The Instigator
Glitter2998
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal In ALL States

Do you like this debate?NoYes-7
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 6 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,011 times Debate No: 85600
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (52)
Votes (6)

 

Glitter2998

Pro

Being gay is wrong. It is disgusting. God frowns upon gay people and gay marriage. He is disappointed with anyone who is gay. He intended it to be one man and one woman getting married, not two men or two women. While most of this world thinks, "Oh, it's fine! No one will care." Someone does care: God.
lannan13

Con

I accept this debate.

Contention 1: Marriage and the Government

Throughout history there has been a great amount of hatred towards religion based on their association with government. A key example here is France. The French clergy imposed their way of life upon the Frenchmen and did not have to pay taxes. They lived such a lavious lifestyle while many of their church goers were increasingly poor. The anger at the church caused the Revolutionary’s to defame Christianity and they even set up their own Pagen church. Today, with the popular opinion of the public swinging towards tolerance and even Pope Francis permitting this we must get religion out of the government completely. By doing this we must privitize marriage. How do we do that you may ask? It is as simple as from the government recognizing Civil Unions instead of marriage. That way the church may protect marriage and the government does not interfear with it.

What are Civil Unions you may ask? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Civil Union is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have. [1]
Let me show you it's effectiveness. New Jersey and Vermont both have legalized Civil Unions instead of Gay Marriage and they give you the same exact right as a married couple. Here's who can enter a Civil Union.

The same sex over 18 years old (or meet requirements for an exception)not a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriagenot closely related to each other (for example, not an ancestor, descendant, sibling, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle)[2]
Also according to Pew research Center, 57% of Americans approve of Civil Unions (with a 37% oppose) while 53% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage (37% favor).

Here are the support numbers between men and women. Men Civil Unions: 54% for 40% against, women Civil Unions: 60% for 35% oppose, Men Gay Marriage: 34% for 59% oppose, Women Gay Marriage 43% for 48% against. [3]









Civil Union produce tons of money. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence. [4]

Now we have officially eestablished that Civil Unions are more popular, effective, and more economically sound, let's move back to the religious argument.

Contention 2: God Approves of Gay marriage as it is shown in the Bible

Despite my opponent's claims, there are a few places in the Bible, amongst popular Biblical figures, where homosexuality is approved.

Samuel and David


Here I will prove that David loved Jonathan so much to the point to where if Jonathan then it would be the greatest love story in the Bible according to Theologians.

When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

Here we can see that Jonathan loved David more than his own soul. This is something that is extremely important especially since many Christians beleive that the soul is the most important thing that a person owns that is what goes to Heaven or Hell. So the fact that he loved David as much as his own Soul is key here to so an important relationship between the two with this amount of love.

David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-42)

Here we can see just how intament the relationship got between these two men. Here they kiss and they indeed knew that this would be the last time that they would see each other as Jonathan would later die in combat. The key part here is that they show that their decendents shall be together showing almost that of a gay marriage, and even sex, between the two.

"Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27)

Here we can continue the furthering of the homosexual relationship as it shows the love between the two men surpassed that then a man and a women. Proving that of a homosexual relation.

This is yet another approved example of homosexuality in the Bible any attempt to argue otherwise would be that of arguing that God looked down upon David which was false since God had blessed him and with God being omnipotent we can see that God would've known about the homosexual relationship and would not have gifted David as much as he has.

Ruth

A key part of this debate is to go through the Bible and if I can find any instances where homosexuality is not condemned then I can win the debate on that ground.

Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)

Sounds like love to me concidering that we also say many things like this at weddings. We can see that when put into the context of the story we can see that when a man died a woman was unable to inheret the land. A woman without a man had no social standing in that time peroid. Ruth felt a great amount of feeling for Naomi where the Bible says, "Ruth Clung to Naomi" (Ruth 1:14). The Hebrew word for Clung is Dabaq. Though this word is also used for other loving instances, but the one place that it actually appears in the Bible outside of Ruth is that of Genesis 2 when Adam met Eve.




Sources
1. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
2. (http://www.lambdalegal.org...)
3. (http://www.people-press.org...)
4. (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...)

Debate Round No. 1
Glitter2998

Pro

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
lannan13

Con

That does not matter. Marriage, under the status quo is defined as,

a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.

b. A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage. [1]

So if we play the game of semantics, we can see that the curent definition is something that is opposing what my opponent is saying. Also, keep in mind that marriage, under my counterplan, would be privitized, so if people wanted to marry their pet rock then so be it. Though in all seriousness I extend across my arguments.

A study by Australia by University of Melbourn found that comparing heterosexual and homosexual families, they found that homosexual couples are better than heterosexual parents as not only are their families happier, but their children have a better childhood. [2] As for reproduction, lesbian couples can already reproduce and we are on the verge of technology by 2020 for gay couples to reproduce. [3][4]

I extend across all arguments.

Sources
1. (https://illinois.edu...)
2. (http://www.abc.net.au...)
3. (http://www.csmonitor.com...)
4. (http://time.com...)

Debate Round No. 2
Glitter2998

Pro

A societal acceptance of same sex relationships gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy. Not only does the Bible condemn such behavior, but medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy. A society that accepts immoral relationships cause children to stumble into immorality. Jesus Christ said that "if anyone causes one of these little one"s to stumble, (sin) it would be better if he put a mill stone around his neck and throw himself into the sea." Matthew 18:6 Acceptance of these unnatural acts sets a society up for gender and sexual confusion, which brings about widespread immorality, which tears the family down.

Logically speaking, if everyone"s sexuality was expressed heterosexually, then humanity will survive and perpetuate our own kind for generations to come. But simply put, if everyone"s sexuality was expressed homosexually, we would go extinct. Therefore homosexuality is counter productive to the survival of the human race.

Children need the stability of a traditional family. Children need a real male Father and a female Mother for proper and healthy development. Naturally speaking, there is the necessity of each of the male and female contributions to a child"s life. (It has already been proven that boys without fathers end up in jail and practice destructive behaviors a great deal more than those who have fathers.) The vast majority of the public knows instinctively that it would be better if both parents are present in a child"s life. Once concealed research shows that a child who is brought up in a homosexual home may be more likely to engage in homosexuality. But is it loving to expose children to the predominantly damaging lifestyle of homosexuality? If homosexuality can be learned, what does that say about the argument that people are born that way?
lannan13

Con

My opponent has plagerised her final round! I extend across all arguments.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Glitter2998 1 year ago
Glitter2998
Okay, there is something I need to say. I'm not gay or lesbian. I put that I'm interested in men and women for FRIENDSHIP, not for DATING. I'm already dating a wonderful guy, so please stop spreading rumors and leave me alone.
Posted by Contra 1 year ago
Contra
"Being gay is wrong. It is disgusting. God frowns upon gay people"

This is so cute xD
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Alanna.Kologey// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Gay couples have proven to have healthy and capable children just like a heterosexual couple. There is nothing wrong with being gay.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter clearly has strong opinions on this topic, but must keep his focus on the arguments made in the debate and not on his views of the topic.
************************************************************************
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
@Imabench HAHA. I second that. I will chip in on that bet as well.
Posted by Glitter2998 1 year ago
Glitter2998
I'll admit it: I'm not 16. I'm 14.
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
Im willing to bet money that Glitter's win percentage is higher than her brain cell count
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
I think she is just trolling.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
This girl is a moron, just saying. Shame that we are the same age.
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
triangle.128k
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org... She plagiarized this too.
Posted by triangle.128k 1 year ago
triangle.128k
It's quite hilarious how you're insulting and complaining about losing the debate. You are either horrible with coming up with an argument, or you're trolling.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
Glitter2998lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized rounds 2 and 3 of the debate meaning conduct goes to con, Con used a multitude of sources to back up his case whereas Pro failed to list any, including the ones she copied from, and nearly all of Con's arguments were dropped or forfeited due to pro resorting to blatant plagiarism rather than offering rebuttals to con's arguments. She's also a complete imbecile above everything else, and she talks as if someone beat her upside the head with a cinderblock, but you cant award points to one side for the other side being a complete idiot, so I have to leave it at 6-0.
Vote Placed by Kirigaya-Kazuto 1 year ago
Kirigaya-Kazuto
Glitter2998lannan13Tied
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: Con used many sources to Pro's zero. Pro also plagiarized arguments making them lose both conduct and arguments. Con also gets S&G due to a few of Pro's run on sentences.
Vote Placed by SarcasticMethod 1 year ago
SarcasticMethod
Glitter2998lannan13Tied
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: Con was elaborate, spoke in depth, followed the rules, made a convincing case, and gave sources. Pro lacked detail, plagiarized, acted unprofessionally, made no real case apart from assertion, and used no sources.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Glitter2998lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism is not Pro's own arguments so they lose these points. It is poor conduct to try and win with somebody elses arguments and it is poor use of sources on Pro's behalf since they failed to cite their sources for their arguments.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Glitter2998lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized their final round, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Glitter2998lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism. Sources go to Con as Pro presented no sources. Conduct goes to Con as Pro plagiarized. Arguments go to Con, as pro plagiarized. Pretty self-explanatory, and the rest is all in the comments.