The Instigator
sydnerella
Pro (for)
Winning
1085 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Con (against)
Losing
1082 Points

Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+130
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 130,641 times Debate No: 6635
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (630)
Votes (394)

 

sydnerella

Pro

Gays should be allowed to marry partners of their choice just as heterosexual couples do. It is ignorant in today's world to deny such a basic right to an individual because of something that is innate. Yes, sexuality is not a choice, it is innate.

For my first point, let me state that a civil union is not a reasonable compromise for a legal marriage. Most civil unions don't have the same rights as a legal marriage has. Even if we made all civil unions exactly equal to legal marriage but called it something else, it wouldn't be enough. The concept of "separate but equal" has already failed. Segregation is not a solution when it comes to rights. History has proven this.

Secondly, where is the benefit of oppressing gays from marrying? Religion isn't an answer. Religion is the excuse. Those who claim it is immoral are really just ignorant and foolish. In the case of Christianity, the bible states to do unto others what you would like done onto you. How would a heterosexual couple like it if it were them in the position of such oppression?
InquireTruth

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for being willing to debate said topic.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

Gay marriage should NOT be legal for the following reasons:

1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages (1). Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages.

2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality.
To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities.

3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights.

4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty?

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

Now in response to my opponent's assertions:

"let me state that a civil union is not a reasonable compromise for a legal marriage."

Indeed, it is not a compromise at all. Both homosexuals AND heterosexuals have equal rights to marriage and civil unions.
-----
"The concept of ‘separate but equal' has already failed. Segregation is not a solution when it comes to rights. History has proven this."

To begin with, as was evidenced with proposition 8 in California, gay marriage is not a civil right. Also, there is absolutely no analogous connection between segregation and gay marriage. Homosexuals are given the exact same rights as everybody else – and they are most definitely not separated.
-----
"Secondly, where is the benefit of oppressing gays from marrying?"

Nobody is being oppressed. There are, however, plenty of negative repercussions. School sex-education programs would have to be entirely revamped to support equal say; it opens doors to polygamy and other such sexual aberrations; it is contra-popular vote.

What are the benefits? They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need marriage to be happy, comfortable, and free.
-----
"Those who claim it is immoral are really just ignorant and foolish."

Everybody is ignorant of something, but it is not my ignorance and foolishness that you should be concerned with. Who are you to claim proprietary rights to what IS and IS NOT moral? How are you defining morality and by what objective source is it obtained? What makes your moral standards obligatory and trumping? It may very well be immoral, but it is a bad idea irrespective of morality.
-----
"In the case of Christianity, the bible states to do unto others what you would like done onto you"

And I would be quite thankful to the chap that informed me that my actions were in moral error. Are you willing to use the entire source in which the above quote is derived? If you are not willing, then do not use it as part of your argument – because as you will surely find, it is not your position that it supports.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

Conclusion:
My opponent has given no practical benefits for same-sex marriages. She has failed to show that homosexuals are not receiving equal rights. She finds no moral compunction in unilaterally trumping the popular vote of US citizens and permitting same-sex marriages – this is against the ideals of our nation. She calls homosexuality innate without proving it as such. She apparently lays claim to an unspecified moral objective that is both binding and obligatory. She calls me foolish and ignorant – and to this I can only chuckle.

I look forward to my opponent's response

Inquiretruth

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

Sources:
1. http://www.quinnipiac.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
sydnerella

Pro

And I am thankful for your willingness to debate this topic with me. =)
My opponent asserts that the passage of a law protecting homosexual marriage rights is against our nation's ideals in that it would disregard the popular vote. I will admit that I have disregarded the popular vote, but I have not disregarded our national ideals. What of equality? Is that not a national ideal? It was not popular to abolish slavery, but should we think that the abolitionists were wrong to reject the popular prejudice of their time when it conflicted the ideal of equality? I would think not. I fight for equality in this case, and I am willing to be unpopular and right rather than popular and wrong.
He goes on to state that there is a logic to assuming that homosexuality is a perversion and asserts that there is no science behind the claim of innate homosexuality.
I'll get to my science in a bit, and I assure you I have plenty of it. However, I must first address the lack of common sense in the conclusion that one chooses to be gay. Why would one choose to be gay if being gay means to be hated, feared, and judged by so many? Why choose a life of less rights, social isolation, and condemnation?
Now my science. Science has found evidence that when a mother gives birth to multiple males, each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33% for the younger ones (Blanchard and Klassen, 1997)(1). In order to explain such a finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses set off a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus. Each successive male fetus is attacked by H-Y antibodies which have been blamed for decreasing the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual part in masculinity of the brain in males (1).
The notion that defending homosexuals rights due to the innateness of their sexual orientation somehow implies the call for sexual freedom to molest children and animals is absurd and irrelevant. I don't dispute the laws preventing pedophiles from molesting children. The rights of the children are violated. There is no legal consent that a child can give to a pedophile. In zoophilia, the animal is incapable of giving consent as well. What my opponent does make clear, however, is his attempt to use fear as a way of promoting the belief that homosexuality is a perversion. If there were any logic behind such a view, wouldn't countries such as Denmark already had those issues? Gay marriage has been legal there since 1987. There has been no push for any legalization of pedagogic, polygamist, etc. relations in Denmark, and no such legalization exists. Also, to provide the practical benefits of legalizing gay marriage that my opponent has asked for, Denmark has seen a reduction in the spread of STDs, promiscuity, and infidelity among gays since legalizing gay marriage. The suicide rate has also been reduced.
The view that gays are equal is not valid. They are denied marriage and all of the legal benefits it brings. In most states, homosexuals do not have the right to make medical decisions for their partners in case of emergency. I'll also take this time to disprove the implication of polygamy when discussing the rights of homosexuals to marry. Polygamy is taking advantage of the legal benefits provided by marriage. When and if a homosexual is allowed to marry, it is still against the law for them to stray against monogamy. That would not change.
...
Let's examine some more specific statements my opponent has made.
"To begin with, as was evidenced with proposition 8 in California, gay marriage is not a civil right."
Actually, it is. When ninety percent of us have the right to marry the adult of our choice and ten percent is not, there is a clear violation of a civil right.
"Also, there is absolutely no analogous connection between segregation and gay marriage."
I never debated that there was. What I did say about segregation was in relation to a civil union.
"There are, however, plenty of negative repercussions. School sex-education programs would have to be entirely revamped to support equal say..."
Well I'd support the revamping of sex-education in our schools. Gay and lesbian youth make up a whopping thirty percent of suicides among adolescents (2). They also make up a quarter of homeless youth, and twenty eight percent are forced to drop out of school due to their sexuality (2). As shown by organizations that include Focus on the Family (3), too much misinformation concerning sexual health of gays is because society refuses to be tolerant of homosexuality. If heterosexual reproductive health is all that is provided, you are alienating and confusing a homosexual child. Some devotion of time should be allotted to homosexual education as well.
"They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need marriage to be happy, comfortable, and free."
My opponent does not make a valid point. Many homosexuals would be happier with a legal marriage. Think of religious homosexuals. Think of the benefits and legal protections marriage extends. The fact that gay couples aren't permitted to marry when heterosexuals are is hypocritical, unethical, and against freedom. I'll also say that to assert that it is okay to give homosexuals the same rights of marriage as long it's not called marriage is subscribing to segregation.
"Who are you to claim proprietary rights to what IS and IS NOT moral?"
I have an uncle who was beat with metal pipes because he is gay. I have a lesbian aunt whose scholarship was taken from her when the headmaster of her college found out she was gay. A friend of mine has suffered much emotional abuse at the hands of his mother because she does not approve of homosexuality, even though she doesn't understand it. I go to a school where homophobia is written on the walls, shouted out on buses, and ingrained in the minds and language of the students. Whether or not you think I have no right to claim that its ignorant to deny homosexual marriages and rights, I would be surprised to find if you had a better grasp on that than me. Maybe you don't believe in what I believe in, but it doesn't mean I will stop fighting for it. I have seen too much hate and lies in the homophobic culture to believe they have any valid excuse for it.
"Are you willing to use the entire source in which the above quote is derived? If you are not willing, then do not use it as part of your argument – because as you will surely find, it is not your position that it supports."
Certainly.
'And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.' (Luke 6 v31).
I am curious to see the reasoning behind the claim that this passage does not support my position.
...
In closing for my end of round two, I will thank my opponent again his participation. I am eager to hear what he has to say for round two, and I am glad to have such a worthy opponent to debate. =)
...
Sources&References:
(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2) http://www.socal-glide.org...
(3) http://www.citizenlink.org...
InquireTruth

Con

For the sake of clarity, I will try and distill my opponent's points into numerical categories. I would also like to ask my opponent to do this in her following round – for both the readers and my own sake.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

1. In regard to the popular vote

My opponent asserts that the popular vote does not matter. But one may wonder, is it important that laws be passed in accordance with the will of the people? She may do well to remember the reason our nation even exists. Taxation without representation was against the will of the people and subsequently led to a fight for independence. I am not suggesting that such laws would cause a revolution, but it would violate the ideals of this nation and inevitably cause civil unrest. Laws are not passed needlessly and in accordance to the moral whims of teenage girls. Only 35% of the population agrees with gay marriage. Since the consensus is an overwhelming NO to gay marriage, we should not permit it. Since permitting gay marriage would require circumventing our current legal system, I emphatically denounce the proposition that it should be allowed.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

2. Homosexuality is innate

My opponent insists that homosexuality is not chosen. That is fine; I never suggested that it was. However, there is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is innate. Correlation is not evidence – if it were, we would be blaming the decrease of pirates for recent climate trends. So a good note before my opponent embarks on more science research, correlation is not causation. We are not talking about hypotheses, I can make one of those. This "study" also says nothing in regards to lesbianism.

But again, let us imagine for a moment that my opponent is correct, that homosexuality IS innate. If the very fact that one was born with particular proclivities made those proclivities a basic right, we would be in chaos. My opponent's logic leads us to accept pedophilia and zoophilia as legitimate rights – they are innate after all.

Furthermore, both children AND animals are able to give consent. Children consent all the time. Indeed, a child's consent is necessary if they are to be adopted (ages ten and up). Many acts of bestiality are performed by male animals – consent is obvious in these cases. The female dolphin however, will actually approach you and, if she likes you, will expose her belly to let you know she is consenting.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

3. The argument from equality

My opponent suggests that gays do not have the right to marry. This is completely wrong. Indeed they have the exact same right that I have to marry. I am not permitted to have multiple wives, just like a wannabe polygamous is not permitted to have multiple wives. I cannot marry a man, nor can someone who wants to marry a man. I cannot have sex with an animal (at least in my particular province), just like a zoophile cannot. I cannot have sex with children, and neither can a pedophile.

This IS the definition of equal.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

4. Polygamy and Polyandry

My opponent insists that polygamy and polyandry takes advantage of the legal benefits of marriage? But wait a minute, if we are going to permit the right to marry a person of the same sex, on what logical grounds do we bar 3 consenting individuals from marrying. Heterosexuals take advantage of the legal advantages of marriages, and no doubt homosexuals would as well. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that most polygamists would not get married unless their intentions were genuine.

My opponent says that it would be illegal for them to "stray against the law" and aberrate from monogamy. But It is not legal for homosexuals to get married, so why in this case is it permitted to "stray against the law." Indeed, if we are going to ratify legislation to permit homosexual marriages, what logical reasons do we have for not expunging laws that prohibit faithful polygamists from marrying?

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

Responses:

1. What about Denmark?

First of all, Denmark has Legal civil partnerships, and they have been allowed since 1989. Since this is not an accurate example of gay marriage I will let my opponent try again. But my opponent should be informed that if we follow her reasoning to its logical conclusion, polygamy, pedophilia, and zoophilia are basic human rights as well.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

2. What about the benefits

My opponent says that limiting promiscuity and infidelity are among the benefits of gay marriage. But such trivial benefits do not trump the consequences. For instance, we could acquire the same results by mandating chastity belts and straight-jacketing the suicidal. But this is neither right nor warranted. Wrong things with benefits are still wrong.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

3. Argument from personal experience

My opponent insists that she has a moral vantage point given her experience with suffering. Let me say this: my fellow brothers and sisters as we speak are being imprisoned, tortured, and martyred because they are Christian. This is happening in China, Laos, North Korea, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam, all over Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. I hold dearly to the accounts of their persecution. I am aware of suffering and what it looks like. It is wrong. It is wrong to be cruel to a fellow human for any reason. The things you mentioned were wrong, no qualms about it. But we are talking about the legality of gay-marriage. We should not verbally abuse and discriminate someone because they are homosexual, but we should not do this to a pedophile either. We cannot say however, that their sexual tendencies give them rights.

.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?.;'*^?

Specific Responses:

"Actually, it is. When ninety percent of us have the right to marry the adult of our choice and ten percent is not, there is a clear violation of a civil right."

Actually, it is not. 100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex.
- - - - -
"Well I'd support the revamping of sex-education in our schools. Gay and lesbian youth make up a whopping thirty percent of suicides among adolescents (2). They also make up a quarter of homeless youth, and twenty eight percent are forced to drop out of school due to their sexuality (2)."

If Christians want to teach their kids Christian ethics and values, they send them to a private school. Public school education should reflect the view that is congenial to the masses and consistent with popular opinion. Such a revamping of education would be against the will of the people, and would indoctrinate children with minority propaganda.
- - - - -
"My opponent does not make a valid point. Many homosexuals would be happier with a legal marriage."

So would a polygamist.
- - - - -
"I am curious to see the reasoning behind the claim that this passage does not support my position."

This moral edict has limitations, and it was never meant to be all encompassing. If I wanted to kill myself, would I be in the moral okay to kill another person? This edict is trying to emphasize that we ought to love one another and treat them rightly – at times this means correcting them where they error.

The Bible categorically states that homosexuality is wrong. The ONLY given relationship is between a man and woman.

Conclusion:
I would like to thank my opponent for arguments and I look forward to even more challenging ones in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
sydnerella

Pro

Will do. =)

1. Popular Vote vs. Equality:
To clarify, I never stated that the popular vote is meaningless. I merely stated that there is an exception that cannot be forgotten nor ignored. Take the civil war, for example. The events that led to such a "civil unrest" were similar in that the majority was in direct conflict with the idea of equality. Although my opponent fears for an "inevitable" chaos following the legalization of gay marriage, there is a more subtle chaos at work as things are now. The popular sentiment clashes with the core value of equality. The civil war demonstrated the struggle between the two ideals. Take, for example, the following quotes.

>>>The Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession said that the non-slave-holding states were "proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color", and that the African race "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race".<<< (1).

Abraham Lincoln, 1855:
>>>As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics."<<< (2).

Although the oppressed demographic was different then than it is now, the same basic idea applies. So was it wrong to abolish slavery? Of course it wasn't.

2. Definition of Equality:

My opponent states that the definition of equality is uniformity. However, this is only one take on the definition of equality. Equal opportunity is not so static as to deny others the lifestyle of their choice. I define equality as a complex consideration of ability, situation, etc. It's not fair to deny someone something because they aren't exactly like you.

3. Homosexuality is innate:

I have seen any logical reasoning on my opponent's side to say that it isn't. The fact that such a "correlation" exists just lends support to my argument. Thus, it is not immaterial to this debate.

4. Children and animals CANNOT give consent:

First off, children and animals both lack the cognitive abilities to give legal consent when it comes to marriage. Particularly in the case of animals, seeing as my opponent confuses instinct with consent. Homosexual marriage is between two consenting adults.

5. Polygamy and Polyandry:

There is a reason that polygamy is not allowed besides that it would "re-define" marriage. One person cannot collect insurance benefits from multiple spouses. That is a blatant cheating of the law. Again, legalizing homosexual marriage would still require monogamy.

6. Education:

We have already indoctrinated our youth and society with homophobic propaganda.

Conclusion:

Gay marriage is an extremely important issue in society today. Homophobia and anti-gay violence is a common and remarkable occurrence. The grounds of denial of consenting and monogamous individuals are littered with hypocrisy, fear, and inequality.

America should no longer allow such grounds and stick to the value of true equality.

I thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. =)

Sources:
(1) - http://www2.tsl.state.tx.us...
(2) - The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 323.
InquireTruth

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate. She turned out to be quite the opponent.

1.Popular Vote vs. Equality

In order for this to be true my opponent would have needed to substantiate that there was inequality. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal rights. Every person has the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. We HAVE equal protection under the law. I am not permitted to have multiple wives, just like a wannabe polygamous is not permitted to have multiple wives. I cannot marry a man, nor can someone who wants to marry a man. I cannot have sex with an animal (at least in my particular province), just like a zoophile cannot. I cannot have sex with children, and neither can a pedophile.

This IS the definition of equal.

My opponent is comparing gay marriage to African American rights. This is not analogous and therefore irrelevant. Homosexuality is not innate, but research tends to agree that homosexuality is a learned behavior (1).

Gay marriage should not be nationally imposed because it would have to circumvent our current legal system in order to do so.

2.Definition of equality

My opponent's definition of equality is not a recognized definition of equal and is logically unstable. She insists that we cannot "deny someone something because they aren't exactly like [me]." Such a definition insists that we grant all things to all people – as we will find that no two people are alike.

Our current marriage laws are equal in terms of rights. Every individual as the exact same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex.

3.Homosexuality is innate

So my opponent's presumption is that because she has seen no evidence to the contrary, that the weak and untenable correlation should be presumed as proof? Would my opponent similarly expect, if no evidence to the contrary has yet been displayed, that climate change is the result of a decrease in pirates? I certainly expect not. No current research comes close to supplying evidence to substantiate the claim (2). The source she gave only supplies a weak correlation and does not account for lesbianism. If indeed homosexuality was innate, it is quite strange that there would be ex-homosexuals(3).

4.Children and Animals cannot give consent

You are using the law (of contractual consent) to unquestionably condemn some issues (pedophilia and zoophilia), yet you are condemning the law on other issues (its non-allowance of gay marriage). Where is the warrant for age of consent? Children ARE capable of giving consent – and very often do (adoptions for instance). You call my equivocation abhorrent without proving it as such. Male animals can give consent – and many female animals (the female dolphin for instance) will give signals of consent when they are ready to mate (4).

5.Polygamy and Polyandry
My opponent suggests that it would be a blatant cheating of the law to allow 3 or 4 consenting individuals, who deeply love one another, to marry. But it is apparently no cheating of the law to completely circumvent our legal system to establish nationally recognized gay marriage. Can we not change tax laws in regards to individuals with multiple spouses – that does not seem too hard. Not allowing polygamy and polyandry spits in the face of my opponent's definition of equality.

6.Education

My opponent does not care that schools would be forced to revamp education in order to support a lifestyle that is against the will of the people. My opponent believes that teaching students that a relationship between a man and a woman – a biologically and anatomically attested match – is homophobic propaganda. Now if she was told, a few days from now, that schools have decided to teach and support pedophilia (but they took the stand of affirming that the child must be of at least age 10), would she not rightly be angry? Angry because she feels it to be wrong and because the majority of other people feel it to be wrong, but, in spite of it all, they went along and did it anyway? I would be angry too.

Conclusion:

I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate.

InquireTruth

Sources:
1. http://www.cwfa.org...:
2. IBID
3. http://www.freerepublic.com...
4. http://www.sexwork.com...
Debate Round No. 3
630 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
RFD

The Burden of Proof is shared as both sides can argue. Few of Pro's arguments was that they have a choice to marry anyone, and the second was wha is the benefit of oppressing gay marriage. Con rebuts "Nobody is being oppressed. There are, however, plenty of negative repercussions. School sex-education programs would have to be entirely revamped to support equal say; it opens doors to polygamy and other such sexual aberrations; it is contra-popular vote." Con fails to rebut the argument about having the choice to marry anyone. Few of Con's arguments was that many people do not want same sex marriage so there is no reason to permit it, you won't be popular if you, and marriage will lose purpose and meaning. Pro rebuts this by saying that he will rather be unpopular, then popular but being wrong. Pro rebuts all the other arguments. Outcome: In Pro's side I have the liberty of choice, and it con's side I have marriage losing purpose and meaning. Because liberty of choice is more powerful then no purpose of marrying, Ergo, I vote for Pro.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
RFD

The Burden of Proof is shared as both sides can argue. Few of Pro's arguments was that they have a choice to marry anyone, and the second was wha is the benefit of oppressing gay marriage. Con rebuts "Nobody is being oppressed. There are, however, plenty of negative repercussions. School sex-education programs would have to be entirely revamped to support equal say; it opens doors to polygamy and other such sexual aberrations; it is contra-popular vote." Con fails to rebut the argument about having the choice to marry anyone. Few of Con's arguments was that many people do not want same sex marriage so there is no reason to permit it, you won't be popular if you, and marriage will lose purpose and meaning. Pro rebuts this by saying that he will rather be unpopular, then popular but being wrong. Pro rebuts all the other arguments. Outcome: In Pro's side I have the liberty of choice, and it con's side I have marriage losing purpose and meaning. Because liberty of choice is more powerful then no purpose of marrying, Ergo, I vote for Pro.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
RFD

The Burden of Proof is shared as both sides can argue. Few of Pro's arguments was that they have a choice to marry anyone, and the second was wha is the benefit of oppressing gay marriage. Con rebuts "Nobody is being oppressed. There are, however, plenty of negative repercussions. School sex-education programs would have to be entirely revamped to support equal say; it opens doors to polygamy and other such sexual aberrations; it is contra-popular vote." Con fails to rebut the argument about having the choice to marry anyone. Few of Con's arguments was that many people do not want same sex marriage so there is no reason to permit it, you won't be popular if you, and marriage will lose purpose and meaning. Pro rebuts this by saying that he will rather be unpopular, then popular but being wrong. Pro rebuts all the other arguments. Outcome: In Pro's side I have the liberty of choice, and it con's side I have marriage losing purpose and meaning. Because liberty of choice is more powerful then no purpose of marrying, Ergo, I vote for Pro.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
NEVER!!!!!! nac
Posted by bananaedmonkey 1 year ago
bananaedmonkey
when will this debate be over?
Posted by brianjustin3709 1 year ago
brianjustin3709
RFD

7 points to Pro, 0 points to Con

No decision
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
=== RFD // 0 points to Pro and Con ====

....................

=== As always, happy to clarify this RFD // PM me for further questions ===
Posted by Lewis_P 2 years ago
Lewis_P
Wonderful debate. For an interesting insight, replace references to homosexuality, to cross-race relationships in all of Con's arguments.
This: "Actually, it is not. 100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex"
Becomes: "Actually, it is not. 100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the same race"
This: "Only 35% of the population agrees with gay marriage. Since the consensus is an overwhelming NO to gay marriage, we should not permit it. Since permitting gay marriage would require circumventing our current legal system, I emphatically denounce the proposition that it should be allowed."
Becomes: "Only 35% of the population agrees with cross-race marriage. Since the consensus is an overwhelming NO to it, we should not permit it. Since permitting cross-race marriage would require circumventing our current legal system, I emphatically denounce the proposition that it should be allowed."
& so on
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
RFD

Con's main argument is a populism fallacy: that whatever position 50% or more people believe in is automatically correct. Pro correctly refutes this by showing that some individual rights -- like the right to equal treatment under the law -- is protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Pro had better sourcing for the argument that homosexuality is innate. Merely questioning correlation is not a sufficient response. Pro explained the causal mechanism (genetics). Twin studies (plus correlation) are precisely how we prove that certain traits are genetic. If there is a high likelihood that both twins will have a trait, it is deemed a genetic trait (unless some plausible explanation is given -- which is was not by Con -- as to why "nurture" is responsible for that trait). If homosexuality is innate, gay people don't have a true choice whom they want to marry.

The other arguments are just a red herring. Pro points out that monogamy prevents the slippery slope into polygamy. Gay people can still only marry one person. Con never explains why homosexuality necessarily entails legalizing bestiality. I don't see the logical connection there.

Nothing else Con raises is really a compelling reason not to legalize gay marriage, so I vote Pro.
Posted by alto2osu 2 years ago
alto2osu
People really have GOT to stop posting on this archaic and piss poor excuse for a debate. I beg of you all. Please, for the love of God! Stop the insanity.
394 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Topaet 19 hours ago
Topaet
sydnerellaInquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Cat47 1 month ago
Cat47
sydnerellaInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:33 
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 2 months ago
Greyparrot
sydnerellaInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: tied
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 2 months ago
paintballvet18
sydnerellaInquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Mharman 2 months ago
Mharman
sydnerellaInquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Matpat 4 months ago
Matpat
sydnerellaInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: -_-
Vote Placed by 2Sense 7 months ago
2Sense
sydnerellaInquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used more reliable sources
Vote Placed by spencercrat123 10 months ago
spencercrat123
sydnerellaInquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SJM 10 months ago
SJM
sydnerellaInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 10 months ago
ThinkBig
sydnerellaInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30