The Instigator
Koz234
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Lightningstar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage be legal in the U.S. with no government restriction.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Koz234
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 45795
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Koz234

Pro

I personally believe that Gay Marriage should be legal throughout the U.S. with no government restriction whatsoever. I am open to any and all opposition, and this first round will be dedicated to anyone who wishes to challenge my point. Good luck to whoever wishes to oppose my point.
Lightningstar

Con

Besides the fact that I personally believe it's wrong I'll put my personal beliefs aside and treat homosexual marriage as a normal marriage.
First of all it would have been nice if you had explained your meaning of restrictions. I assume you mean legal in certain states opposed to marriage license and the waiting period. If that is the argument I'll start by saying that all couples who want to get married have to go through these requirements.
Now I'll get into the one I assume you mean. First of all yes I do believe there should be government restriction on homosexual marriage. My main reason for this is the fact that if there were no restrictions on homosexual marriage then other groups would demand to get married, i.e. Polygamists and other like minded individuals. The government has restrictions on a lot of things simply to keep worse things from becoming major problems.
Debate Round No. 1
Koz234

Pro

My apologies for not going into detail in my argument, that was my fault. Otherwise, you had stated that since there are restrictions on Gay marriage, and if it was unhindered fully, other groups, such as polygamists, will want the same rights. Personally I believe that polygamy should also be legal, but that is another debate fully, except for one thing, and it is that if one groups gains rights, others will also want the same rights. You had mentioned this as sort of a snowball effect, where it starts with one thing small and "goes downhill" and becomes bigger, which is not the case. It is actually more like a domino effect, where when one thing happens, many more happen (The dominoes falling on one another) with the same cause and effect. You also make polygamy sound like a bad thing, which I don't understand how it is a negative thing. It's not like a 5-year-old stealing a pencil and the next day burning down a building, it's not a downhill process. Either way, I must disagree and request you give me more details or a different argument. Thank you for your reply.
Lightningstar

Con

Lightningstar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Koz234

Pro

I really have nothing else to say, seeing I didn't get a response.
Lightningstar

Con

Lightningstar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheSilentHorseman 3 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
Koz234LightningstarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This was hard to judge considering that neither debater really refuted one another's points when they happened. Con made an argument about polygamy without explaining what the negative impact would be, and Pro pointed out that Con never stated the negative impact, but never proved it was a positive impact either. I ultimately erred to the side of the Pro, however, because he managed to point that out and because Con didn't provide a response to the counterargument either. I also gave Pro the conduct point for showing up to every single round.