Login/Sign Up




Gay Marriage: right or wrong?
Zombies

feefee123
May 09, 2009
14 votes
14 debaters
4
3
3
2
2
1


+ Add Argument

10
right


verya
May 09, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Love is love, no matter who it's between.

If anyone's going to throw Bible quotes here, I suggest you stop and get me something I can really believe in... sorry to break it to you, but the Bible is not as widely accepted on convinceme as you may hope. It is not a go-to guide for morals.

 
verya
May 10, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

The Bible is not a good piece of 'evidence' to use in debates here; I think everyone knows that. You can't convince anyone with something they don't believe in, no matter if it's over gay marriage, abortion, stem cells, or anything else.

Like I said, love is love. It's my personal belief that 11 year olds aren't mature enough to make huge decisions like that, and they should wait until they're 20 and their hormones smooth out... but I'm sure you know what I meant.

 
frankiej4189
May 10, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

Marriage is a right, but it should be treated as a privilege.

 
littleminx
May 11, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

so anyone else who does not read the bible does not have morals....or good morals!!!!

...wow, what an intelligent assumption! Please enlighten me...with the morals that you can ONLY get by reading the bible....?????

Where as a 12 year old is young and immature a grown up gay or not is fully mature and knows life through experience. You can't compare a 12 year old crush with actual LOVE...the kind that you would die without.

STOP worrying about what other people do......My mom always asked me "How does that affect your life? ...if it doesn't then why worry about it?"

...mind your own business....How is a gay marriage going to devastate you little house with a white picket fence and your 12 year old daughter playing on the drive way......IT NOT....so stop trying to make others live their life according to your ideas!!

 
littleminx
May 11, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

As a nation your personal beliefs are your own.....as long as they don't harm another individual then you are doing NOTHING wrong.

If i wanted to pluck grass in stick it up my ass because it made me happy.....I AM allowed to do it....WHY? because I am not harming another person nor am i restricting another person's happiness.....

 
thoughtcriminal
May 12, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: obviouschild Show

I think we might be getting a bit off track, but I'll at least address the issues you raised. Sperm and eggs both have the same amount of nuclear DNA, except of course for the fact that Y chromosomes are smaller than X chromosomes, and only sperm can have Y chromosomes. However, eggs contribute all of the mitochondria, hence all the mitochondrial DNA, to what may become a baby. You might be thinking of that, or of the fact that certain genes on the chromosome from one parent may be deactivated and therefore not expressed.

I think that it would be cool if same-sex couples could have children who were biologically related to both parents, and I suspect it's only a matter of time (particularly for female couples). Until then, one of the consequences of same-sex marriage will be that it's harder for adoption agencies to discriminte against gays. This is already the case in Mass.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 12, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

Imagine if you got married in one state, then crossed the border with your spouse and were told that your marriage doesn't count. That's what happens with civil unions. Marriages, on the other hand, are portable.

 
verya
May 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

Actually, that's not always why people get married.

You marry someone because you love them and WANT TO SPEND THE REST OF YOUR LIVES TOGETHER. Children aren't a requirement, sex isn't even a requirement - it's a bonding and a partnership.

Who can and can't produce children is irrelevant... it's all about who can fall in love, and everyone can, gay or not.

 
unlabled00
May 14, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

As am I, I don't see why theres so much flak coming our way. I suppose its the preconceived notion that because we are on the 'wrong' side that we are anti-homosexual debaters

 
verya
May 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

No, but we certainly don't base them on the Bible! Who gets married should depend on who is in love. If two people are in love, you are no one to stop them from being married!

 
frankiej4189
May 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

Hey thanks man. I'll be happy to clear anything up for you.

 
frankiej4189
May 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

But for saying that you're assuming that the only important thing in life is producing offspring with your genes. That may be true in the animal kindgom and perhaps on a basic level with human beings, but i like to think that there's more to life than just reproducing and that allows for the acceptance of things that are not directly beneficial to the human race.

I think homosexuality is abnormal but that doesn't mean it doesn't naturally occur.

 
obviouschild
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

And since when did religion decide our actual legal, contractual marriage obligations and rights in the US or any other Western country? Does Christanity bar atheists from getting married? Does Buddhism bar carnivores from getting married? Does Yezdism bar a Yezdi from marrying a non-Yezidi? No.

As you say, gays should have the same rights, but you seem to be hung up over one word. How about no state marriage and let religions for a change actually decide who they want to marry.

 
obviouschild
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

If that was true (which it patently false these days), why do we allow those who do not plan on having kids to get married?

Why do we allow women who are undergoing menopause to get married?

Why do we allow sterile people to get married?

Hint: Because marriage these days isn't about starting families that involve children.

 
andre2552
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I think the thing I hate most about anti-gay marriage people is that they are preventing, successfully in many places, something happening, where, if it did happen, it would not affect them one bit, but it takes away a lot of rights and hopes of other people. Schadenfreude.

 
obviouschild
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

But they don't. If the whole point of marriage was to produce kids, we would null marriages that did not produce children. Notice we don't. Furthermore, if the point was about kids, those incapable of producing children would be barred from marriage. They aren't. Natural state is irrelevant.

Your argument about child production is total crap looking at how marriage actually works.

Simply put, if marriage was about kids, we'd prohibit those incapable or unwilling to have children. That is obviously not the case.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

Churches should be free to perform weddings for whomever they like, so that really isn't the issue. Nor is a civil union equivalent to a marriage, so that's not a replacement.

I don't see any part of your argument that explains why the government shouldn't perform marriages or why these marriages should be denied to same-sex couples. If you do have an argument, I would be willing to listen to it.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

I'm confused. If you're fine with same-sex couples having exactly the same rights as opposite-sex couples, why don't you want to let them use the word "marriage"? Keep in mind that, unless they use that word, they can't get ALL the rights.

Also, it can't be about religion, because some religions will perform same-sex weddings while others will not, and it's entirely their choice.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

As was pointed out, by that logic, we must deny marriage to the infertile. Is this really your intent?

 
thoughtcriminal
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Marriage is not religious: a judge can perform a wedding. On the other hand, a civil union isn't just marriage by another name. Marriage has a much broader and portable set of rights associated with it. For example, if my loved one was a foreigner, I could marry them so they could stay in America, but a civil union would do nothing.

As for religion, I assure you that nobody can force a church to perform a wedding. Even now, there are plenty of perfectly legal marriages that certain churches refuse to have anything to do with. This is not going to change as same-sex marriage becomes legal in more places.

Let me help with the two word problem: it's not about "gay marriage", it's about "marriage equality", and by all means focus on the word that isn't "marriage". I see no reason why the law shouldn't treat same-sex and opposite-sex relationships equally. Do you?

 
thoughtcriminal
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Show

I think we're agreed that nobody should force churches. Happily, nobody is trying to. Let's agree to agree, and move on to the next point.

I think we're also agreed that civil unions should be equal to marriages, but they're not and they won't be. The only way marriage equality under our current system is for DOMA to be torn down. It's blatantly unconstitutional, not to mention entirely wrong, and I can only hope that it's simply a matter of time. The current domino effect bodes well, though.

Given all this, what are your remaining objections to marriage equality?

 
teachme
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

There are plenty of reasons why incest is not an acceptable practice in society...geneologically, morally, and otherwise.

There is no chance of homosexuals reproducing...and as long as they are of age and sex is concensual...they are doing no harm to anyone by having sex.

Marriage is certainly about way more than producing offspring. It is a public declaration and affirmation of a couple's love. If children are produced as a further demonstration of that love, so be it...but, not all couples who love...have the desire, ability, or wherewithall to produce children, as was mentioned.

Also, marriage is not just a religious institution (especially to those who choose to marry, who are not religious), and the common law requires no particular ceremony to validate the celebration of marriage. In fact, we are all aware that marriages need not take place in church, and the word "God" need not be mentioned.

How would you feel, if the tables were turned? Try and imagine being in love, wanting to marry, and being told it was not possible...because of who you chose to marry. Would you consider it fair that others have certain rights and privileges under the law, that you and your love are not afforded?

Why can't it just be understood that...just as we all feel it is our equal, inalienable right to vote...and to be able to vote for who we want to...it should be our equal right to marry, and be able to choose who we marry.

 
obviouschild
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

But who's religion gets to make the rules?

Paganism, Mormonism, and Islam not to mention various small religions out of Africa (well Zulu religion isn't small) allow multiple partners. Paganism of the old allowed gay handfasting. Which religion gets to dictate the traditions?

Government should not use the term marriage at all anyways. Get it out entirely and let NGOs deal with it.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: obviouschild Show

Uhm, a given sperm cell has either an X or a Y. Combining two X's or an X and a Y would be fine. For women, they only have X chromsomes, so they could only create female offspring this way.

Now, how does this justify denying marriage equality?

 
littleminx
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

If we couldn't reproduce then there wouldn't be anymore of us.

BTW, Marriage is NOT a license to reproduce....YOU can have sex and reproduce without being married...unless you feel like it goes against your morals.

 
teachme
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: obviouschild Show

If this is true...it still doesn't change the fact that marriage is not just about bearing children...and mature adults will have children inside and outside the institution of marriage.

 
verya
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: swtlilsoni Show

Incest is different because it's the child that is at stake, not the lovers. The chances of having a child with mental retardation or physical defects is greater with incest. If the couple decides not to have a child, then it may be a little weird to some people but really nothing is very wrong with it.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

No, the legal system encodes what we believe we should enforce, not what's right or wrong. There are plenty of things that are wrong but we should not have a law against, or that are right but we shouldn't try to require by law. In fact, there are even some things that are right but we ought to keep illegal.

Ultimately, we're trying to decide whether same-sex marriage should be legal, so do you have any arguments against it? My simple argument in favor is that it's fair.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: obviouschild Show

How to:
1) Use a donor egg cell after removing its nucleus (or at least emptying it out). It has mitochondria. If you want, you can also harvest mitochondria from either parent and add it to the egg.

2) Make sure that at least one of the parents is contributing an X chromosome.

3) Get the tricky epigenetic details right by methylating the right genes.

As for adoption, even one good parent is better than none, and there's no evidence that same-sex couples are worse adoptive parents than opposite-sex ones. Adoption's not ideal, of course, but it should certainly be one option.


 
verya
May 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: teachme Show

Some married couples just want to spend the rest of their lives together, and not have children - is there really something wrong with that? No!

No matter the reason - they can't financially support children, they know their children will be born crippled in some way, or they plain just don't like kids - married couples aren't required to have children and shouldn't be judged if they choose not to.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: idiminish Show

The issue isn't whether same-sex marriage IS legal. In some places it is, in others it's not. The issue is whether it OUGHT to be legal. I have seen no convincing arguments against continuing to make it legal in more places.

 
verya
May 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
What's great about the way it is now is that gay couples can go get married in a state that has it legalized, then all other states have to recognize their marriage.

 
frankiej4189
May 17, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

If he's not, i am. Being opposed to same-sex marriage doesn't mean you're afraid (phobia=fear of) of homosexuality. It could be that you just dont think homosexuality is normal and/or right and/or plenty of other things.

 
paradiselost24
Aug 22, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
10 reasons gay marriage is wrong:

1. its not natural, and if you're a real American, you reject everything unnatural like glasses, polyester, air conditioning, etc.
2. if we let people be gay, it will encourage others to be gay. i mean, when i hang out with tall people i become taller.
3. legalizing gay marriage might open the door for anybody and anything getting married. like if a guy wanted to get married to their dog, cause dogs have the same legal standing as humans; they can vote, sign legally binding contracts, etc.
4. we haven't changed marriage for so long, why start now? women are still property, blacks and whites can't get married and divorce is still illegal, so why change?
5. straight marriage will become less meaningful, think about it: something like Brittany Spears 55 hour wedding would just lose its validity, and no one wants that.
6. straight marriages are naturally more valid because they can procreate. after all, that is the only reason we get married. so gay marriages, infertile marriages, old marriages, they just don't need to happen. and its not like our orphanages are full or anything.
7. if we have gay marriages, those couples would raise gay children, and why would we want that? if you look at it, straight parents only raise straight children. the logic is sound.
8. gay marriage isn't supported by most religions, and in a theocracy like ours the values of one religion are imposed on all. that's why we only have one religion in America, so we all believe exactly the same things.
9. children will only succeed if they have a male and a female role model at home. that's the main reason why we ban single parent homes in America. we just don't let that happen.
10. gay marriage would change the foundation of society. we can never adapt to new social norms. stuff like cars, the service sector economy, longer life spans. why would we want to change and evolve? that's not what humans are.

 
vioax
Nov 13, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
There's just one thing I don't understand. And this solves all problems: Why in the hell is this listed under Zombies and not Religion? Just asking...

 
theudas
Nov 14, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

"Only because its up to a religion to decide whether or not it accepts gay marriage”

-- So a non-religous marriage is not an option? Even though a Wedding Officiant does not have to belong to an organized (or any religion), Heck a cruse ship captain could take the role or even a family member could do it (Some places will grant a permit for anyone to serve as Deputy Commissioner of Marriages for 1 day only. This provision allows a family member or friend to officiate the wedding.) There are Humanist wedding officiants that provide secular marriage ceremonies without any religious ties, which actually make the wedding more personalized as each service is personally written, and includes Humanist values of equality and respect and commitment.

If marriage was just a religious thing, then only the religious would be able to do it right? Sure, if an individual church, temple, etc does not support it they shouldn’t have to (despite the fact that there is really no good reason not to). But some religious groups, denominations, etc do support it. so that should be determined by the individual churches, temples, or what have you.

Why disallow marriage, when marriage isn’t necessarily religious ?


 
+ Add Argument

4
wrong


unlabled00
May 09, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Only because its up to a religion to decide whether or not it accepts gay marriage. I'm perfectly fine with the concept myself, but governments shouldn't be able to regulate religion. Gay couples should be able to elope or have a civil union that offer the same benefits of marriage, minus the religion. (Not that they aren't accepted by God or anything... its just that religion does as it wills....)

 

May 10, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I agree with Unlabeled00, Religion does play a HUGE role in the matter. Marriage has been and is a religious institution and doctrine. Not just Christian but any faith that respects the "union" of a man and a woman under "faith."

Civil Unions however is when the legal rights of a "married couple" become unified and a matter of one house, ie tax benefits etc. Civil Unions are the governments jb and due to the 14th amendment everyone is equal under due process of law. But the first amendment grants the freedom of the church from the interference of the state so a church can either marry a homosexual couple or deny that right, its the churches decision.

What gets on my nerves is the homosexuals who complain because they want to be married, not have a civil union but get "married." They argue over the technicality of a word. Not all, but some.

 

May 12, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

Im for marriage equality just not in the name of marriage, marriage to me is a religious term and service.

However give it another name and have it "marriage" and its fine. A rose by any other nam if you get my meaning.

Im pro-homosexual rights lol

 
thoughtcriminal
May 17, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Buy a dictionary. Homophobia is as much about "fear" as antisemitism or sexism is. They're all terms for bigotries against specific groups that have historically lacked power.

Now that we've cleared up the semantic muddle you tried to create, let's return to the point: in what way is opposition to same-sex marriage independent of bigotry against homosexuals?

 
idiminish
May 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: verya Show

While it might not be widely accepted, the Bible is, to some degree a "go-to guide for morals." It just may not be where you go to for your morals.

That aside, to adequately answer the question we would have to form a definition of right-ness. How do we determine that said action is right? This is beyond difficult since ethics is a difficult thing to establish universally without an appeal to some authority great than human beings.

Likewise, your own idea here fails. 'Love is love.' So if my 12 yr old is 'in love' with the neighbor's 11 yr old, the marriage is acceptable? I would disagree (and this doesn't even deal with the issue of gender, yet). The issue after that becomes thorny with restrictions and justifications for restrictions (and those justifications will no doubt be disputed).

 
idiminish
May 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
It also occurs to me that this debate has happened a number of times, and I think we're are not starting at the right point.

I think a more pertinent question would be, 'Is marriage a right inherent to the human being or a privilege.' That's a debate that could be truly fascinating.

With that then answered we could perhaps debate (if a right) if there is some restriction to application of such a right, or what qualifies one for the privilege, etc.

 
idiminish
May 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: verya Show

So, as a nation, we determine if something is right or wrong based on your 'personal belief'? Why should you be the one to determine a person's fitness for marriage?

As I said, now you're created restrictions (and subsequent justifications) which are very disputable. Besides the fact that love is not even necessarily tied to the concept of marriage (i.e., it's not a requirement). Your position that 'love is love' may work in a Disney movie, but it does nothing to demonstrate the rightness or wrongness of decision in a real world society or culture.

 
idiminish
May 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

*bows

Thanks for clearing that one up. In the next debate I'll move onto other abstract-issues-that-have-no-real-answer so that you can clear those up for me too. You're handy to have around.

 
swtlilsoni
May 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Whether it has to do with religion or not, it still should not be allowed. I'm not Christian or anything but I still am against gay marriage because of other reasons.

The concept of marriage is so that two people can start a family together. That is why we even get married in the first place.

Lets look at it this way. Assume it IS natural for same sex marriage. Assume it IS perfectly okay and anyone can marry whoever they want. Hmm let's look at the world shall we? A simple question pops up. Why can only males and females have children and start families? Answer anyone?

 
swtlilsoni
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Well I agree with you that there are more things in life than reproducing. But imagine a world where we don't reproduce, there wouldn't really be a reason for marriage right? If NO ONE reproduces and no one has children, people who love eachother can just be together kind of like they do in highschool.

Since we do make families and stuff, marriage is a way to deal with that.

That doesn't mean that marriage cant consist of anything else as well , it just means the idea of marriage requires that fact.

 
swtlilsoni
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Well I agree with you that there are more things in life than reproducing. But imagine a world where we don't reproduce, there wouldn't really be a reason for marriage right? If NO ONE reproduces and no one has children, people who love eachother can just be together kind of like they do in highschool.

Since we do make families and stuff, marriage is a way to deal with that.

That doesn't mean that marriage cant consist of anything else as well , it just means the idea of marriage requires that fact.

 
swtlilsoni
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: obviouschild Show

It's because these people either CAN and choose not to, or these people CAN in their natural state, but since something is physically wrong with them they cannot.

 
swtlilsoni
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: verya Show

What's wrong with incest then?

 
unlabled00
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

I'm not saying I don't want to let them use the word marriage, I'm saying most sects of Christianity are against the notion of a union between same-sex couples. Marriage, in the Christian concept, is between a man and a woman. Are you saying the government should force Churches to wed gay couples despite it being against their wishes?

"Keep in mind that, unless they use that word, they can't get ALL the rights." You are highly misinformed. They would technically be married, but would be recognized by the government as a civil union. This means they would receive the same tax benefits and what have you as a married couple, without the religion tint.

 
unlabled00
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: obviouschild Show

Religion plays a large part in this because marriage and civil unions are essentially the same thing bar one point: the religious aspect.

If governments allow same sex unions and leave it up for the different religions to decide I think that would be a perfect solution, we're in agreement about that. I AM hung up about the one word because when the debate is about "gay marriage" you only have two words to talk about :P

 

May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

um I already said Churches are free to marry whomever they like ie its the churches choice and the government can't force the church to marry a homosexual couple. Next if they aren't, which they are equal here in Va., then they should be.

 
obviouschild
May 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: teachme Show

Not quite. It has been theorized that taking genetic data from a woman, combining it with the genetic data from another woman and injecting it into a egg and then invitro could allow lesbians to produce children. It's a bad idea to do it with males as sperm carry significently less genetic information and thus combing two XY chromosomes is a probably a bad idea.

 
obviouschild
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

The issue of viability comes up. Sperm by their very nature and size contain fewer genes then eggs do. Putting the contents of two sperm together is a very iffy proposal. For instance, hair color is determined by the genes from the egg. How would a kid who was born from two sperm get its hair color genes? And that's pretty minor. The problems only go up from there. The sex of the child is quite irrelevant. The issue here is sufficent genetic material.

And I never posted it as a reason to deny anyone marriage. Merely pointing out that gays could in theory have their own biological children without sperm donors.

 
idiminish
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: littleminx Show

I didn't say that someone could only get morals from the Bible. Please reread my comment. I was only stating that the Bible does offer a guide for morals (I did not say that was exclusive).

Must then all marriage applicants be psychologically tested to ensure they are 'fully mature' and capable of maintaining such a relationship? Does immaturity nullify love? How do we determine two people are 'in love' so that we can okay them for marriage?

Note, here that I haven't voiced an opinion one way or the other. My initial posts were only intended to counter the initial point by 'verya.' I don't believe, in this context, love makes a satisfactory test for whether something is wrong or right.

 
idiminish
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: littleminx Show

Again, you are responding to a rebuttal that I offered 'verya.' It was her personal beliefs which she was using as the guide for making an ethical decision. This too fails as a means for deciding whether something is right or wrong.

Being 'allowed' or not allowed to do something doesn't make it right either, unless we judge right and wrong solely based on the legal system.

 
obviouschild
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: teachme Show

of course. Marriage today has relatively little to do with child raising. I was just pointing out that in theory, through science, gays can produce biological children without the opposite sex. There are real questions of viability, but it is a possibility.

 
obviouschild
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

While you are correct that both sperm and eggs are haploid in nature, eggs by their very nature contain more specific information, such as the example you provided. The size of the egg compared to the sperm alone is evidence. No mitochondrial DNA is death for any male-male zygote. We get a lot of DNA from our mothers that has no corresponding equivalent from our fathers. And several species are capable of no-sperm reproduction which does suggest that female-female could viably work in humans. I really don't see how male-male reproduction could produce a viable offspring. Female-female is another story though.

Some homosexuals have argued that biologically related children would produce better parents in gays as they are genetically invested in that child. As for adoption, IMO, two gay parents is better then no parents.

 
teachme
May 12, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: verya Show

Nothing is very wrong with what...a married couple not having a child?! If that is considered weird, or wrong in any way...I'd like to know where you base your judgement.

Just the notion that married couples must consider bearing children, or suffer social scrutiny, is really strange in my opinion...archaic, at best.

 
idiminish
May 13, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtcriminal Show

Actually, the question of the debate (per the title) is whether same-sex marriage is 'right or wrong.' That is a question about ethics and/or morality, not legality.

If it is a question of legality, then yes there is a least one argument for it (at least in the United States). Some states have added clauses to their constitutions which forbid the activity. Such clauses, duly arrived, are legal precedent and foundation. I'm not saying that this makes same-sex marriage right or wrong. But at least in some places it is legally questionable. The national constitution does not deal with marriage, so it would seem that states do have their own rights in the matter.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: verya Show

Uhm, actually, DOMA prevents this. The federal DOMA denies federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and those states which have their own DOMA's likewise deny recognition. This is why DOMA is immoral, unconstitutional and doomed.

 
thoughtcriminal
May 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Wait, are you suggesting that opposition to same-sex marriage isn't connected to homophobia?

 
swtlilsoni
May 17, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: verya Show

oh really? what ever happened to marriage isnt about children, its about being with someone you love? if marriage isnt related to having children in anyway, problems arising from having children shouldnt be related to marriage, and shouldnt be stopping it from happening right?

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

Zombie zombies