The Instigator
evolutioniscrushed
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EmilyMemmi
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Do you support gay marriage?

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 1 vote the winner is...
EmilyMemmi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,274 times Debate No: 74628
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

evolutioniscrushed

Con

I strongly disagree with gay marriage. God didn't create Adam and Steve, but Adam and Eve. Besides, gay marriages don't give any birth possibilities, therefore, it is a sin.
EmilyMemmi

Pro

God created a man and a woman so they could reproduce, but not because he didn't want there to never be another pairing. And gay people don't reproduce, instead they help take care of the thousands of orphans up for adoption that STRAIGHT people abonndoned for other people to care for.
Debate Round No. 1
evolutioniscrushed

Con

But if God created man and woman to be together, and not man and man, or woman and woman, so I think that we should do likewise, man and woman.
EmilyMemmi

Pro

If he had to create them like that, so be it. There's nothing wrong with being gay. Do you have any other points other than quoting the bible?
Debate Round No. 2
evolutioniscrushed

Con

Without quoting the Bible, I must tell you that: Gay Marriage is really not marriage at all, but a naturally sterile union with no connections with family. Gay marriage also violates natural law, and if you say that it's okay, then why wasn't it approved earlier? The answer: Because it was, is, and will be morally wrong! In the past, people were more smart and decisive, that's why they didn't approve gay marriage to be legal.
EmilyMemmi

Pro

You again have no sources and are just making claims! The definition of marriage is "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." (1) This clearly includes gay people!

I'm unfortunatly not exactly sure what you mean by "natural law" (lack of citations/definitions/explanations), but I can say one thing. You cannot say it is morally wrong, and I cannot say it is morally right. It is our duty to prove that claim, not continue to say it and expect you to win you the debate.

(1)- https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
evolutioniscrushed

Con

evolutioniscrushed forfeited this round.
EmilyMemmi

Pro

I extend my arguments, as Con has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 4
evolutioniscrushed

Con

I don't give up, I know that as long as you keep on trying to prove nothing, I'll always be right.
EmilyMemmi

Pro

I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but I know that it is not a closing argument!!

While voting, remember that Con has not proven that of their points were valid, or that my points were invalid. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PegasisterDebate 1 year ago
PegasisterDebate
Silly, silly, silly. Con is clearly losing, he shows too much ego, he uses opinion, not fact. He's the evolution of homophobic scum. If they want to be gay, SO BE IT! Does it matter? NO. As long as they themselves are happy, then that's it. I have no experience from homophobes, considering that I'm straight. But I feel offended if you talk like gays are the gum on your new Nikes. Con lost fair and square.
Posted by Seattle 1 year ago
Seattle
Gay rights have been around for a short time now, but I feel it is one of the topics that get the most attention, and I just want to point a few things out.
Con, you are correct, gay rights go against many religions including Christianity (I am a Christian myself, and I applaud you for using your religion as a point), but Pro is also correct. If all men are created equal, then the gay marriage topic needed to be addressed, but I feel, Con, we both can agree that it should have been handled in a more fair way.
Pro, you were right to say that if people want to do what makes them happy, they should be able to do it without effecting other peoples' happiness, but this is where the problem comes in: the government seems to be shutting out Christians' and others' opinions entirely. The gay rights have made many people uncomfortable, and offended many more. So what do those people do? They protest and say the states should have voted with a majority election. What is the government going to do now? There was no state election and it's too late to change things so they shut out people's opinions, especially Christian's opinions. The first amendment for the USA is freedom of religion speech and press, but people are now quieting some religions. So, although you do have a point by saying we should do what makes us happy, you should notice that multiple rules are being broken for the sake of one rule, and this angers people.

Now I do have advice for both you. This is a very opinionated debate, so it is hard to find solid evidence on this debate, but your only evidence was your religions and opinions. It's okay to use that once or twice, but it shouldn't be your only supporting evidence. Making fun of and picking on your opponent also makes you look unprepared and like you don't have anything better to say. This will not help you whatsoever in debate. The best thing to do in a new round is come up with an argument against what was said, and then your new point. Try that ne
Posted by EmilyMemmi 1 year ago
EmilyMemmi
Exactly! Thank you, @jertsujou!
Posted by jertsujou 1 year ago
jertsujou
People should always remember to look further than their own religion when debating about gay marriage. Iam christian, but I still support it. If two people love eachother, they should be allowed to marry eachother. It doesn't matter what your religion states about being gay.
Posted by 3rd_eyed_doll 1 year ago
3rd_eyed_doll
Oh course I support it. If someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, I say let them. At the end of the day, it's not affecting my pay check in any way shape or form, so why should I care. If someone wants to get married to a material item, then they should be able to. Why say "I don't support same sex marriage" based off of your personal beliefs?
Posted by IllinoisanLibertarian 1 year ago
IllinoisanLibertarian
If you're going to argue solely from the religious aspect of this debate, go to the religion section next time.
Posted by IllinoisanLibertarian 1 year ago
IllinoisanLibertarian
If you're going to argue solely from the religious aspect of this debate, go to the religion section next time.
Posted by mrembert44 1 year ago
mrembert44
I think that as long as he is getting his information from some place it's good, whether it is the bible or not. The other guy that is for gay marriage is just whining if he doesn't have anything to back himself up, getting information from the bible is better than getting information from no where at all.
Posted by EmilyMemmi 1 year ago
EmilyMemmi
That's your opinion. No need to impose it on others.
Posted by Himans45 1 year ago
Himans45
You're making you claims based on a fictitious book. "God" didn't make anyone, as he doesn't exist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ian159 1 year ago
Ian159
evolutioniscrushedEmilyMemmiTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 had no sources for argument. Con's argument included many fallacies, including the naturalistic fallacy. Grammar was atrocious on con's part. Con also implied that naturally sterile marriage (those of elderly people as well as hay couples) are inherintly sinfull. I never read anything in the bible that said sterile unions are sinful. Con almost implies that marriages between people who have fertility problems and elderly couples are wrong. Con also used the argument that it is against morality. Morality is a difficult point to prove, and con provided no information to back up that point. Pro's argument was much more developed and included a few adequate sources. Also, the argument that if gay marriage is right, then why wasn't it approved earlier is an awful argument. Interracial marriages were once seen as sinful, but they aren't anymore.