The Instigator
Veridas
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Gay Marriage should be legal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 4/16/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,580 times Debate No: 11715
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (9)

 

Veridas

Pro

This is meant to be a friendly debate about basic human rights, created primarily because I am terminally bored.

Homosexuals, be they male or female, aren't part of some secret sect, they aren't in any way different physically, mentally or emotionally, their political views are just as collectively diverse as heterosexual views, their private activities with each other should be dismissed as none of anyone's business just as easily as the private activities of heterosexual people.

Let them marry if they so wish, they're ultimately no different from heterosexuals, they just have alternative tastes in intimacy.
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

Hello. As a pre-note I must add that I don't intend to insult anyone in this debate. I honestly don't care what gay people do, and no offense is meant.

Now I will show why it is that gay marriage should not be legal in the United States, the presumed realm of this debate's context.

CONTENTION 1: Gay Marriage is contradictive.

Let us view this problem through a religious lens. In the bible it implicitly states man and woman were created, and that they would be reunited in marriage. REunited shows the fact that man is a half and woman is a half. When put together they are compatible on multiple level. First, obviously, they are compatible according to the Bible. The Bible obviously condones heterosexual relationships as being good, and homosexual ones being bad (I'll mention this later.) Secondly, two males/females cannot reproduce together. The goal of sex is primarily for reproduction, so obviously a relationship that IS homosexual is a destructive one. First of all, because they can't have kids. Secondly, because they are taking away from the available male population, decreasing the amount of heterosexual relationships. For every 1 homosexual relationship there are 2 heterosexual relationships that can't exist. So this means that homosexual relationships hurt not only themselves, but everyone else as well.

CONTENTION 2: Causes major social problems as well.

First of all, divorce is 1.5 times more common in same-sex marriages for men, and 3 for women. This leads to a ever-growing gash in the social community, and is not healthy for the homosexuals or the heteros either. This is just another example of the problems this causes and who it affects. The larger problem with this is quoted in my source. "When society continually calls "marriages" unions that almost invariably end in divorce in 1 to 10 years or turn into "open relationships," the cheapening effect on the institution of marriage will be inevitable. " Marriage is a sacred union, and when we descry it, it takes away from the value of the process itself.

CONTENTIONS 3, 4, and 5

This last contentions are short and to the point. I won't layer them in tricky terms and words, just deliver the facts.

THREE: First, we can expect an eventual end to any structural prerequisites for a legitimate sexual relationship.

This means that when we start to not value the what marriage is, we lose what we have to do before we can get married. We will completely slander the meaning of marriage and soon it will be just another pointless ritual, much like eating of going to the bathroom.

FOUR: Second, there is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality, not just homosexual practice

Children are very susceptible to being permanently swayed by the things around them, especially homosexuality. If homosexual marriage and acts become a norm, than homosexuality will too. This will make my points mentioned earlier drastically worse. We will not survive in a world run by this sexual perversion.

FIVE: Third, "gay marriage," as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice

Finally, this one says that homosexuality, since it's already prejudiced against, this prejudice will increase with unaccepted acknowledgement of the fact. People will not accept this idea, and if the government enacts it, then people will hate the practice even more, leading to even violence and murder of anyone gay or suspected of being so. This is just ANOTHER example of how this practice will affect not only homosexuals but everyone.

IN SUMMARY

This will lead to violence, chaos, hate, and extreme social and reproductive distress if put into effect. Not only will the affect homosexuals, but it will affect everyone else as well. 10% of the population is not worth problems for 100% of the population. This is basic logic, and this is why gay marriage should NOT be legal. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Veridas

Pro

Let us view this problem through a religious lens"

Why? This is about people falling in love and getting married, people who may or may not follow your religion, people who may or may not even have any detailed knowledge about what the bible says. Why force your religious rules on those that do not follow them?

If your entire debate hinges on this then I fear my boredom will return swiftly.

"The goal of sex is primarily for reproduction, so obviously a relationship that IS homosexual is a destructive one."

People have been using contraceptives for a good long time now and it doesn't seem to have done much harm.

"Secondly, because they are taking away from the available male population, decreasing the amount of heterosexual relationships"

Oh ya, Earth is really sparsely populated, why it must be AT LEAST ten feet between me and my next door neighbor, hot damn. Besides, do you honestly think that not letting gay people get married will stop them from being gay?

"So this means that homosexual relationships hurt not only themselves, but everyone else as well."

I'm pretty sure the pain goes away after a while if you use lube.

"First of all, divorce is 1.5 times more common in same-sex marriages for men, and 3 for women. This leads to a ever-growing gash in the social community"

You do realise that that statistic doesn't take into consideration the fact that since gay marriage as a concept in the US is so new that each gay marriage rates always spike when they're first legally permitted, these relationships are not as slow-built and time-hardened as heterosexual relationships, they're snap reactions, the buy one get one free of marriages. Neither are they discernible from actual "yeah ok we tried and it isn't working" relationships in the statistics but they do not accurately represent the whole of gay marriage relationships. I also notice how you overlooked the obvious, if you do not want these people to get married, then why are you saying it's bad that their divorce rate is as it is?

"This means that when we start to not value the what marriage is, we lose what we have to do before we can get married. We will completely slander the meaning of marriage and soon it will be just another pointless ritual, much like eating of going to the bathroom."

You let atheists get married, in addition, marriage is a symbolic thing, it's symbolism won't be lost by letting gay couples do it, if anything it's symbolism ought to increase, it will no longer be a case of "these two over here are better than you" which is a symbolism that can and has been associated with the church and it's attempts to quash gay marriage (because hey, being known as a bigot group sure is symbolic) marriage is symbolic of love and unity, love and unity that your bible and your prophet preaches near-constantly, if you are unwilling to allow that love and unity to extend to all then what good is the book? What good is the prophet? Do you honestly think that you deserve love and unity more than someone else because their beliefs are different to yours?

"Second, there is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality"

Correction: There is good evidence that societal approval of homosexuality (lets not call it practice, it's not witchcraft for goodness' sake) will make people who are in the closet or in denial about their homosexuality feel better about it and be more likely to express it.

"Children are very susceptible to being permanently swayed by the things around them"

A fantastic example being the church.

"especially homosexuality"

and bigotry therein.

"If homosexual marriage and acts become a norm, than homosexuality will too"

Ya, Ancient Greece was felled by all the kids saying "mommy mommy, I love Patroclus!"

Besides, if homosexual marriage doesn't produce kids...how on earth are the kids going to know? seriously? You think a gay guy is gonna start waving his wang at a school while screaming "I put this in Mr Smith who teaches history last night!" and people are gonna let him do it?

"gay marriage," as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice"

mmm, yes, I can see it now. "How dare you tell me I can't be intolerant! That's so intolerant of you!"

"Finally, this one says that homosexuality, since it's already prejudiced against, this prejudice will increase with unaccepted acknowledgement of the fact. People will not accept this idea, and if the government enacts it, then people will hate the practice even more, leading to even violence and murder of anyone gay or suspected of being so. "

Are you kidding? Do you not know how societal acceptance works?

The number of bigots would drop. Not rise, drop. You know why? Because people would be born and grow up in a world that says "those two guys over there? They're in love, and we're cool with that" as opposed to "see those two guys over there? scum of the earth, burn them"

Your logic is ancient and twisted and frankly insulting to the intellect thus far.

"This will lead to violence, chaos, hate"

Oh, you mean like this? http://www.mpacuk.org...

Or this? http://www.thegaymanifesto.com...

Or this? http://www.thegoodatheist.net...

Or this? http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com...

Or this? http://mmabbasi.wordpress.com...

Or this? http://www.politicsdaily.com...

Or this? http://freethinker.co.uk...

You know I seem to recall a fairly important event in the bible, some guy climbs a mountain and has a chat with someone, then comes down the mountain full of divine inspiration and carrying two stones, and these stones were important.

The man was Moses, and upon the two stones were writ the ten commandments, and one of those commandments was THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

I'm going to outline precisely why I believe you are, without a shadow of a doubt, nothing more than a puppet of others when it comes to this particular issue.

Gay marriage is by no means the worst thing humanity can do to itself, the fact that you failed to accurately provide any sources for your statement that homosexual divorce rates are terrible, nor did you bring to light any country or society actively ruined by gay marriage as you so often claimed, nor did you even think to consider the logic that no gay marriage does not equate to the removal of gay people from our populous.

These arguments, literally every argument you used, has been used before, time and again, by the same self-righteous over-controlling morons in the church or in politics. People who were, rather ironically considering your argument, influenced by the church at a young age to believe that gay marriage was somehow a thing that they personally ought to be worried about, That them being damned according to his belief automatically meant that they did not have the right to their own beliefs because god (literally) forbid that anyone's beliefs contradict with the church, even in the pursuit of the love and peace that the church (mostly) preaches.

The half-baked, illogical and ultimately hypocritical argument does nothing but list the personal wank fantasy of some total bigot with a fancy hat. Societal collapse because of "the gays", under populated countries because of "the gays", this because of "the gays", that because of "the gays", and so on and so on and so on.

Why not blame world
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

Hello. This has been an interesting debate and now I will refute my opponent's refutations. Here we go:

So my opponent stated that some people not know about/believe Christianity. This is true, though 33% of people are. [http://www.adherents.com...]. Such a large proportion surely has an effect on the decision if gay marriage should be legal. This is why I brought it up. It seems an important factor, and my opponent has not actually refuted the attack, just the significance of it. Seeing as that part still stands, it should flow to me.

Next to the 'sex for reproduction' point. While it's true that couples will sometimes use contraceptives, about 44% of married couples will have children. [http://factfinder.census.gov...] When a gay couple marries, this takes away the possibility of reproduction for two couples. This means that for every 1 gay couple there are two straight ones that can't have kids. This means that this IS a big point that my opponent has not refuted and it still flows to me.

Back again to the 'decrease of male population available'. Sure, in small numbers gay relationships won't hurt, but a drastic increase will occur if gay marriage is legal, and this means a drastic increase in gay people. There might be 10 ft. between you and your neighbor, but if y'all are both gay then their won't be any babies made. In a world full of gay people, humans will die out. This is simple fact, and this is why this point flows to me.

'gay hurts everyone'---Wow. Keep it in your pants now. We both know that's not the kind of hurt I meant. Point flows to me, once again.

'divorce rate increase' ---So my opponent showed why divorce IS an increasing thing. Thank you for strengthening my argument. Secondly, divorce is bad socially as it creates gaps and tensions in the social community. Not to mention the fact that it creates a tendency for divorce which may spread to heterosexual couples. This is obviously a problem, my opponent agrees, and this point should flow neg.

'marriage losing value'----Yes, marriage is symbolic. For eternal love and loyalty to the other person. My points showed that gay marriage decreases the significance of the symbolic nature of marriage. Soon, marriage won't even be a symbol, just a process with no meaning. And please, don't call the Bible mine. I am an atheist. And about the atheist getting married comment, heterosexual atheists can have a baby. Gay couples of all religions can't. Also, statistics say nothing of atheist couples, except that they have a lower divorce rate, and statistics DO show that gay couples have a much HIGHER divorce rate. See previous harms to see the problem with this. My opponent has unsuccessfully refuted my argument and it, therefore, flows Neg, to me.

'increases other homosexuals' --- actually no. See my next point as this ties in.

'children susceptible' --- The last point is perfectly shown by this one, that children will assimilate what they see around them. If alls they see around them is homosexuals then they will be homosexuals. Notice that my opponent didn't actually refute this argument, and that's why it and the previous argument flow to me.

'especially homosexuality' --- this one too my opponent has not refuted. My opponent is acting as if homosexuality is the natural state of things, as I've shown it is not.

'homosexual is contagious' --- So my opponent states that these things are secrets? A marriage in a church between two gay people is not a secret. Mr. Smith talks far more about his 'thing' than my opponent gives him credit for. Every child has heard of homosexuality and that it's bad, but if they begin to hear it's good and LEGAL, then little Bobby and little Timmy might just start experimenting starting a trend even worse than Christianity itself.

'causes more discrimination'---- My opponent doesn't understand my point apparently. Situation in the past:

John: Blacks shall be free.
Bob: Free blacks? What the hell, lets go dress up in sheets and burn some blacks
John: (uh oh)

This is the same thing that will happen with homosexuality. If it become more legal without being more accepted, problems will begin to occur. Big ones resulting in mass murder, that is.

'homosexuality not accepted' -- Similar to previous point. My opponent says we should teach our children to accept something we don't? No one will point to gay guys in a good way if they hate them! This marriage thing will INCREASE the hate, and DECREASE the acceptance of gay relationships. Just like before, this flows to me. And calling my logic ancient is pretty pitiful. Insults will only win you a negative vote on the conduct. :)

'violence' ---- sortof. And also like this http://en.wikipedia.org... And lets not forget this http://www.bilerico.com... Notice the men are getting hung because they are gay. The fact that you post a bunch of links about gay hate just strengthens my point. Thank you for that. Because of mine AND my opponent's arguments this flows to me.

You are right, people should not kill. (By the way, pick your religion, stop going against religion then with it.) But if we start gay marriage there will be much more killing. Much more. Killing is bad, and this is why Gay Marriage should not exist.

Evidence to my facts?

[http://www.loveandpride.com...] - gay divorce rate

[http://www.now.org...] - gay violence statistics

This is all the evidence I used or needed.

Homosexuality is a plague to the Earth right now, not because of what it is, but because of how people react to it. People slander hurt and murder homosexuals because they believe it is wrong. Gay marriage will increase gay prevelance, and therefore the violence and death. I am not saying gayness is wrong. I am saying the reactions TO IT are wrong, and increasing. This marriage will not help.

I do not appreciate when one calls my logic ancient of foolish. The fact that your mind is too infantile and partial that you can't understand my points is the reason for your stress. I suggest you read what I say carefully, drop the smart-a** attitude, and grow up a bit with your attacks. I hope for the sake of this debate the next round shows a more mature side of you that understands my attacks.

To the voters: I have refuted all attacks, and shown clearly why homosexual MARRIAGE is a bad thing. Vote Neg, and thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Veridas

Pro

As much as I realise that what I'm about to say will reek of Ad Homiem, the voters don't need you to tell them what you've done, they'll decide for themselves what, if anything, has been accomplished and they don't need your encouragement to vote for you.

Now, the main argument.

"and my opponent has not actually refuted the attack"

Actually I have, if only 33% of the world's population is Christian, why should the other 67% do what you say? That was my point, one that you have failed to even acknowledge much less answer for.

"This means that for every 1 gay couple there are two straight ones that can't have kids. This means that this IS a big point that my opponent has not refuted and it still flows to me."

Conveniently ignoring the fact that no gay marriage still doesn't equate to no gay couples, so the idea that homosexual relationships will lead to under population is already disproven because, hey, very little under population as far as I can see.

"Sure, in small numbers gay relationships won't hurt, but a drastic increase will occur if gay marriage is legal,"

So are you actually reading my arguments or are you going to just list your arguments again and then claim that you've won them because they're your arguments?

"sure, in small numbers gay relationships won't hurt, but a drastic increase will occur if gay marriage is legal"

Um. No. Once again, gay marriage won't increase the number of gay people, just the number of people that are openly gay. You're not gonna have people suddenly open their eyes one day and go "hey honey, gay marriage passed, so now I'm gonna go try my hand at fellatio"

"In a world full of gay people, humans will die out."

Oh the drama. Oh the paranoia.

"We both know that's not the kind of hurt I meant"

Liar. You're the one stood there preaching the end of humanity because one guy put his penis in another guy's sphincter while they were wearing rings, and going on your end of humanity ranting, I reckon you'll say just about anything to stop it from happening no matter how much it hurts anyone. I can tell from your tone that you aren't the type to think of others before yourself, and I think you're just a little creeped out that you might actually have to live in a world where all men are created equal under your god, and all men (and women) have access to the same rights, institutions and federal schemes.

I think that scares you silly, and I think, and I will continue to think this unless you irrevocably prove me wrong EXTREMELY quickly, that you are very insecure about the fact that you can no longer claim to have a logical or legitimate hatred of these people, and that by extension, you are very insecure as a person, and the world is a terrifying place to insecure people.

"So my opponent showed why divorce IS an increasing thing."

I also explained why and why it was irrelevant. Please cease your selective reading, I know bible study encourages it but trust me, this is not bible study.

"For eternal love and loyalty to the other person. My points showed that gay marriage decreases the significance of the symbolic nature of marriage"

No, your point was "it becomes less symbolic because I say so" and also, who the hell are you to say homosexuality isn't natural?

"I am an atheist."

I have to call bull**** to this, I'm sorry. No self respecting atheist would discuss a matter of a person's rights and refer explicitly to the bible at the very start of his opening argument. You're either a liar or you are a terrible example of an atheist.

I'm sorry but I'm looking at your other points and all you're doing is saying "I can oversimplify your argument therefore I win, please vote for me" either debate in an intelligent manner or don't debate at all. You have brought nothing new to this round of debating, in fact you have brought nothing at all save for selective reading, deliberate misinterpretation and at least one lie.

If you refuse to make more points then I will. Let us discard the idea that the church is the only perspective to view this through (a laughable notion from a so-called atheist) and let us instead look at this logically. In various cultures historically, homosexuality was permitted or embraced and yet if or when such cultures fell into decline, nobody says "it was because they were gay" nobody has ever once blamed homosexuality for the fall of anything, much less the combined numbers and intellect of the entire human race oh harbinger of doom. You have chosen to ignore the points you can't twist or selectively read, you have chosen to, rather vainly, suggest that every point should go to you despite clearly not reading what I have said and you have been arrogant enough to insult me when you're the one saying to people "no you don't deserve to be happy"

You know I got a message recently from a member who will remain unnamed telling me to lighten up, telling me that this was all a bit of fun, and so on and so forth, and for the most part I would usually agree with him, nothing will change because of these debates, nothing will be improved and nothing of detriment will happen.

I wonder if he would tell me to do these things if he were gay, hell he might be gay as it is, I never thought to check his sexuality.

Give me one good reason why you have the right to sit there and deny people happiness, deny people their own love, deny them their chance at an everlasting relationship, deny them their basic human right to say "I love you" without calling upon any half-baked apocalyptic theories and without trying to tell me that a society that tolerates gay people is a society that will be intolerant of gay people and without acting as if snap marriages and the divorces thereof aren't comparable to the same snap marriages and divorces of heterosexual couples (about 50% chance of divorce according to http://aboutdivorce.org... and only 63% of children grow up with both parents according to http://www.divorcemag.com... so, hey, flip a coin before getting down on one knee.) because none of the arguments you've made thus far have made any logical sense, what you do show is always overshadowed by what you do not show, I could choose to insult you based on your statement that you won a point when you are neither in a position to decide that, nor are you taking my counterpoints seriously even if you are. The voters will decide this debate, not you, and I reckon that if you try and put words in their mouth then they will turn against you for it.

Re-read my last post, actually consider the arguments I've made and don't lie to me and you may yet have a chance at salvaging this train wreck of an argument.

And for the record, you're not very good at quashing boredom. I at least expected you to challenge my points rather than stick your fingers in your ears say "lalalala, I can't hear you"
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

My opponent stated that it is not NECESSARY to tell my voters who they should vote for, but it is much like campaigning and I feel it IS quite necessary indeed. If you would like to tell the voters to vote for you as well, feel free, but I will continue doing so. Thank you! To the arguments:

'and my opponent has not refuted the attack'

33% is one third of the population. This means 1/3 are definitely against you because of their religion. The other 67% were talked about in my next, say, 15 arguments or so. My point was that 1 out of every 3 people will be against this idea SOLELY because of religion.

'every 1 gay couple 2 straight ones can't have kids'

I know we don't have a problem now, but if marriage becomes even more legal and supported for gays, then it soon WILL become a problem. The status quo there IS no problem, but the resolution you are supporting will cause one. This is the point of my argument which my opponent has failed to grasp, again. Because we enjoy living and not being extinct, vote Neg.

'small numbers don't hurt, big numbers do'

My opponent states I don't read his arguments, but seeing as I actually went through his arguments and pointed out what was wrong, I believe I know what he is trying to say. The fact that my opponent is pretending I am blatantly ignoring his arguments, is 1) a lie, and 2) not an excuse to drop the argument as a whole. So once again, here, my opponent didn't refute anything and should flow Neg.

'small numbers don't hurt, big numbers do' (again?)

So my opponent seems to assume EVERYONE is secretly gay, and that this will cause everyone to come out of the closet. Unfortunately for my opponent, everyone is NOT gay. The increase comes from points I have already mentioned that the opponent failed to refute such as the 'children are susceptible' argument. I would also like to point out that my opponent's hypothetical scenarios are his own interpretation of my arguments, and not what I'm actually saying.

'In a world full of gay people, humans die out'

Notice how my opponent didn't actually refute ANYTHING here.

'we both know that's not the hurt I meant'

Notice, also, how my opponent wrote his longest speech on my least significant argument, that talked about pains in the butt hole. My opponent call me selfish, and scared? How dare you. Is it selfish to value humanity as a whole instead of my self? Am I scared when I openly admitted I didn't have a problem with gays? Don't talk to me about equal rights, either. Sex IS a right. So why can't we have sex with our sisters and brothers? Why can't we have sex with animals? Hell, why can't we make clones and have sex with OURSELVES. Because it's wrong. A PERVERSION of nature. Do NOT judge me when you are the one being foolish.
I AM SCARED? You are a fool. I am not scared of a gay person. I am scared of what happens when people start KILLING gays and innocent people when gay rights go to far. You are a fool if you cannot see I am defending gays this whole time from the cruelty of the world. I could care less about gays if people let them alone. But people will always pursue gays for destruction, and this is why there should be no gay. Because sometimes the world can't handle things, even if they ARE ok. Don't ever call me scared again. Or a fool.

'So my opponent shows divorce is increasing'

Your points don't matter in this argument because my harms far outweigh what you believe to be irrelevant. I thought I said I was an atheist. Stop referring to me as if I was a Christian.

'marriage being symbolic'

You sicken me. Homosexuality is unnatural because sex has one purpose, and gay sex will not fulfill that purpose.

'I am an atheist'

I don't care what you call bull****. I, am an atheist. I always have, and always will. I am arguing this point for the fun of the debate. I am IN an actual debate class, and when having a debate I will make points that let me WIN, NOT points I actually believe in.
You tell me do debate in an intelligent manner, while you don't even look at my arguments. I am not 'oversimplifying' your arguments. The point is, your arguments are weak. The fact that you insult me and say I'm wrong, does not anger me, and certainly will not make the voter vote for you automatically. I have made my arguments and they still stand, I have no reason for additional ones. Do NOT call me a liar.

I am glad my opponent finally brought up evidence about all of these cultures that 'embrace homosexuality.' This makes me respect him much more as a pers..... oh wait. He HASN'T brought up any evidence. I actually back up my claims with evidence. For all I know, opponent could have made this all up. I have refuted all of my opponents arguments with no twisting of selective reading. My opponent only says this because he cannot admit when he is wrong. This is a fairly childish thing to do, but what more can you expect from what is probably a child?

He was actually probably referring to the fact that you are an ***hole, regarding whatever member messaged you.

I don't think his sexuality is relevant? Are you gay? Are you trying to prove some point by being abrasive?

I am denying people the right to protect them, don't you see. I am saying 'no' for the same reason I would say no to heroin. It makes people happy, but it's effects are worse. Killing someone might make me happy, but this does not mean it's right. Same with homosexuality, it might make someone happy for a while, all until the die in a rally. I don't want those dead people. If you are telling me that death is O.K. then fine, you see how that works for you, but it doesn't work for me. And about the single parents thing, growing up with a daddy won't turn you gay. Growing up with daddies will. No coin toss necessary, gayness will come from gayness, plain and simple. Saying my arguments are illogical does not actually make them so. Your logic is obviously faulty.

Hmmm, my opponent really IS an ***hole. Interesting. Anyway, your boredom is your own fault. If you have to rely on a debate site to quench your boredom then I'm sorry, your lack of friends tells me exactly why you are a jerk.

I have provided a plethora of clear, concise arguments. I have refuted all of the attacks you made on them. My opponent tells you to look at his arguments, as to why he wins, but he has made none. He has said what he thinks why my points are wrong, but he has not said why gay couples SHOULD marry. Why should the voter vote for someone who has not actually supported his own claim? It is up to you, voter.
Debate Round No. 3
Veridas

Pro

I won't tell anyone to do anything, I don't have that much faith in humanity, but I have enough faith to at least assume that people are capable of individual judgement.
And 33% aren't against me, those are the total number of Christians, but not every Christian is against gay marriage.

"I know we don't have a problem now, but if marriage becomes even more legal and supported for gays, then it soon WILL become a problem. The status quo there IS no problem,"

What problem? Do you honestly believe that there are enough homosexuals in the world to threaten our numerical stability?

"Next to the 'sex for reproduction' point. While it's true that couples will sometimes use contraceptives, about 44% of married couples will have children. [http://factfinder.census.gov......] When a gay couple marries, this takes away the possibility of reproduction for two couples."

Way to continue to ignore the fact that gay couples are already doing this, they just aren't able to necessarily marry, giving them the right to marry will not affect this in any way, so even if they were somehow threatening mankind (protip: they aren't, seriously, 6.7 billion people last I checked, overpopulation in certain eastern countries) not letting them marry won't stop them.

"Back again to the 'decrease of male population available'. Sure, in small numbers gay relationships won't hurt, but a drastic increase will occur if gay marriage is legal"

A point you've made, a point I've answered. Yawn.

"There might be 10 ft. between you and your neighbor, but if y'all are both gay then their won't be any babies made."

Yeah see now I know you're deliberately not considering my arguments.

"In a world full of gay people,"

http://www.answerbag.com...

2%

Homosexuals make up roughly 2% of the world's population. Repeating the same argument over and over doesn't make it true.

"Wow. Keep it in your pants now. We both know that's not the kind of hurt I meant. Point flows to me, once again."

Sarchasm: the distance between a user of sarcasm, and the recipient who doesn't get it.

"-So my opponent showed why divorce IS an increasing thing."

No, please stop putting words in my mouth. I showed how divorces spike uniquely after legislation is brought in but then lower periodically.

Also: http://www.exgaywatch.com...

Remember, roughly 50% chance of divorce in heterosexual marriages. Mmm, very symbolic.

"This is obviously a problem"

It's also hypocritical, you can't moan about something and then use it's detrimental effect on itself as a point against it. What you're doing is like saying "a person needs one hand to hold a gun, therefore if you have one or more hands, you're a murderer"

"For eternal love and loyalty to the other person."

http://www.divorcerate.org...

And I quote:
"50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri."

Mmm, very symbolic, whole lotta, what was it? oh yeah, "eternal love and loyalty"

You know the stuff your pastor tells you isn't always true?

"And please, don't call the Bible mine."

Then don't lie

"I am an atheist."

Case in point.

Sorry but you seem to horribly misunderstand what atheism is. Atheism is the belief that at best all Religion in the world is inaccurate regarding the fundamental nature of our existence, and at worse a total lie about the fundamental nature of our existence.

No self respecting atheist has any reason to look at anything from the perspective of the church, and yet the very first thing you said, the absolute first thing. "Lets look at this from a religious perspective"

Like claiming to be a US Marine, then shooting yourself in the foot. Subtlety, learn it.

"Gay couples of all religions can't."

Funny that you insinuate that all religions tolerate gay people.

"Also, statistics say nothing of atheist couples"

Way to miss the point on this entirely, marriage is referred to as holy matrimony, atheists (as I'm sure you're COMPLETELY aware of as a fresh n' funky for-real atheist) stand in direct defiance of that, atheists do not even believe that concepts like holiness exists, they are an affront to every church in existence, and yet they can be joined in HOLY matrimony.

Seriously, if you were an atheist then you'd have got that way sooner.

Sure you're not just agnostic? Oh, wait, no, "perspective of the church" nah, can't be that.

"My opponent has unsuccessfully refuted my argument and it, therefore, flows Neg, to me"

Veridas' debating tips for the day #34. when debating, always read your opponent's arguments multiple times before answering to make sure you understand precisely what they're trying to say, this will arm you to properly deal with their points and not look like you're rushing through and repeatedly or deliberately misunderstanding them for the sake of your own argument.

"The last point is perfectly shown by this one, that children will assimilate what they see around them"

Yep, them gay people banging in the street's a real problem here in England.

Please, as if children realise the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. The kind of age you're talking about, I doubt they'd care if they saw two men or two women holding hands, hell when I was in primary school, the girls held hands with each other all the time, besides, seriously, how many kids that age are more interested in relationships than, for example, the next episode of Power Rangers or whatever the hell kids watch these days?

"this one too my opponent has not refuted."

See, here's your problem. I took care to make sure I did, actually, if you think I haven't refuted your point then it would bolster your argument to explain why, as you have tried to do previously, which leaves incidents like this looking mighty suspicious, almost as if you're hoping the voters won't go back and, you know, read.

"So my opponent states that these things are secrets?"

Again with the putting words in my mouth. Not secret, no, but not open either. I'm going to assume you know what a closet homosexual is.

"Every child has heard of homosexuality and that it's bad, but if they begin to hear it's good and LEGAL, then little Bobby and little Timmy might just start experimenting starting a trend even worse than Christianity itself."

Nice jab at the church there, did you have to stand in the shower for a while after saying that?

Also, considering that having it illegal hasn't stopped gay people from existing, how can you justify that making it legal will create the so-called problem that already exists?

and if they do start experimenting it'll probably be in puberty, you know, when they actually gain an interest in sexuality and when their genitals start becoming dual-purpose body parts.

"My opponent doesn't understand my point apparently. Situation in the past:"

Are...are you even trying? seriously?

How many black people have you seen lynched lately?

How many men and women in white sheets?

Slavery in America ended. Black people now have all the rights white people do. Now think about it, if the slaves hadn't been freed, do you honestly think the situation would be better? You, sir, are the one that doesn't understand, or chooses not to understand.

"This is the same thing that will happen with homosexuality"

Why the future tense? did you not see my links and my oh-so witty use of the words "or this?"

"My opponent says we should teach our children to accept something we don't? "

What's this "we" crap? First sign of an ignorant little toad: assuming everyone else agrees with you.

"This marriage thing will INCREASE the hate,"

In the same way that freeing black people increased the discri-OH WAIT!

"insults will only win you a negative vote on the conduct.
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

I will go straight through the arguments.

'33% aren't against me'

In the Bible is specifically forbids homosexuality. I'm assuming, of course, that the 33% actually act like the religion they follow and not agree with the idea of homosexuality, especially gay marriage. So an actual Christian would not agree with this idea, about 33%. Even if the Christian does not necessarily care, they still have a natural religious tendency not to like the idea.

'homosexuality will become a problem'

Yes I do believe that the 10% of gay people in this nation can end up growing significantly. We can hypothesize this because as of NOW it is frowned upon and even legal in some states. When this becomes legal, the gay populations will surely explode causing the problem you so carelessly throw aside.

'sex for reproduction'

It is true that already gay couples can't have kids now, and can't ever have kids; but I'm referring to all the other gays that will result from the explosion of homosexuality caused by gay marriage. I have a multitude of other points that back up this explosion, and this is the point of this argument: just another harm resulting from the explosion. So my opponent makes a valid point, but misses a big part of the argument.

'reducing male population'

My opponent says he make a point then text yawns, but his argument is nowhere to be seen. As much as I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, I can't do this. So my opponent has presented no argument against this point, therefore, it stands.

'world full of gay people'

Wow. Notice that my opponent uses a completely unreliable source. On user Q/A sites like that any question can be answered by anybody, regardless of it's truth. Also if you look at the answer, it uses no evidence, just speculation to answer the question. The answer is even obviously unreasonable, so my opponent's refutation holds no claim.

'Sarchasm'

Definitely wasn't sarcasm. It was me pointing out that you seemed a bit like a creeper b/c you keep making gay sexual references. This would be an example of sarcasm : My opponent uses logic and reasoning in his arguments without a hint of rudeness. That is sarcasm.

'divorce'

My opponent proves that divorce DOES increase, but makes it O.K. by speculating that it will periodically decrease, even though his evidence didn't say this. His speculation of a piece of evidence is obviously wrong because he assumes something that a person would not have an actual reason to believe. Even if it is true, some previous evidence of mine stated that with gays the rate is 3 times higher. With my opponent's number this is not even possible. This leads to one of two things. 1) My evidence is wrong. 2)My opponent's convient made-up fact is wrong. I must assume mine is correct. And the evidence my opponent provided does not say much. It states that in states that gay marriage is legal, the divorce rate is falling. But at the beginning of the article it states that the rate has been decreasing constantly since the 1960's. So the fact that states with gay marriage have there divorce rates falling is just because of the already existent trend, not gay marriage.

'this is obviously wrong'

I don't know what argument my opponent refers to.

'divorce rate' (again)

It seems that divorce rate IS around 50%. Gay people still have it bigger though, according to my statistics so this fact just further fortifies the fact that gay people get divorced, A LOT! So my opponent points out how bad the value of marriage is now, just imagine how bad it will be when gay marriage increases the occurence of divorce by 300%. This will shoot the divorce rates up, a harm in itself, and along with it crush the meaning of marriage into nothing.

'pastor and the Bible'

I am an atheist. And I've now determined that you are a delusional moron. I have told you multiple times I am an atheist and you call me a Christian. This is insulting.

'atheism'

Atheism is firmly believing that there is not deity or being mentioned in religions. I was looking through the religious spectrum to win the debate. In real debate one must debate for his side, despite his beliefs. I have done this for the debate. If you are such a fool you do not understand this, then that is your fault. But do NOT challenge my atheism.

'gay couples of all religions can't'

Actually I was insinuating that pretty much the majority of people have a problem with them. :)

'statistics of atheist couples'

Once again I am taking whatever side I need to to win. This means that my atheism does not have an affect on the debate. Perhaps you have no friends and are constantly made fun of that you find it so humorous to say I'm not an atheist. As of now, I don't even respect you enough to argue against you about that, as it's irrelevant.

'Flows Neg'

The fact wasn't that you failed to make an argument, it was that your argument was illogical and stupid. :D

The difference between homos and straights??? Exactly! Children don't recognize that it's wrong, so they do it. That's where part of the increase comes from. Thanks for fortifying my point further.

'secret'

So I guess it's a fact that no one knows about. Ya, that makes sense.

Thanks for saying I'm not an atheist again. :)

The rest of my opponent's arguments are just personal jabs.

My opponent has managed to take what should have been an educational debate, and turned it into some sort of war. Anger has taken advantage of me, and I am deeply sorry I let my opponent drive me to it. This debate is too long anyway. The voters have SEEN my arguments, and they know what I am saying. An extra round won't help this. I will not be posting the last round, and I don't plan on looking at this debate ever again. I am sorry that I must skip, but I'm sure the reader understands. I am not running away in fear, I am leaving with my dignity and hopes that people will still hold respect for me. I will not go down to your level, opponent. I thank you for the round.
Debate Round No. 4
Veridas

Pro

I will go straight through the arguments."

Says he who has done little but ignore them.

"In the Bible is specifically forbids homosexuality"

There's your bible again, also, homosexuality is banned in Leviticus, a book of the old testament, the old testament being the period between mankind's creation and Jesus' birth, the period in which all but about five days was nothing but god punishing mankind for eating the fruit of knowledge. The old testament that, if you ask any priest nowadays, you will be told NO LONGER APPLIES.

"Yes I do believe that the 10% of gay people in this nation"

2%, and that's world population. Learn to read.

"I'm referring to all the other gays that will result from the explosion of homosexuality caused by gay marriage. "

Indeed, they should just stay in the closet and spend their lives in solitude and depression, not wanting to marry for convenience but not able to express their love for fear of federal prosecution and the prejudice of their neighbors and, thus, not having kids anyway. Homosexual marriage does not affect the actual number of homosexuals in the same way that letting lemurs marry won't affect the number lemurs. All it will do is give people the encouragement to be themselves.

Look I know some of you Christians have a lot of faith in this "facts that cease to exist if I ignore them" thing but seriously now...

"My opponent says he make a point then text yawns"

Made. Past tense. Learn to read.

"Definitely wasn't sarcasm."

Pun. Learn to read.

"My opponent proves that divorce DOES increase"

For heterosexual couples. Shooting yourself in the foot. Learn to read.

"I don't know what argument my opponent refers to."

Funny, I've come across that more than once just in this post when answering your points, most computer mice have a wheel on top used for scrolling, you can scroll up or scroll down, of course it would help if you knew how to read.

"I am an atheist. And I've now determined that you are a delusional moron."

What was it you said about me insulting people...?

Funny that you say "determined" like you carried out some extensive study and took blood samples and things.

Remember, turn the other cheek now.

"I was looking through the religious spectrum to win the debate."

Which is impossible according to your so-called beliefs. Shot yourself in the other foot.

"Actually I was insinuating that pretty much the majority of people have a problem with them. :)"

Wow, you seem to have walked right into my later comment about ignorance and assuming that everyone agrees with you.

Even if you were atheist, and don't get me wrong, I don't believe you for a second when you say you are, please go join a religion, you're making the rest of us look bad.

"Once again I am taking whatever side I need to to win."

Irrelevant, doesn't answer the point of holy matrimony going freely to people who don't believe in it.

"The fact wasn't that you failed to make an argument,"

Gimme an H!
Gimme a Y!
Gimme a P!
Gimme an O!
Gimme a C!
Gimme an R!
Gimme an I!
Gimme a T!
Gimme an E!

Also, you've been saying that ever since your second post in this debate, if you knew me at all then you'd know I make damn sure to answer for as much as I can, the very fact that you're able to talk about this is because I've answered for it, now please take it out of the "things that cease to exist if I don't want them to" drawer and file them properly like a good Christian.

"Children don't recognize that it's wrong, so they do it"

Ignoring the fact that children have no interest in sex while they're children, ignoring the fact that children see much worse than homosexuality in everyday cartoons and they don't do it, ignoring the fact that even if children did try to do it, they wouldn't be physically capable of it because their genitals don't work at the gullible ages we're referring to, ignores the fact that children are probably more interested in games of football than mimicking two guys kissing, ignoring the fact that two children kissing doesn't equate to all-out sphincter-destroying homosexuality, ignoring the fact that 2% of those kids will grow up to be homosexual anyway, ignoring the fact that homosexuality isn't caused by outside influence, so even if they aren't exposed to it, that 2% will still be gay.

"The rest of my opponent's arguments are just personal jabs."

Like yours, you mean? and the "rest" I've noticed in a funny and no doubt very convenient pattern are things you are unable to answer for or don't want to answer for for fear of looking like the bigot that you are.
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

As I stated, I won't deal with arguments in this round. I must leave it up to the voter. Also, I would like to apologize to the voter for my opponent's behavior. It's obvious that he wasn't brought up right, and I'm sure he doesn't mean to make humans in general look bad. The fact that he is a flaming homosexual must leave him with much guilt and pain emotionally, and I can understand this as I am used to working with children. You have seen my arguments, and I urge you, voter, to vote Negative. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Veridas 4 years ago
Veridas
You ain't a colony anymore, bub, remember? and your spelling isn't universal. Dictating that everything has to meet your grammatical and spelling standards equates to completely ignoring the fact that you're the ones that chose to screw with the language in the first place, at least we're moderately tolerant of the inevitable change in languages as they branch off and develop.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 4 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Yes.... A colony in the America's vastly smaller than England come to mind... What was it again...? The United States of America or something... Hmmmm
Posted by Veridas 4 years ago
Veridas
Realised with an S, I pity the fool, singular, who doesn't realise that we English spell words differently. (read: correctly)

We did, you know, invent it after all through thousands upon thousands of years of conquest (going both ways, we got beaten up but we beat other people up too) the meshing of cultures as a result of global war and trade, the development of theatre and, oh yes, letting people do things their way rather than standing around ordering them how to spell their words, which is why you lot were able to mess with the language.

Microsoft Word has an English: USA and an English: International dictionary for a reason you know, smartass.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 4 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Realized. With a z. I pity the fools.
Posted by Veridas 4 years ago
Veridas
Bahahaha! I just realised you consider yourself to be a good debater!
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 4 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Bahaha! I just realized you said this would be a friendly debate! And you call me a H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E
Posted by Veridas 4 years ago
Veridas
I think you need reading glasses, man.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 4 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
I think you need a chill-pill, man.
Posted by Veridas 4 years ago
Veridas
Oops, argument was cut short for some reason despite being within the character count according to the number at the bottom.

Probably best to disregard that for the time being.
Posted by Veridas 4 years ago
Veridas
It's ok man, in your own time.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 3 years ago
GMDebater
VeridasMr_Jack_NixonTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: No reason to call your opponent a flaming homo
Vote Placed by advil0 3 years ago
advil0
VeridasMr_Jack_NixonTied
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:31 
Vote Placed by Yurlene 4 years ago
Yurlene
VeridasMr_Jack_NixonTied
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 micktravis 4 years ago
micktravis
VeridasMr_Jack_NixonTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by AntibacterialSpray 4 years ago
AntibacterialSpray
VeridasMr_Jack_NixonTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Mr_Jack_Nixon 4 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
VeridasMr_Jack_NixonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 4 years ago
kingofslash5
VeridasMr_Jack_NixonTied
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 
Vote Placed by knm131 4 years ago
knm131
VeridasMr_Jack_NixonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by tmoney226 4 years ago
tmoney226
VeridasMr_Jack_NixonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00