The Instigator
oldeskoolgamer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Toxifrost
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

should gay marriage be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Toxifrost
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 70278
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

oldeskoolgamer

Con

gay marriage is not right prove me wrong first round is acceptance
Toxifrost

Pro

I accept this debate although since con is the one making the positive claim the burden of proof really rests on him and not I to "prove him wrong". Although I will in the process of this debate. Good luck to con.
Debate Round No. 1
oldeskoolgamer

Con

It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution


In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand

In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.

As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.

We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.

We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” We do not judge their intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations.

We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.

In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Such is not our intention.

Toxifrost

Pro

Before I dive into this I'd like to point out that con has plaigerized his entire argument from another website and has admitted to this in the comments section. The original article can be found here
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...

A Misunderstanding of Laws
Con claims that gay marriage defys what he calles "natural law". Now while such a thing exists it is not how he describes it. Con describes natural law with essentially the same definition of morality however the two are completely separate and are not to be lumped together. His definition relies on the assumption of an objective morality which simple evidence dictates we do not have (I'm conducting a debate on that very subject right now as a matter of fact). He even dismantles his own argument by saying "Man can percieve what is morally good or bad for him" thus insinuating that we do in fact have a subjective morality in which case gay marriage is moral to most while immoral to others.

Conjecture Out The Wazoo
This entire paragraph relies on unfounded claims and basic conjecture. I personally was raised by a single mother and I turned out fine. Children will actually also form bonds with other people to create a pseudo mother/father figure in their life. One does not need to be related by blood to be family.

Sources: http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu...

Bigotry Out The Wazoo
In this paragraph we have even more conjecture but with a side of bigotry. Con claims that allowing same-sex marriage "validates the gay lifestyle" which is a non-existent concept created by very conservative Christians to fight against gay marriage. All gay people do not live their lives a certain way all the same and as such there is no such thing as the "gay lifestyle" Gays don't have one set lifestyle end of discussion. Again he makes moral claims but as we all know morals vary from person to person so denying someone basic rights just to protect someone elses feelings isn't really justified at all. Not to mention the asanine claim that gay marriage would lower public morality which is again unfounded.

Even More Conjecture and Bigotry
While I completely agree that the gay marriage struggle isn't really akin to the civil rights movements of the 60s that's all I can really agree with in this paragraph. So essentially the argument here is that homosexual marriage is against nature due to "biological impossibility" which is complete nonsense. Let's address the biological impossibility claim first. Well gay's have married in other states before so them getting married is obviously not a biological impossibility. I mean look at all these states where it happens!
Gay marriage 37 states legal 13 states banned


Source: http://gaymarriage.procon.org...;

The other claim made here is that it opposes nature. Well this can be debunked fairly easily and Ricky Gervais has even done so in his comedy special "Animals". Homosexual behaviour has actually been detected in over 450 species including but not limited to dolphins, grey whales, swans, bonobos, bison, giraffes, and antelope!

Sources: http://www.livescience.com...

Some Serious Oversights
This entire paragraph can be debunked with a single word. Adoption.



The rest of the argument is essentially just more conjecture along with more examples of subjective morality along with a violation of church and state and some more bigotry. None of which is founded or cited and none of which is worth responding to as it's all plagerized from another article.
Debate Round No. 2
oldeskoolgamer

Con

you win bro you got me vote for pro
Toxifrost

Pro

I extend my arguments as con has conceded. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Toxifrost 1 year ago
Toxifrost
lol great quote Yoshi
Posted by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
YoshiBoy13
The words of Samuel Johnson came to mind: "Sir, your article was both original and good, but the part that was original was not good and the part that was good was not original."
Posted by comegys59 1 year ago
comegys59
It should be legal. Every human hast he right to be with whom they choose gay or not. If the person happens to be the same sex with them then I say oh well. If you love someone you love someone. Who is anyone to say gays shouldn't be able to get married. No one has the right to dictate someone else's life. I mean underneath we are all the same. For example, If you were to look at 6 skeletons that were familiar some may say they all seem to look the same. What you didn't know is one was gay. The second was straight. The third was black. The fourth was white. The fifth is atheist and the sixth was Hindu. So in retrospect, who are we to judge someone who is the same as us? You would have never knew by looking at 6 skeletons the different characteristics they all had because underneath we are all the same. Therefore, yes it should be legal for gays to get married.
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
Is it not legal where you are?
Posted by TBR 1 year ago
TBR
I looked it up before looking at comments. Glad found it Toxifrost. Complete unattributed plagiarism.
Posted by oldeskoolgamer 1 year ago
oldeskoolgamer
ok :)
Posted by Toxifrost 1 year ago
Toxifrost
Nope, I'm just gonna wreck your arguments legitimately then point out you cheated myself :) good luck.
Posted by oldeskoolgamer 1 year ago
oldeskoolgamer
you win just post something and at the end just say that i cheated
Posted by oldeskoolgamer 1 year ago
oldeskoolgamer
i would usually be for gay marriage but i wanted to see want to see if people actually look at the debates
Posted by Toxifrost 1 year ago
Toxifrost
So instead of actually forming your own arguments and opinions you chose to steal from someone else just to "get a quick debate done"? Whatever. Free Elo for me then
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
oldeskoolgamerToxifrostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: CONcession. :D
Vote Placed by CASmnl42 1 year ago
CASmnl42
oldeskoolgamerToxifrostTied
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: 7-point sweep. Conduct: plagiarism. S&G: Con was awful, except for that plagiarized bit. Arguments: Con made none and then conceded. Sources: Con, uh, "relied heavily" on uncited sources
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
oldeskoolgamerToxifrostTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Graceful concession by Con.
Vote Placed by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Hylian_3000
oldeskoolgamerToxifrostTied
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 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: Concession
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
oldeskoolgamerToxifrostTied
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: Con conceded.