The Instigator
crys
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jzonda415
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

should gay marriage be allow in india???

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 2 votes the winner is...
jzonda415
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 945 times Debate No: 72980
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

crys

Pro

i think ppl in india should be open minded , forein ppl allow all dis even indian ppl shld accecpt it its not a problem but god gifted we cnt help it ,sumtym when dey r not accecpted by d society ppl attempt sucidie .... yyy???? even dey hve d right to get mnarried to any1 if d person wid whom he wanna get marry is expecting him den y d hell d society not accecpting dem ??? ppl shld understand if dey hve everything in lyf nd believe onh rights plzzzzzzz get open minded nd think
jzonda415

Con

I thank Pro for this debate.

Though it is DDO custom to have the 1st round be for acceptance, due to the brief nature of this debate and arguments, and my opponent's arguments made in round 1, I will proceed with my case. I will also decrypt and argue against Pro's case.


Let us also remember that Pro has the BOP, as he is proposing a shift from the status quo of gay marriage being unrecognized by the Indian government; hence, while I will present one anyway, I don't actually need a case.

My case is that gay or same-sex marriage (SSM) shouldn't be allowed anywhere, which includes India. I will argue this through the following premises:

P1. The State regulates marriage. 

P2. If the State is regulating marriage, it aims to promote a public end and has a reason in regulating the unions.

P3. If the State is promoting a public end and regulating marriage, then it must have criteria for and a definition of marriage.

P4. The definition marriage must be to promote and protect intrinsic procreation and ideal family structure.

P5. Unions contrary to this definition must be forbidden from entering into the union.

P6. SSM is contrary to this definition.

P7. Therefore, SSM must be forbidden.
Let me elaborate on my case:

P1-P3 all all logical, and, if opposed, do elaborate how.

P4 is the main part of this case. Procreation is a common good for society. The procreative act done between a man and a woman has, throughout history, served as a basic building block of communities and countries; only civilizations that reproduce survive. The state, in an effort to assure the continuation of society, must create an environment in which this ideal procreation can best occur and in the state's ideal setting. Marriage can serve as this building block for the state. Marriage, under this conjugal view, brings a man and a woman together in a union that exemplifies their love and is directed towards the public good of children. While some reproduce via other means, it threatens to twist the meaning of marriage as it allows any number of unions that simply mimic functions of marriage to be considered actual unions. This distorts the nature of conjugal unions, detracting from the state's goal and the its heralding of marriage’s meaning in general.

P5 follows naturally from P4. Unions which distort the meaning of marriage contribute no benefit and only bring a deleterious and noxious effect to the institution of marriage should be disallowed from entering into marriage.

P6 follows from the previous premises.

P7 hence stands.

Pro's Case:

Due to the nature of Pro's spelling, it is extremely hard to pinpoint the center idea of his case.

Pro begins by making two baseless assertions: that being open-minded is desirable and, because foreign people allow SSM, India ought to. I see no reason to accept either of these. For one, being open-minded isn't always good. I can confidently claim I am not open-minded towards joining ISIS nor towards underage drinking. Pro must explain why we ought to be open-minded towards this idea. Secondly, simply because 20/193 states recognize SSM [http://www.cnn.com...], it does not follow that India ought to follow in their footsteps. The old Zen koan about friends and bridges seems to ring true here [http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com...].

Pro's other main point about societal acceptance also fails. While I won't argue that Indian society should accept homosexuals as people, changing long-valued institutions won't foster this acceptance. Moreover, there are copious amounts of other ways to gain societal acceptance and reduce societal distress for homosexuals rather than alter the definition of marriage. Pro must explain why this is the best course to take. Why should societal acceptance come at the expense of marriages meaning?

The resolution is negated.

Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
crys

Pro

its not that we should follow all the countries but it is to accecpt the people how they are . And accecptance to homosexual people is not wrong even they are like us only but is it wrong if they fall for someone with same sex . naaa i dont think so. i m not telling to be open minded in every thing but some times you need to think by their side to. and if a person loves the person having same it is not wrong he/ she might have got attracted or anyother reason it is wrong to claim that it is wrong . you thinking mi9ght be different but homosexual is being accecpted in some places in india too. even if society dont but parents are accecpting . Because they are two consenting adults that love each other and in many cases are already doing everything married people do. . Anl sex is already happening between gays and between straight people. Who are you or who am I to say what is acceptable for another person to do? I say live and let live, if it bothers me, I turn my head, turn the channel, or turn around. You make your own choice to live the way you want, why shouldn't others be allowed to live the way they choose? I really find it comical that you are so graphic on the sexual nature of male homosexuals? Do you not know that the mouth is filled with more bacteria than any other part of the body, I am sure you have kissed someone before, what does that make you?Homosexuality is natural; homosexuality appears in a high number of animals beside humans. Homosexuality is not something that just 'popped up' suddenly. and considering reproduction is wrong as they cant reproduce they wont be allowed to marry dont it sound stupid yaa it does... even some women cant reproduce so the government wont allow them to get marry . its love which is their btwn 2 person nd the society has to accecpt it . dont feel ashamed of i t just accecpt it . its not something bad , it is something god giffted and if you dont accecpt them their are chance of people attempting sucide.
over 2 u
jzonda415

Con

I thank Pro for his response.

Pro, unfortunately, did not respond to my case or premises for why SSM ought to be illegal in India, hence, I extend my arguments.

He makes a point later on in his rant that, "considering reproduction is wrong as they cant reproduce they wont be allowed to marry dont it sound stupid yaa it does... even some women cant reproduce so the government wont allow them to get marry [sic]."

Pro calling my arguments stupid without first addressing them exemplifies irrationality. Pro, I believe, also tries to make the infertile couples objection to my argument, which always fails. Besides being cost-inefficient and generally hard to exclude, the non-child-producing unions still are procreative in type. By this, it means that the two united can still engage in heterosexual relations, and that will ensure that heterosexual relations occurs in marriage as well. Essentially, while they may not achieve the desired end-result of children, they still engage in and encourage heterosexual relations, which will aid the state’s goal, and which SSM doesn’t do.

Pro's objection fails, and thus my case stands, and Pro still fails to fulfil his BOP.

Now, let's look at Pro's other points [assume sic for all quotes]:

1. "its not that we should follow all the countries..."

Pro contradicts himself: "...forein ppl allow all dis even indian ppl shld accecpt it..."

2. "And accecptance to homosexual people is not wrong even they are like us only but is it wrong if they fall for someone with same sex . naaa i dont think so."

I never argued that society shouldn't accept homosexuals as people, just that it wouldn't come through SSM legalization and that there are better ways to gain acceptance than altering marriage for the worse. Pro fails to refute this.

3. "i m not telling to be open minded in every thing but some times you need to think by their side to."

Pro continues on this point of acceptance for a while after this, but he fails to explain how being open minded is incompatible with a position with SSM like my own nor why we should be open minded in this case, as it would completely alter the meaning of marriage.

4. "Anl sex is already happening between gays and between straight people. Who are you or who am I to say what is acceptable for another person to do?"

I don't see how this is at all relevant. Also, SSM being illegal is not a condemnation of what other people do; it a heralding of marriage. Pro fails to explain how it condemns the activity; remember these aren't sodomy laws.

5. "I say live and let live, if it bothers me, I turn my head, turn the channel, or turn around. You make your own choice to live the way you want, why shouldn't others be allowed to live the way they choose?"

Homosexual people can live how they want to, but it becomes a different matter when they request state recognition for a relationship the state has no reason nor interest in recognizing.

6. "I really find it comical that you are so graphic on the sexual nature of male homosexuals?"

When was I? Also, stop plagiarizing KylieV and JohnS on Yahoo Answers, as you did in you previous sentences. (http://tinyurl.com...)

7. "Homosexuality is natural; homosexuality appears in a high number of animals beside humans."

Simply because something occurs in nature doesn't entail that it is natural. Incest, pedophilia, violence, and domestic abuse all occur in the animal kingdom; however, it would be a mistake to call these actions natural and to encourage them.

8. "its love which is their btwn 2 person nd the society has to accecpt it . dont feel ashamed of i t just accecpt it . its not something bad , it is something god giffted and if you dont accecpt them their are chance of people attempting sucide."

The fact that Pro is mandating societal acceptance is problematic, as governments lack the abilitly to program people's minds. Moreover, Pro still fails to show how allowing SSM is the best way to gain this societal acceptance.

The resolution is negated.

Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
crys

Pro

crys forfeited this round.
jzonda415

Con

I extend all of my arguments.

Conduct should be afforded to me due to Pro's forfeit and plagiarism from users on Yahoo Answers (https://answers.yahoo.com...)

Spelling and Grammar should be afforded to me as I maintained relatively good S&G, while Pro did not.

Arguments should be afforded to me as Pro fails to address my main case and fulfill his BOP.

Sources should be afforded to me as I used them, while Pro plagiarizes.

The resolution remains negated.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by crys 2 years ago
crys
its not that we should follow all the countries but it is to accecpt the people how they are . And accecptance to homosexual people is not wrong even they are like us only but is it wrong if they fall for someone with same sex . naaa i dont think so. i m not telling to be open minded in every thing but some times you need to think by their side to. and if a person loves the person having same it is not wrong he/ she might have got attracted or anyother reason it is wrong to claim that it is wrong . you thinking mi9ght be different but homosexual is being accecpted in some places in india too. even if society dont but parents are accecpting . Because they are two consenting adults that love each other and in many cases are already doing everything married people do. . Anl sex is already happening between gays and between straight people. Who are you or who am I to say what is acceptable for another person to do? I say live and let live, if it bothers me, I turn my head, turn the channel, or turn around. You make your own choice to live the way you want, why shouldn't others be allowed to live the way they choose? I really find it comical that you are so graphic on the sexual nature of male homosexuals? Do you not know that the mouth is filled with more bacteria than any other part of the body, I am sure you have kissed someone before, what does that make you?Homosexuality is natural; homosexuality appears in a high number of animals beside humans. Homosexuality is not something that just 'popped up' suddenly. and considering reproduction is wrong as they cant reproduce they wont be allowed to marry dont it sound stupid yaa it does... even some women cant reproduce so the government wont allow them to get marry . its love which is their btwn 2 person nd the society has to accecpt it . dont feel ashamed of i t just accecpt it . its not something bad , it is something god giffted and if you dont accecpt them their are chance of people attempting sucide.
over 2 u
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
crysjzonda415Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: fff
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
crysjzonda415Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G: Pro's case was indecipherable, "forein ppl allow all dis even indian ppl shld." CONDUCT: What could be read, was plagiarized (plus the forfeit). ARGUMENT: The difference between having a case, and having none. Pro wants government action, to expose people who might suffer harsh consequences in their country were they exposed, he argues this, while trying to represent their interests... Plus you know, plagiarism. SOURCES: Using sources to compare the legal change the resolution calls for, to peer pressure suicides, while comical, was a great example of con's superiority in this area.