CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:19
Arguments:9
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Why gay couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt (11)

Debate Creator

Swashbuckler(62) pic



Why gay couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt

I'd say that the state is completely justified in not allowing gay marriage or adoption for a variety of reasons:

1. Legal marriage benefits are not an 'entitlement', they're intended to benefit the society by encouraging the healthy raising of children. Since gay marriages or unions don't naturally result in children then there's no state incentive to allow them.

2. There is also no reason to allow same sex couples to raise or adopt children, since much evidence in psychology and social sciences shows this to be a biologically unnatural environment which could contribute negatively to the child's upbringing, therefore stable man and woman unions should always be favored over homosexual unions.

3. Whether or not 'feeling homosexual desires' is a choice, it is still a choice to engage in homosexual activity or relationships. Just as "feeling hungry" isn't a choice, but going to McDonald's and buying a Big Mac is a choice. Therefore nothing is stopping anyone from marrying someone of the same sex if they want to marry.

4. Likewise there is very little if any strong evidence that homosexuality is biologically hardwired or 'immutable' from birth like race is, and quite a bit of medical and scientific evidence that it is influenced by environment and may change over time.

5. Homosexual unions of course tend to be more prone to spreading STDs, instability, drug addiction, and other negative tangential effects. Therefore this provides further incentive for the state not to openly encourage them. Likewise homosexual pedophiles seem to molest little boys at extremely high rates compared to straight pedophiles.

6. The main motive behind the "LGBT" movement was simply to gain political influence and acceptance by getting the state to declare gay unions "official marriages". It was not about "love", or "children", or anything of that nature. Since of course homosexuals have a legal right to enter relationships, and have unofficial weddings if they wish regardless of whether or not they can legally marry 'on the books'. The gay marriage movement was primarily just politically-motivated rather than about "rights".
Add New Argument
3 points

How ridiculous. You would rather children stay in a adoption agency and move from foster home to foster home instead of finding a family that would love and care for them...but OH NO it's a gay couple? There are hundreds of thousands of children out there who want a home and a loving family, you try telling them that they can't go to the couple that wants them because it's two ladies or two men.

It's irritating when people try to use their religion or ridiculous notions to force others into unhappiness.

Swashbuckler(62) Disputed
1 point

I believe most children would be happier in foster care than with a gay couple, and that a guy couple would very rarely if ever be capable of actual love and care for them.

The best solution to overcrowded foster care would be to punish those who procreate irresponsibly, not pretend that gay couples who are less than 3% of the population would play any significant role in this.

Mint_tea(4641) Disputed
1 point

You "believe"? Really? You believe most children would forgo a happy, loving home with two people who would be loving parents all because those two people are the same gender? Have you spoken to children in foster homes to support such a statement?

My Mother-in-law works for Social Services including child placement in foster homes, and my mother was a pediatric nurse for years before working with military families and the spouses and/or children who lost their parent or parents. Big deal you may say. But I know for sure that statement of yours is full of grade A crap. Most of those children want a home, want the security of two loving parents or even just one loving parent, and want to belong. Most of them wouldn't give a rats ass if that home was provided by a loving gay couple or a loving heterosexual couple, so long as it was loving.

2 points

Don't you think we have enough fake Christian trolls already? Are you really adding anything to the community?

I dont think Christians should be allowed to adopt. After all if God wanted them to have children they wouldnt be sterile....

Swashbuckler(62) Disputed
1 point

God ideally does not want people to have children, having children is more of a necessary ill than a good. But the highest state of spiritual development of man would be a sage or ascetic who would live in full reliance of the material world and spend their time in meditation in the presence of God.

1. Legal marriage benefits are not an 'entitlement', they're intended to benefit the society by encouraging the healthy raising of children. Since gay marriages or unions don't naturally result in children then there's no state incentive to allow them.

So infertile couples should also not be allowed to marry? I assume you argue this just as vehemently when you are choosing issues to address.

2. There is also no reason to allow same sex couples to raise or adopt children, since much evidence in psychology and social sciences shows this to be a biologically unnatural environment which could contribute negatively to the child's upbringing, therefore stable man and woman unions should always be favored over homosexual unions.

No, there isn't much evidence of that at all, and if there is, please provide it.

Also, I assume you don't want to allow single parents to adopt? I assume you argue this just as vehemently when you are choosing issues to address.

3. Whether or not 'feeling homosexual desires' is a choice, it is still a choice to engage in homosexual activity or relationships. Just as "feeling hungry" isn't a choice, but going to McDonald's and buying a Big Mac is a choice. Therefore nothing is stopping anyone from marrying someone of the same sex if they want to marry.

The point is that they don't want to marry those people. Why is that even a factor to you?

4. Likewise there is very little if any strong evidence that homosexuality is biologically hardwired or 'immutable' from birth like race is, and quite a bit of medical and scientific evidence that it is influenced by environment and may change over time.

Have you ever talked with a gay person before? Again, please provide your sources.

5. Homosexual unions of course tend to be more prone to spreading STDs, instability, drug addiction, and other negative tangential effects. Therefore this provides further incentive for the state not to openly encourage them. Likewise homosexual pedophiles seem to molest little boys at extremely high rates compared to straight pedophiles.

Homosexual unions actually aren't more prone to spreading STDs, that's true of unsafe or promiscuous sex. You're going to have to provide some evidence to suggest that homosexuality is linked with instability, drug addiction, and other negative tangential effects. You seem to suggest that this is obvious, but it isn't obvious to me so perhaps you can elaborate.

And in regards to 'homosexual pedophiles seem to molest little boys at extremely high rates compared to straight pedophiles,' again, please provide some evidence. Your perception isn't evidence.

6. The main motive behind the "LGBT" movement was simply to gain political influence and acceptance by getting the state to declare gay unions "official marriages". It was not about "love", or "children", or anything of that nature. Since of course homosexuals have a legal right to enter relationships, and have unofficial weddings if they wish regardless of whether or not they can legally marry 'on the books'. The gay marriage movement was primarily just politically-motivated rather than about "rights".

I don't know how you prove this. But yeah, that was kind of their argument. They feel cheated out of political and social benefits for the sole purpose of who they are, not because they are hurting anyone. Why is that an argument to deny them that equality?