed, it is not a compromise at all. Both homosexuals AND heterosexuals have equal rights to marriage and civil unions.
-----
"The concept of "separate but equal' has already failed. Segregation is not a solution when it comes to rights. History has proven this."

To begin with, as was evidenced with proposition 8 in California, gay marriage is not a civil right. Also, there is absolutely no analogous connection between segregation and gay marriage. Homosexuals are given the exact same rights as everybody else " and they are most definitely not separated.
-----
"Secondly, where is the benefit of oppressing gays from marrying?"

Nobody is being oppressed. There are, however, plenty of negative repercussions. School sex-education programs would have to be entirely revamped to support equal say; it opens doors to polygamy and other such sexual aberrations; it is contra-popular vote.

What are the benefits? They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need marriage to be happy, comfortable, and free.
-----
"Those who claim it is immoral are really just ignorant and foolish."

Everybody is ignorant of something, but it is not my ignorance and foolishness that you should be concerned with. Who are you to claim proprietary rights to what IS and IS NOT moral? How are you defining morality and by what objective source is it obtained? What makes your moral standards obligatory and trumping? It may very well be immoral, but it is a bad idea irrespective of morality.
-----
"In the case of Christianity, the bible states to do unto others what you would like done onto you"

And I would be quite thankful to the chap that informed me that my actions were in moral error. Are you willing to use the entire source in which the above quote is derived? If you are not willing, then do not use it as part of your argument " because as you will surely find, it is not your position that it supports.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

Conclusion:
My opponent has given no practical benefits for same-sex marriages. She has failed to show that homosexuals are not receiving equal rights. She finds no moral compunction in unilaterally trumping the popular vote of US citizens and permitting same-sex marriages " this is against the ideals of our nation. She calls homosexuality innate without proving it as such. She apparently lays claim to an unspecified moral objective that is both binding and obligatory. She calls me foolish and ignorant " and to this I can only chuckle.

I look forward to my opponent's response

Inquiretruth

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?
Debate Round No. 1
annaswan

Pro

annaswan forfeited this round.
KinnyS

Con

KinnyS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
annaswan

Pro

annaswan forfeited this round.
KinnyS

Con

KinnyS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FreckledSatan 10 months ago
FreckledSatan
Also, KinnyS's point two on how there is no evidence of how genetics play a role in homosexuality is false. There has been a difference in the chromosomes between people who are gay, and those who are straight.
Posted by FreckledSatan 10 months ago
FreckledSatan
Actually, KinnyS's statement of how most people do not support same-sex marriage is false. There has been a consistent result of more than 50% of people supporting same-sex marriage, and it continues to increase.
No votes have been placed for this debate.