The Instigator
missrish001
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lee001
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Gay Marriage is bad and you know it

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Lee001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,450 times Debate No: 76336
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

missrish001

Pro

Gay marriage has been legalized in Ireland and I'm still against it. Most of my friends who would vote no are pressured by her peers to vote yes and we all know that you would do anything to fit in your circle. Basically calling something marriage is not marriage and it doesn't create family. Like example if the spouses want a child they use costly or artificial things or employ surrogates.
Lee001

Con

Thank you Pro for starting this debate. I will use this round for acceptance, and definition's. The BoP will go to Pro. He must Prove that gay marriage is bad. [1] Bad- having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible:

I await your argument!
Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
missrish001

Pro

1-Most common one is that it denies a child a mom and dad, being raised by a father and mother is by far the best way a child can be raised.There is evidence that major mental problems can result when being raised by a single parent, foster parent, a relative eg.aunt. Being raised by same sex couples has usually the same result of being raised eg a single or foster parent. The child will be raised by a person or people that has no blood relation with him. This of course gives the child a curiousity to search for their blood relatives and this urge to find will evolve more later in life. To sum it all up it ignores a child "best" interests.
2 - Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.This is false.First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
3-Calling it marriage is not marriage and common sense that two entirely very different things cannot be seen as the same thing.
4- Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
5- It's in the Bible that being gay is bad.
Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: "The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil." (Gen. 19:24-25)
Lee001

Con

Since pro has the BoP, he must show that I think gay marriage is bad.

Rebuttal #1

Pro states that " being raised by a father and mother is by far the best way a child can be raised". This is invalid, this is based on personal opinion. Just because you think this, doesn't mean it's true.

Then Pro states that " There is evidence that major mental problems can result when being raised by a single parent, foster parent, a relative eg.aunt" This is again, invalid. The resolution is " Gay Marriage is bad and you know it" Marriage is defined as [1] Marriage- 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.

So note that the definition bestows marriage as being a partner to one another in a relationship. So we aren't talking about single parents, because this isn't in the resolution.

Rebuttal #2

Pro brings up race into the equation. 1st off, race has nothing to do with this topic we are debating. You don't get to choose what color or race you are born with. Being gay can be a choice, and some are born with it. Pro has not provided any valid information as to *how* gay marriage is opposes nature, instead she just makes a statement, and dosen't reflect on it, making in invalid. Pro then states that " Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility." This is again, invalid. Many states have already legalized gay marriage such as the following :

[2]
In 37 states - AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, HI, ID, IA, IL, IN, KS, ME, MD, MA, MN, MT, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WI, and WY - plus Washington, D.C. - same-sex couples have the freedom to marry once and for all. Additionally, same-sex couples also can marry in some Missouri counties (based on a pro-marriage ruling also now on appeal).

Rebuttal #3

Pro states "-Calling it marriage is not marriage and common sense that two entirely very different things cannot be seen as the same thing."

Hell, I could marry anybody I pleased, and it could be called marriage. As the dentition provided by me, Marriage are partners in a relationship. So again, your claim is invalid.

Rebuttal #4

Con then says "Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage."

I'm not entirely sure what Pro is trying to insinuate. Are you trying to insinuate that just because people of the same sex can't have children, means they can't be together? Wrong, there is something called adoption.

Rebuttal #5

Pro then provided a bible scripture that is against gay marriage. The scripture: (Gen. 19:24-25). This is irrelevant to the topic. We aren't debating whether gay marriage is moral or not. Also, just because a scripture is against it, doesn't make it correct. There is no *actual* evidence of god. These stores that are told are passed down from one person to another. Plus, many people don't believe in the bible, making you claim, once again false.

Now, onto my argument's!

C.1 Gay Marriage is a Civil Right.

[3] The White House website lists same-sex marriage amongst a selection of civil rights, along with freedom from employment discrimination, equal pay for women, and fair sentencing for minority criminals. [118]

Denying someone the right to marry whom they wish is taking away their personal rights. It's almost like the government denying your freedom of speech because you expressed your own opinion. Denying this right of gay marriage is none of the government's business. They shouldn't be able to tell people whom they are allowed to marry and what not.

C.2 No Effect on Heterosexual Couples.

Gay marriage will have no impact, what so ever on Heterosexual couples. The only thing that will happen will grant the wish of the LBGT community. They will grant them the wish they have always been den eyed. Why shouldn't homosexuals be married? They won't have an effect on anyone.

C.3 More Children Will be Adopted.

Due to the fact that homosexuals aren't able to have children, those who wish to have children may adopt children.

[4] Most adoption agencies discriminate against gay couples and make it incredibly difficult for them to adopt children. Many agencies will only release children to "married" couples, therefore rejecting stable, loving, homosexual parents. By legalizing gay marriage in ALL states, adoption agencies will be forced to grant the same respect and right to homosexual couples. Gay marriage will increase the chances for thousands of foster children to gain loving parents and families.

What harm will this do? Absolutely nothing. Not only will homosexuals be happy because they get to marry whom they want, but children whom have been put up for adoption will get homes.

Debate Round No. 2
missrish001

Pro

missrish001 forfeited this round.
Lee001

Con

Pro has not fufilled her BoP. She failed at:
A) Rebutting my arguments.
B) Showing that gay marriage is bad.
C) Trying to prove that I think it's bad, and I know it. Which isn't true.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Whaddupnoob 1 year ago
Whaddupnoob
at round 2 c.3.
Posted by Whaddupnoob 1 year ago
Whaddupnoob
its the first one at the bottom
Posted by Whaddupnoob 1 year ago
Whaddupnoob
Lee Plagerised guys; this is where from https://infogr.am...
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
We classify forfeits into roughly two categories: single round forfeits and full forfeits.

Single round forfeits are where the debate unfolds normally besides the single round that was forfeited. This debate is such an example. Votes will be moderated just like on any other debate and should follow all voting guidelines. The single round forfeit is warrant for penalizing conduct only.

Full forfeits where a debated forfeits nearly all rounds and presents no substantive arguments. These aren't moderated unless the voter simply voted the wrong side.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
Isn't a forfeiture a legitimate reason to award the arguments point to one side? If someone forfeits a debate, they drop all arguments the other side has given. Con's arguments went unreplied to and entirely uncontested and therefore she should earn that.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
============================================================
>Reported vote: TommyB12 // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Con developed reasoned argument based on legitimate sources. Pro made an argument from personal opinion and then failed to follow up or defend the claims.

[*Reasons for removal*] Vote bomb. (1) Failure to explain sources and S&G. (2) Arguments. Too generic.
============================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=========================================================
>Reported vote: Varrack // Moderator action: Removed<

4 points to Con (arguments, conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF'd the last round, thus dropping all of Con's rebuttals. The BOP was not upheld, so Con takes arguments for that reason and conduct for the forfeiture.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments. Too generic ("BOP was not upheld").
==========================================================
Posted by missrish001 1 year ago
missrish001
I apologize for not commenting on round 3,I've been busy these days and haven't got me-time at all. by the way this was such a great debate!
Posted by missrish001 1 year ago
missrish001
Thanks for the compliment Grace lol
Posted by joetheripper117 1 year ago
joetheripper117
That was a spectacular argument Lee001, I will keep track of this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
missrish001Lee001Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Adoption contention alone was enough to negate. Most of Pro's arguments were rendered irrelevant by Con.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 1 year ago
PatriotPerson
missrish001Lee001Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
missrish001Lee001Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF