The Instigator
ginoireneo
Pro (for)
The Contender
BezoomnyBratchny
Con (against)

Same sex marriage should not be allowed by the government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
BezoomnyBratchny has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 620 times Debate No: 110828
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

ginoireneo

Pro

The government has no compelling interest in legalizing, promote, or subsidize same sex marriage just because of two or more human beings are in love in which so subjective and personal. Only natural marriage shall be allowed since it produces the next generation and continues the existing of humanity and the government has the compelling interest in interfering with marriage of man and woman since they are raising the next generation and are entitled for support and subsidy since their characteristic and biological traits has the ability procreate. Unlike same sex marriage were the same sex has no benefit to be given with the society. And because of the this ideology that same sex marriage should be allowed many people who opposed this are being persecuted and tormented by radical activist. Should the government give you additional privileges just because the two of are in love. If the problem is the adoption or estate in case that one the partner face death, it must be in a form of special contracts and agreement. Same sex couples who wants to legally adopt can also file for a tax exemption and benefits of that is the case. It is not that we discriminate gay people or for who they are. It is only the behavior that damages society and its very fabric. If the government will legalize same sex marriage just because of love and equality, it will just open more waves of evil and immoral practices. Such as incest marriage, polygamy and more. There will never be an equality. According to Aristotle "The worst form of inequality is try to make things unequal, equal."
BezoomnyBratchny

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
ginoireneo

Pro

May I know your rebuttals?
BezoomnyBratchny

Con

Pro claims that only heterosexual marriage should be allowed because it produces the next generation. In order to remain consistent then, Pro must also prohibit lots of heterosexual couples from getting married. Couples for example where the man is impotent or has a low sperm count, couples where the woman is barren, antinatal couples, couples who decide that it's more responsible to adopt instead, couples who want a baby but want to be in a better financial situation first and never end up getting to that point, couples who have miscarriages and find it too emotionally straining to try again, the list is endless. Pro is right to say that love is subjective and personal. Additionally, love is far from universal among couples planning to get married. There are arranged marriages where they mostly hope love will develop after the fact, there's people marrying only because they got pregnant and feel it would be the right thing to do, there's people who marry men for their money and tolerate sexual favours in exchange for an extravagant lifestyle, there's mail order brides escaping poor countries, there's people marrying for citizenship and all sorts of other reasons people get married to someone that they don't love. So there is no particular monopoly between love and marriage. But neither is there any particular monopoly between marriage and procreation. As stated, people get married for all sorts of reasons. Pro is making the concept out to be way more black and white than it really is.

Pro claims that same-sex marriage - unlike heterosexual marriage - doesn't contribute anything due to the lack of procreation. There's a number of points to make here. First is that IVF treatment allows for same sex couples to procreate and some of them choose to do so. Second, it can be argued that those that don't are the ones contributing to society precisely for that reason and that it's the heterosexual couples that DO procreate that are the problem due to them contributing to overpopulation, the sustainability of food and the carbon footprint created by having children. Same sex couples that don't choose to have IVF treatment at worst, don't contribute to all of that and at best, reduce the amount of unwanted children in the foster care system by adopting one of them and liberating them.

Pro then lists a number of ways in which same sex couples can benefit without actually getting married. I would ask Pro if the "same but different" water fountains for black people was an acceptable way to live?

Pro then claims that who gay people are is ok, but the behaviour is not. Is homosexual behaviour not homosexual behaviour precisely BECAUSE they are homosexual? In other words, do they not engage in homosexual behaviour because of who they are? Should gay people live a life of abstinence? Pro also doesn't even attempt to justify why this behaviour supposedly damages society and it's very fabric. Pro, i would assume, gets woken up by an alarm clock every morning. If the person that made the alarm clock happens to enjoy a c*ck in his arse, the alarm wouldn't fail to work properly and make Pro late for work. They make a bowl of cereal which is no less tasty or nutritious if the farmer that grew the crop happens to go home and choke on a giant c*ck every night after a long day out in the fields. They get in their car which gets them to work just as successfully as any other day despite being checked over by a mechanic that sits in his auto shop all day reading gay magazines while he waits for a customer to turn up. His boss is married to a woman but for some reason that doesn't stop the boss from yelling at him all day regardless. He leaves work and grabs some dinner at a local restaurant and as if by magic, the waitress manages to get the meal to his table despite the fact that she spent all morning with her tongue in another woman's p*ssy. He comes home and watches some Big Bang Theory and it's every bit as funny as it otherwise would have been despite the fact that during breaks, Jim Parsons went to his dressing room to jack off to pictures of George Clooney. How does homosexual behaviour damage society in any way, shape or form?

Pro then panders to a slippery slope. Did allowing mixed race couples to marry lead to incest and polygamy being allowed? Why would allowing same sex couples be any more likely to do so? And by the way, providing that any incestuous couples couldn't have a baby, exactly what is wrong with allowing incest and polygamy?

Pro finishes with an Aristotle quote. There's two problems here. First, Aristotle never said that. It was written by someone attempting to condense Aristotle's ideas about justice into a catchy one-liner. And the second problem is that anyone that is familiar with Aristotle's ideas would know that he would not be taking the stance of "heterosexual marriages only" so it's a misrepresentation of his character.
Debate Round No. 2
ginoireneo

Pro

Hi Good day. Thank you for your arguments. I'm now going to present my rebuttals.
Con argued that heterosexual couple who cannot bear children must be prohibited from marrying, but remember its an exemption of the rule. And in societal law it is the rule and not the exemption. Many couples are getting married in many different reasons and the state must not interfere with that because the state has no interest in that, the only thing that the state must interfere is the possibility of procreation because their private relationship creates a public interest. The general rule is that when there is a cohabitation and intimate relationship between a man and a woman there is an assumption that they will bear children and in order to secure the couple from their responsibility to their children, the state must interfere.

Con presented that IVF treatment is an option for procreation, I agree with that. But then again it needs a third party in order to materialize its cause. And still same sex couple relationship cannot procreate unless they need to spend and look for someone to participate in that treatment, unlike natural heterosexual relationship the two of them creates a whole. In overpopulation and scarcity it is a matter of management and policy making of different nations, there were places and countries in which they have so many resources but they have lack of management and utilization of their resources. Con argued that same sex couple also helps reduce unwanted children in foster care, but it must also be considered that heterosexual couple can also adopt and reduce unwanted children in foster care.

Con asked "if the same but difference water fountains for black people was an acceptable way to live?" I would like to stress out that this is not about the color of people's skin and it is a manifested characteristic when they are born. Let us also take into consideration that segregating people by their color in which they have no control over it from birth is a very different thing. We are talking about the results in which a heterosexual relationship could give and benefit the society.

Con is asking for the effects of homosexual behavior in our society. Let me first be clear that even that in the heterosexual community, there were damages created, and it is really mess-up. Homosexual behavior will worsen things up and adds more scope and rage in the society most of it are sexual harassment and perversion, pornography, pedophilia, prostitution, sex trafficking and other judicial matters. For example, gay couples keep on suing people who does not participate in their homosexual act or behavior and it bars other people to exercise their rights according to their conscience. They will sue bakers, florist, teachers, students, business people and etc. who won't participate or accept services which are related to homosexual acts particularly same sex marriage and impedes freedom of contracts and choice. They will compel them to participate even though they do not recognize it in their own. In our society many children especially boys in their young age that were molested by male predators have a tendency to become gays due to its psychological effects and it may affect their daily routine or cause them trauma and confusion in which must not be happening in the first place if it wasn't for that homosexual behavior. HIV/AIDS are very evidently rampant in the homosexual world and they could pass it to other people especially people who engages in prostitution or pornography increasing the problem more including that their Sexual promiscuity helps support the spread of disease. More promiscuity, more venereal disease, more mental health issues, sets a bad example of gender separatism, undermines the ideal of both a mother and a father, higher incidence of pedophilia incest, a non-procreative example that leads to lower rates of reproductive marriage excessive health care cost to society to treat AIDS and other diseases. Gay Marriage reduces the number of children born in society and we need a stable population base to operate properly. Therefore, society can be harmed. Monogamy - meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, especially among gay men, 66% of the men have sex outside of the relationship within the first year, and less than 10% of the relationships lasted 5 years.

Con tackles the the significance of race and same sex. First of all allowing mixed race couples to marry did not lead to polygamy and incestuous marriage because it is unconstitutional because banning interracial marriage (heterosexual) is racist and discriminatory in which the color of their skin are determined by birth. According to the ruling in Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. ... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
and the reason why polygamy and incest marriage did not lead to that is because the definition of marriage is still the same and the only issue their is their skin color. Yes it is true that incest marriages can provide an offspring but it is a well know fact that it is harmful to society and the baby from an incest relationship has many disorders and problems, not only to the child but also to its parents and surroundings and it damages family structure. Polygamy is also proven that to damaging to society in the case of Reynolds v. United States.
The reason that legalizing same sex marriage will open the legalization of incest and polygamy is that there are no legal bars to prevent it from happening since they fully redefined the meaning of marriage and makes it more vulnerable for other people to attack. According to an article:
Legalizing gay marriage could lead down a "slippery slope," giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times op-ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." In Apr. 2013 Slate writer Jillian Keenan wrote: "Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults." James C. Dobson, Founder and Chairman of Focus on the Family, predicted in 2005 that legalizing same-sex marriage will enable "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," and "marriage between a man and his donkey."

Con last rebuttal regarding the quote of Aristotle. I admit that I was misinformed and it was a misattribution in his writings. But I just want to stress the thought of it. In my opinion you can never deny that man and woman living together has a far more advantage in society than man and man or woman and woman.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wamanlover 2 years ago
wamanlover
Same sex marriage should be legal because in the constitution it says everyone is equal therefore just because they like the same gender doesn't mean that they are different they should still be able to get married to whoever they want to.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.