The Instigator
pensfan
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
MoralityProfessor
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

gay marriage should be legalized

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 5 votes the winner is...
MoralityProfessor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,730 times Debate No: 38514
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (24)
Votes (5)

 

pensfan

Pro

I think gay marriage should be legal because there no different then a man and a woman in love. yes, the bible might say its wrong but doesn't it also say that god loves ALL his children, and doesn't it also say that everyone is created equal under the eyes of god? it could also raise some peoples self-esteem. Studies show that LGBT teens are between 30 and 40 percent more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers. some of these teens might think "what's the point of living if I cant marry the person I love?" also, gay marriage doesn't affect anybody but the 2 people who are marrying. other people don't have the right to say if a couple should marry. would you like it if someone made it illegal for you to get married to the person you love just because some strangers you don't even know thinks it's wrong? they obviously really love each other if there fighting so hard to get the right to marry.
MoralityProfessor

Con

First of all, good luck to Pensfan. I see that you only joined one day ago, so good luck to you now and in your future debates.

The gay marriage debate is one of serious contention on both sides. What is important to note is that this argument is mainly fueled by emotions - on *both* sides of the spectrum. We have gay activists arguing that people should be allowed to marry whomever they love, while those in opposition to gay marriage claim that whomever engages in homosexual activity is going to hell - neither of which is a legitimate argument.

My point here is to ask questions and try discern logical arguments from illogical.

You write, "yes, the bible might say its wrong but doesn't it also say that god loves ALL his children, and doesn't it also say that everyone is created equal under the eyes of god?"
First of all, (a simple citation error) no and no. The 'all men are created equal' phrase was originally used by Thomas Jefferson. And although there are quotes in the Bible about G-d loving His children, there are no quotes stating exactly 'that god loves ALL his children.' But that is not really important. What is important is to ask ourselves if the bible declaring homosexual acts a sin therefore means that G-d hates homosexuals. The answer is no. I'm sure you've heard the phrase, 'G-d loves sinners, but condemns sins.'
It's also important to ask ourselves whether someone who opposes gay marriage hates gay people. Once again, the answer is no. Many that have stood in opposition to gay marriage have immediately been labeled as homophobes when that is simply not the case.

"some of these teens might think "what's the point of living if I cant marry the person I love?""
This is a complete fallacy. The world is not like a Shakespeare play where Romeo dramatically kills himself when he believes that he cannot be with his darling Juliet. The real reason that many homosexuals attempt to commit suicide has to do with societal harassment and antagonism toward gay people. I do not in any way support that.

Now, as for the remainder of your comments, I'd like to tell you a story. Susan, 22, and Patrick, 29, live together and have four children. They love each other very much and want to get married. But they can't. Some strangers that don't even know who they are have made it illegal. Susan and Patrick are siblings.

Many gay activists claim that pulling the incest/polygamy card is just avoiding the subject, but it's not. It is a legitimate question to ask from a question of morals. Why should gay marriage be allowed as opposed to incest? What is fundamentally different between the two that one is okay and one is not? There are plenty of people who love each other but are not allowed to get married.

Here are just a few more questions to get you thinking.
What is marriage?
Are there differences between men and women?
If so, what are some of the major ones?
What would be better - two men raising a kid or two women?

This is not my full argument and I hope to present a rational reason for my beliefs in the coming round.

If you have any questions for me I'd be more than happy to try answer them. In addition, if any readers have comments or criticism, I'm certainly open to it.

Resources:
http://dalje.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
pensfan

Pro

the reason that it is wrong for incest is because there related to each other. two people of the same gender who are not related and love each other have as much rights to marry as a woman and a man. and even though I do believe in god, I don't think god has control over everything. he cant control the love between two people whether its a man and a man or woman and a woman or a man and a woman. you also have to think about different religions. not every religion believes in god or the bible. so in some religions maybe being gay is not a sin. ( I don't believe it is a sin). I believe that marriage is when two people really love each other and want to be together forever. yes there are differences between a man and a woman such as body parts, but what would that have to do with anything. yes two man cant have to kids on there own but they could always adopt which would give more kids a home and families that love them, so what if the kid has two moms or two dads. and as for the woman, they can have there own kids by having a Artificial insemination procedure, they could also adopt. two men an two woman would both be good at raising a child, just like a man and a woman raising a child. there are no differences between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and woman raising a child. the kid will have two parents that love them and take care of them and that's what matters the most.
here are list of reasons why gay marriage should be legal
1) Gay marriage will have no impact whatsoever on heterosexual communities, just as racial integration in the 60's had no negative impact on White (the majority) communities. It simply overturned an ugly, immoral attitude that upheld segregation. The same goes for legalizing gay marriage; it will grant the LGBT community a right that has been immorally denied to them.
2.)Because Gay Marriage is already a reality!
In New York, thousands of gay couples have already gotten married. Manhattan is expecting $9 million revenue during the first year that marriage was legalized. Sure, the economic boost is a plus... but the reality is that millions of gay partners already practice monogamous, loving relationships in the United States. The trouble is that they are not legally protected as married couples, even though their lifestyle mimics marriage! Gays already practice marriage in their homes, so what's wrong with granting the LGBT community the rights they deserve?
3)Separation of church and state
One of the major reasons that gay marriage is currently illegal is due to the religious interpretation that "homosexuals are sinners." Such a religious perspective should have no place in federal, legal matters in the United States. We live in a secular society that maintains secular views. The Ten Commandments do not define our legal system, so why does the religious argument "marriage is the union between a man and a woman" keep so many happy, gay couples from becoming legally married? Legalizing gay marriage will have no impact on religion and/or the religious view of others, just as religion should not have any impact on the issue of gay marriage.
4)It's an issue of equal rights
In the 50's, interracial marriage was illegal. But now, modern society understands this to be an unjust law that denied equal rights to couples who loved each other. The issue of gay marriage is no different. Denying marriage to two individuals who love each other is to deny them a fundamental freedom.
5)Legalizing gay marriage will help to establish a social norm that includes and respects homosexual lifestyles. Couples as well as individuals in the LGBT community will seem less "different" from heterosexual lifestyle, so straight couples and individuals will be more inclined to accept homosexual couples into their communities.
6) It's hard to believe that in an era of unimaginable technological advancements, sexuality-based discrimination still exists. Hospitals cannot legally allow gay partners to visit their lovers or receive medical information about their condition without a blood relative present. This deprives partners essential medical rights and undermines the authenticity of their relationship. It leaves many partners unable to make important decisions. Legalizing gay marriage will allow gay couples hospital visitation rights and respect the validity of their marriage by letting them make medical decisions on behalf of their spouses.
7)Most adoption agencies discriminate against gay couples and make it incredibly difficult for them to adopt children. Many agencies will only release children to "married" couples, therefore rejecting stable, loving, homosexual parents. By legalizing gay marriage across all states, adoption agencies will be forced to grant the same respect and rights to homosexual couples. There are over 500,000 children currently living without parents in the United States; gay marriage will increase the chances for thousands of foster children to gain loving parents and families.
8)Gay couples are legally allowed to enter into a civil union partnership... but this is not nearly the same thing as marriage. Marriage licenses grant innumerable rights to married couples, rights that are not endowed to gay couples in civil unions. It is no excuse to deem that gay marriage is not necessary because "they already have civil unions... why do they want more?" The financial, medical, and social rights that are associated with marriage are unfortunately kept away from homosexual couples.
9) The majority of teenage suicides today are being committed because the child was bullied in school as a result of his/her sexual orientation. The same acceptance that will come about due to legalizing gay marriage will show teens that homosexuality is accepted and respected in society. We need to explain to younger generations that being different (in any aspect of our lives) is not a social disability, so that they will never feel the need to take their own lives because they are gay.
legalize gay marriage!
MoralityProfessor

Con

The fact that this debate only has two rounds makes it slightly more challenging for both of us because you don't have the time to counter any of my arguments after this round, and I still feel the subject has not been discussed thoroughly enough. If you do have any counter arguments after this round, I'd be happy to address them in the comments section.

You fail to understand what I'm trying to get at with the question about incest. Yes, the two people involved are related to one another, but my question was, why is *that* a problem? Incestuous relationships would fall under your own criteria of marriage - 'when two people really love each other and want to be together forever'. So if you wanted to change that to 'two non-related people', that's fine, but, again, why? Many people argue that incest can cause severe birth defects in children and I'd like to expound on that. If the concept of children - in principle - is fundamental enough to annul marriages between relatives, then clearly it is a part of the definition of marriage itself. And should someone argue it is not, it would stand that incestuous relationships should be legal as well. Supporters of gay marriage who oppose incest and polygamy are not being morally consistent with their values.

My question about men and women was to emphasize the fact that men and women are different not just by biological standards, but also emotionally different. That being the case, I believe that a meshing of those two beings is the ideal environment to raise children in as opposed to specifically one or the other.
Also, artificial insemination itself is a whole different debate - with effects it has on the children produced and the effects on the surrogate mother.

To address your points:
1) You cannot compare race to sexuality. No black person has ever woken up one day to discover that they are suddenly white. Skin color is not something that can be changed, whereas sexuality is something that can and is. In regards to the impact on communities, it is interesting to note that gay people account for 61% of HIV infection though they make up less than 2% of the population. There are numerous health risks related with homosexuality and, as quoted by Matt Barber,
"...homosexuality is by its very nature dangerous to those who practice it. And society is doing homosexuals a disservice when it endorses and promotes homosexuality as normal. In doing so, it is encouraging these Americans to engage in self-destructive behavior."
2) This is not a logical argument. Just because something happens, doesn't mean that it should. And just because something brings in money, doesn't therefore make it okay. Take the porn industry, for example. It accumulates billions of dollars every year and 1/5 of mobile searches are for pornography, yet it still is not something that we endorse.
3) Yet we hold a religious perspective in regards to incest and bestiality. From a federal/legal point of view there are some very good reasons why someone should be allowed to engage in such activities, and yet morally speaking, most of us find the thought repulsive.
Gay marriage has not yet been legalized everywhere, and it's already impacting religious institutions and businesses. Sweet Cakes, a bakery, was forced to close down after refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. There has also been talk of those (like non-profit, religious organizations) that oppose gay marriage to lose their tax-exempt status. Where does freedom of religion come into this?
4) I addressed comparing sexuality to race in number 1. The issue of gay marriage is different. You cannot compare two fundamentally different things.
5) This is not actually an argument, but a statement, and before we decide to embrace homosexual lifestyles we first need to decide whether or not it is necessary.
6) This is a false statement. A civil union would allow for visitation rights and legal transfer of property. In addition, this is also not an argument, rather an attack on whoever disagrees with legalizing gay marriage, though a subtle attack it may be.
7) It is also difficult for single parents to try adopt children. Why is that? Because adoption agencies want to be certain that children are going to be in the best environment. And a home with a mother and a father is often a better environment than a single parent. As I stated above, the ideal environment for children to be raised in is with one mother and one father.
8) Once again, these aren't so much reasons why gay people should be allowed to marry, rather they're claiming that opponents of same-sex marriage are being unfair. If we decide that marriage is limited to one man and one woman, than, yes, we would be able to deem that gay marriage is not necessary. And no, we are not granted 'innumerable' rights. Civil unions cover the majority of rights given in a marriage.
9) Finally, something I can agree with. Harassment towards homosexuals is disgusting and I do not support it in any way. Hate crimes committed against gays make my stomach churn. The truth though is that hate crimes are often just a means of expression of violence - it's not necessarily rooted in homophobia and I believe the problems of violence and bullying among youth in general needs to be addressed.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.lifesitenews.com...
http://www.conservapedia.com...
http://www.covenanteyes.com...
http://www.covenanteyes.com...
http://www.nationalreview.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

As stated above, it's a pity there are only two rounds to this debate because this doesn't give us an opportunity to thoroughly look at the issue.

Also, I'd like to ask you next time not to copy and paste your arguments from other websites. Each one of your nine arguments can be sourced back almost word for word to this link:
http://www.fasttopten.com...
Debate Round No. 2
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
4) That is not 'about' it. I would say that the way they relate to each other is inherently different. In regards to sexual interaction as well, with homosexual people it is not a partnership in pleasure, but rather, it is individual pleasure.
5) And it is simply your opinion that they are not at a disadvantage. Once again, I brought a study to support my point. I didn't make those statistics up. There clearly are differences in heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Men and woman intrinsically are different, and the way that men relate to men as opposed to women is also different.
6) In the debate, I wrote that the concept of children - *in principal* - is fundamental to marriage. In principal, a man and woman can have children. In principal, two people of the same gender cannot. To use an analogy from Alan Keys, an apple that has worms in it does not change the definition of the apple.
As a side point, there are too many stories of couples (one man and one woman) who thought they would be unable to have children and were later successful.
7) I agree with the concept of personal responsibility. But we don't specifically put people in situations that will most likely be detrimental to them.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
Pensfan:

Sorry it has taken so long to respond. Thank G-d, it's been pretty busy. Anyway, here are my responses to your arguments.

1) I'm not really sure what to say to that. Maybe that all gay people are just hiding the fact that they're really heterosexual. (That was sarcastic.) That is not a valid argument, rather your opinion on the way things might be as opposed to the way they are. I'm not sure what your complaint was in regards to the 'gay gene'. There is no gay gene, nor did I say it was an illness, rather that it is a result of environment. (Like the twin study - they both have the same genetics, yet one is heterosexual and one is homosexual - indicating something in environment is different.)
2) That is not simply an opinion on how I think they are raised - I brought a source for that information. The article did not fail to mention the effect on kids from a family with a father and mother - the study was citing statistics of children of gay parents *in comparison* to children of heterosexual parents. Of course single parenting affects me. Let me explain. According to statistics, "... a child in a single-parent household is far more likely to experience violence, commit suicide, continue a cycle of poverty, become drug dependent, commit a crime or perform below his peers in education." So, the more people we have engaging in violence and drugs the less safe myself and everyone else is. And the less education people have, the more power is distributed to those with an education - thus creating an unjust playing field. The truth is that we need to focus on the importance of family structure, teach personal commitment and responsibility in order to fix the problem.
3) You still haven't answered the question concerning freedom of religion. And ransacking a place is a felony. Just as I don't approve 'hate-crimes' (notice the word 'crime') toward homosexuals, I don't approve hate-crimes toward heterosexuals either.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
I would like to apologize because, as Jakeross6 pointed out, Conservapedia is clearly a biased site. However, I was not there looking for arguments, but rather statistics on HIV among gay men. The same goes for the other site, Covenant Eyes, though I don't see that as a biased site. (I was on there looking for statistics as well.)
Here is a government website that has the *same* information on HIV statistics as cited on the Conservapedia.

http://www.cdc.gov...

But once again, I apologize for citing a biased site.
Posted by pensfan 3 years ago
pensfan
whats a vote bomb?
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
I reported that vote bomb. No reason while still supporting Pro's grammar is obviously a vote bomb.
Posted by kawaii_crazy 3 years ago
kawaii_crazy
cant vote, sorry.
Posted by pensfan 3 years ago
pensfan
*fault
Posted by pensfan 3 years ago
pensfan
(continued)
no one else's
same sex marriage should be legal.
Posted by pensfan 3 years ago
pensfan
1. some people may choose there sexuality just to fit in. They might not feel accepted in the world if there attracted to the same sex because of people always going against them. for all you know she could just be hiding the fact that she is still gay. And as for the gay gene thing, that is just wrong. Being gay is not an illness, it is not a disorder, IT IS the way they feel about each other, and there is nothing wrong with that.
2. That is your own opinion on how you think there raised. My opinion is that there raised just as well by same sex couples as straight couples. What that article failed to mention was the affect on kids from a family with a mother and a father. Today, one-third of American children " a total of 15 million " are being raised without a father. Nearly five million more children live without a mother. And it does not affect you. does straight marriage affect you? no it doesn't. so why would same sex marriage.
3. What happens to gay couples 14TH amendment? how is it racism for the people to fight against the owners. the owners should of just sucked it up and made the cake. They lost money and there business by not making the cake. so that's there own fault. no one else's.
4. the differences would be the gender they like. that is about it. its not false logic.
5. there not at a disadvantage. that is other peoples opionions. They are raised in a family with 2 parents who love them and take care of them. The only difference between the two are that one kid has 2 moms or 2 dads and the other kid has 1 mom and 1 dad.
6. if one of the reasons same sex couples cant get married is because they cant have kids then think about this. There are some couples of opposite sex who can't have kids for one reason or another. so should they not be allowed to marry? think about that question.
7. your life is what YOU make of it. your parents sexuality has nothing to do with it. if you want a job you can get a job, if you cheat on your spouse it is your
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
8) My point in discussing incest was to show that morality can be very subjective. Unless we have specific, set standards then morality can then be defined as absolutely anything as long as it doesn't hurt anyone (and as long as we felt that hurting others didn't hurt anyone, we could trash that criteria as well.) That definition includes bestiality, polygamy, and even pedophilia, if you stretch the limits far enough.

Once again, I'd be happy to respond to any comments or arguments you have through the comments section.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
pensfanMoralityProfessorTied
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: Topics like this are hard to judge because you have to make sure you divorce your biases from your evaluation of the round, and I think arguing this debate is hard for similar reasons. Con conducts her side of the argument in a civil, professional way--I appreciate that immensely. I have strong sympathies with Pro, but he just doesn't articulate his points as well as Con. Gay Marriage should be legal--there is no question in my mind of that. But, in terms of who won the debate, the answer is Con.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
pensfanMoralityProfessorTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro copied most of his first round arguments word-for-word from the web site Con cited. Copying without acknowledgement is a conduct violation. The text that Pro copied had correct S&G, the rest was a mess. I thought there were flaws in the arguments of both sides. Biblical declaration of sin is not a compelling reason for law, but Pro implies that gays have no significant difference from heterosexuals that ought to be reflected in law. Civil unions should provide equal rights, even if they do not. There is substantial economic impact of public because spousal benefits are conveyed, but Con didn't argue that. Con did point out the impact of religious individuals being denied choice. Pro argued that marriage laws should be used to perform social engineering, which con correctly countered. References should be tied to the specific claims they support, not presented as a reading list. Arguments were too close to call; a third round in the debate would have been helpful.
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
pensfanMoralityProfessorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: They both had the same conduct, but the Pro could use a lesson in basic grammar. As for the arguments, I do believe that the Pro made much better arguments. Finally, for sources, I am completely astonished that the Con cited "Covenant Eyes" and most despicably "Conservapedia". Both of these are biased and I would rather see no source at all than these pathetic fact-distorting websites.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
pensfanMoralityProfessorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: My agreements go to Con because I have been and still am against gay marriage. Conduct is tied because both debaters acted like legitimate ones and neither of them FFed. Spelling and Grammar goes to Con because Pro's sentences almost never were captitalized at the beginnings, and I think I even caught a few run-ons. Con had an overall better structure in her arguments, as they were in separate paragraphs while Pro's were just a direct, huge paragraph formation.. Arguments to Pro because Con seemed to go off topic at times, what with all the incestual marriage which like TeaPartyAtheist said is a whole different debate. For sources, I give that to Con because she actually provided some.
Vote Placed by TeaPartyAtheist 3 years ago
TeaPartyAtheist
pensfanMoralityProfessorTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better conduct, as there were no concerns of plagiarism on her part and used more sources. Pro frequently did not capitalize the first words of his sentences, but did present an argument, whereas Con spent too much of the time talking about incestual marriage (which is a different debate). She also just countered Pro's points, rather than making some of her own. Her point about HIV was decent, but she could have gone further with her own points.