Do you support gay marriage?
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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?
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.
evolutioniscrushed forfeited this round.
I extend my arguments, as Con has forfeited.
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!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ian159 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.