The Instigator
Miss_Kitty
Pro (for)
The Contender
M-Y
Con (against)

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

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
Miss_Kitty has forfeited round #2.
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: 4/11/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 688 times Debate No: 112616
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Miss_Kitty

Pro

Join for Majority, Vote for Equality!!! I support Gay Marriage. Wanna know why? It's so that we have EQUALITY in MARRIAGE!!! I have nothing against people being Gay, if you do then I don't know what to do because, Gay people have made a brave decision to do this. Everyone has the RIGHT to FREEDOM! If we have the right to FREEDOM then shouldn't we be FREE to make our own choices on who to marry? Who to love? Who we truly like? Imagine being Gay liking another boy or liking another girl in a world where it is illegal to do so? Just think about it! Think about what we could do in a world were we are free to make our own choices. Free to marry WHOEVER we want. Free to be GAY! Nothing is going to stop you from being Gay nothing is stopping you from marrying who you WANT. And nothing is stopping you from making your own choices! Once again I say... Join for Majority, Vote for Equality!
M-Y

Con

Before starting this debate, I would like to say that English is not my first language and I apologize for any mistakes I might make.
Let me recapitulate the reasons given justifying why gay marriage should be legal :

- Gay marriage should be legal for the sake of equality
- Everyone should be free to marry whomever they want and love whomever they want

I will know address the points made:

"I have nothing against people being Gay"
Being against gay marriage does not imply having something against people being gay. Homosexuality is not the issue here, it's homosexual marriage, which is not quite the same thing.

"If we have the right to FREEDOM then shouldn't we be FREE to make our own choices on who to marry? Who to love? Who we truly like? Imagine being Gay liking another boy or liking another girl in a world where it is illegal to do so?"
This is in my opinion the most important point because it is the one that most eloquently illustrates what will set us apart.
The words "free" and "freedom" are emphasized and used to justify why people should be allowed to marry whomever they want. This argument proceeds, in my opinion, from a liberal conception of society. In this conception of society, it is implicitly assumed that the prosperity and well-being of a society is equal to the sum of the happiness and well-being of each individual constituting said society. In my opinion that is a simplistic approach, if only it was that simple but I'm afraid it isn't. We have conflicting interests and tendencies.
One of the most "vital interest" of any society is to be able to survive. And to survive you need first to be able to ensure said society's safety (no threats there from gay marriage) and two to have children (and that is where the problem lies).
Marriage, historically, is not about the union of two loving people. Marriage has been for centuries, and in my opinion should continue being, the institution that symbolizes and protects filiation.
Marriage is historically the institution and the social framework on which societies (and even civilizations) were built on, ensuring the union between a man and a woman and condemning infidelity which would encourage procreation. It is also the framework that offers stability to the family.
Seen from a liberal libertarian point of view, marriage can be the union of any consenting individuals (may be even objects or animals), no matter how many want to marry with each other or their sexual preferences.
However from that point on, we have opened Pandora's box. Anything is possible, people can be married to 5 other people at once, married couples can marry other married couples and have a marriage", people can marry themselves etc .. In a society like this, we lose a determining structure (marriage) that used to organize society. Families lose their structures and children will suffer from this lack or stability.
I claim that a society that prioritizes satisfying immediate individual (or individualistic) demands rather than giving a stable environment to their children and thus preparing them for the future, is doomed. Individual rights and freedoms are always given at the expense of the interests of the group. A functioning society is an organised one. An organised society is a society where everybody obeys the same rules. The more rules, the more standardized, the more effective, but also the more inhuman. The more freedoms you give, the more creative, the more diverse, the more human, but also the closer to chaos.

The problem with viewing marriage from a liberal libertarian point of view is the fact that it will disorganize and cause chaos in society (by chaos, I don't mean civil wars).

To summarize, I think homosexual marriage should not be legalized. Marriage is the institution that holds families together and protects and symbolizes filiation. Families are the first microcosm in which we evolve and learn how to socialize. If we all grow up in completely different configurations, I think the cohesion of society will greatly suffer from it.

I have explained why I think homosexual marriage should not be legalized, what are your arguments ?
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
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
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by M-Y 3 years ago
M-Y
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear : the legalization of homosexual marriage is not some spontaneous phenomena that just spawned out of nowhere. There is a context, I addressed said context. Talking about gay marriage without addressing that context will lead you to have a partial and by extension wrong perception of what is involved here. So you have to talk about seemingly unrelated stuff but that actually are related.
"And it is indeed a personal issue if you can't comply with change" ... Again with the haughty tone... I have gay friends, I'm friends with a married gay couple. I have defended gay people against other people. I disagree with change, doesn't mean I don't comply with change. I'm not going around homosexual marriages telling them what they're doing is wrong. I don't go around giving my opinion to people who didn't ask for it. I don't stand up in an intersection holding a sign saying "homosexual marriage is wrong" or some other stupid sh*t like that.
I'm debating someone who wants to debate what I consider an interesting topic. I disagree with what apparently most people think, is that a crime ? Is there such a thing as a criminal opinion ?
And no, it's not a personal issue, it's a disagreement, which is not the same thing.
"Oh, I understand now, so you decide what is and isn't the "exception"" You know I could just turn that argument around and tell you "Oh now you decide what should change in society and what shouldn't ?"
It's an invalid argument. No one is deciding anything here, we're just expressing opinions. I have no problem with you having a different opinion and I don't think it's because you have "personal issues". It's because you're entitled to your own opinions about how society should be and I respect that no matter how much I might disagree with what your ideal society would be. It seems you have a lot of trouble doing the same. It's a shame because I feel it would be an interesting conversation if it were otherwise.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 3 years ago
Bitch_Goddess
So then why is that relevant? The topic here is whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. Just because it is possible under that conception doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
Making gay marriage illegal simply because everything else is being thrown out of 'balance' isn't a good, let alone valid, reason to prevent two consenting adults to marry.
If you have an issue with other topics, address them individually instead of saying "oh, we shouldn't do this because every other 'fundamental framework' is out of whack". And it is indeed a personal issue if you can't comply with change, it's not anyone else's problem. That's not attacking you. I'm not responsible for you taking offense to me stating that you have an issue with change (when that is clearly a problem here).
" Of course infertile couples are an exception"
Oh, I understand now, so you decide what is and isn't the "exception"? Like you said, marriages made for love has been common for over a decade. That doesn't change because the gender is different between the two adults. The thing here is that the US is progressing. If you can't progress with it- again, your issue- that's very unfortunate. However, the US won't be holding back simply because you don't approve of change.

"...I have nothing against gay people."
And yet, you are against them having the basic right (under the Due Process Clause) to marry another consenting adult. Ah, yes, of course, you have no issues with gay people.
Posted by mrchexmix 3 years ago
mrchexmix
you peeps are all gay
Posted by mrchexmix 3 years ago
mrchexmix
you peeps are all gay
Posted by M-Y 3 years ago
M-Y
To Bitch_Goddess

I'd also like to point out that I have nothing against gay people. Assuming that the only reason why I would disagree with you is because I have "issues" is belittling, arrogant and an attack on the person and not on the arguments. Or maybe is it that you're so morally superior that you can deliver such a low blow and still be decent.
Posted by M-Y 3 years ago
M-Y
To Bitch_Goddess:
I didn't say that homosexual marriage will cause chaos. I said it is the liberal libertarian conception of society, in which homosexual marriage is possible, mixed with the ideas of freedom and equality, that will and I think is already causing chaos.
In my opinion this is a much bigger and broader subject than just homosexual marriage.
We (it's a long process, we can talk about it if you want) have deconstructed/destroyed many fundamental social/civilizational frameworks (marriage, family, gender, nation, hierarchy, ...) and we're living in times in which the goal is basically "everybody should be allowed to do whatever they want and no one should suffer from offense or any other kind of "discomfort" ", we glorify victims and everybody wants to be part of a suffering minority so they can ask for more rights and more recognition. I think that it's incredibly dangerous because I can only see two possible outcomes :
1- Everyone is wary of everyone, considering other "groups" as oppressors (I think we are not that far from that)
2- Everybody engages in an insidious self-censorship to avoid offending or hurting everyone and end up living in a society where grave political issues end up being unaddressed (it already exists, and it's usually called "political correctness")
3- A mix of the two above
Also regarding the whole pregnancy topic, I did say "historically", I'm talking about what marriage is historically. Love marriages have been a thing for a century, and obviously in a love marriage, love is what you're in for. But originally, marriage is an institution articulated around the idea of procreation. Of course infertile couples are an exception, but this isn't math, one counterexample does not invalidate the argument. In social matters you reason by identifying what's common to the majority.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 3 years ago
Bitch_Goddess
To Con -
Except, it hasn't caused chaos in society. Not for the US, nor for Australia. Not to mention, you bring up pregnancy when that has nothing to do with the topic. Being married does not mean you must have a baby. And the idea that, if you want to get married that you must have a child in said marriage, is ridiculous. It's just like telling an infertile couple they can't marry simply because they cannot repopulate. And then there's the fact that many gay/lesbian couples have the opportunity to have surrogates and artificial insemination. So we have that "problem" out of the way.
Pretty much the rest of what you've stated simply suggests you do not want to comply to change because it's too much for you to handle. That's a personal issue, not one that should determine the marriage between two consenting adults.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
John_C_1812
The United State of marriage is the creation of citizen of the country to which hosts a couple male and female. Due to this one fact that a man and woman can procreate and add to the State of size to a nation or state it allows by right, meaning it is not wrong to recognize a new citizen. Therefore the Nation or State may ask for witness to this possible procreation. This marriage is a long standing likely-hood with self-value set by law.

Its open polarization was the warning to other more serious crimes. Adding the fact that people also may be accused of the action of Gay or Lesbian directed the plagiarizing to a level of criminal fraud made by accusation against the United States Constitution.

So the understanding of United State which is legally allowed to be shared is clear. A declaration of Independence is made by witness in the line of self-value wording in the form of First Amendment grievance. Binivir and Unosmulier are common law terms to through United State for basic separation within the guiltiness of legal precedent. Perjury is the intellectual crime as it is often much harder to establish in a court of judicial separation. This in no way makes the crime legal in any way.

The argument made is set to stage and promote the one side of crime only prejudice. This is to set a much easier reach goal publicly as profitable. When looking at equality through impartial full disclosure the open unregulated challenge of intellectual crimes like fraud, those mentioned biblically are simple very hard to understand and prove. Not actual religious be how that have been documented.
This debate has 6 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.