The Instigator
Bruin2006
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 10 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,183 times Debate No: 22104
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (58)
Votes (10)

 

Bruin2006

Pro

Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, neither chose their sexual orientation, nor should they be denied the same legal rights heterosexuals enjoy simply because they were born different from what is considered "the norm." Every respectable scientific organization in the world, including the American Psychological Association, says that sexual orientation is connected to biological factors and cannot be changed.

Just as it is wrong to deny legal rights to blacks, women, and people born left-handed, so too is wrong to deny gay couples the legal equality and benefits that come with marriage.

Opponents of gay rights are quick to point out how the Bible says homosexuality is "an abomination." However, in the time the Bible was written, an abomination simply meant "out of the ordinary." Since the Bible does not clearly condemn homosexuality, it cannot logically be used as a weapon against gays.

Even IF the Bible did condemn homosexuality, gays would still be entitled to the same rights and protections granted to straight couples under the laws of the United States because of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Any attempts to outlaw or prevent gay marriage are unconstitutional since America is not a theocracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic, where the majority never decides the rights of minorities. This was made very clear on February 7, 2012 when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage (CA proposition 8) unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

As you can see, there is absolutely no acceptable religious or legal reason why homosexuals should not be granted the same marriage rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals.
16kadams

Con

Rc1: Being gay is natural!!!

I agree. This is irrelevant to the topic.

Rc2: Blacks and gays are the same in marriage!

I will be providing the secular case towards gay marriage today. The secular case states the governments interests in the marriage business are confer economic benefits due to procreation. The benefits the government gives away are due to a reason as I would not give away anything for nothing, this implies they must have a reason to ban/allow SSM (same sex marriage). Their reasons are procreative, homosexual couples cannot for procreative type unions therefore this analogy is not comparable. The reason blacks where denied the right was hatred. They can still form procreate unions and fulfill the states interests, gays cannot therefore don't fulfill states interests, therefore this comparison does not hold up. Minorities CAN fulfill states interests, and gays cannot, therefore there is no comparison.

Rc3: Religion

This is irrelevant to the debate as I am not arguing on these grounds. I am an atheist, and I have not argued this argument. You refuted an argument that WAS NOT going to be brought up. This is not the reason we ban SSM, I will provide reasons later, as this is irrelevant I will proceed.

Rc4: Constitutionality

Before bringing in my court cases, I will refute the premise. To violate the equal protection clause, it must be discrimination. This is where it gets sticky. It is only discriminatory if it violates fundamental rights. For this debate I will claim it IS a right. Marriage is a right, but I differ from you on what marriage actually means. Now, if marriage is strictly defined as a man and a woman then no discrimination is occurring as this word does not apply to them. As another DD user in his paper states:

"Thus, before we can claim that the traditional conception of marriage would discriminate against homosexual couples, we must first settle the issue of what marriage is. If same-sex "marriage" is not marriage to begin with, then no discrimination would be taking place, for homosexuals are not being unjustly denied something they deserve because they do not deserve it to begin with. It is up to advocates of same-sex marriage to argue for their account of marriage instead of just assuming it." [1]

As it is not discrimination it cannot violate the equal protection clause. Now I must go into court cases, that are more viable then mere state courts.

First state courts:

Baker v. Nelson (Minnesota denies SSM on procreative and constitutional reasons) [2]
Jones v. Hallahan (Kentucky defines marriage as one man one woman on procreative grounds, no constitutional breach)
Singer v. Hara (discrimination on sexuality ok, not the same as race for procreative reasons, no constitutional breach) [4]
Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (did not violate 14th amendment to ban SSM) [5]

Get the gist?

The FEDERAL 8th circuit court agrees, banning SSM is not unconstitutional. [6]

My case:

Marriage and procreation have been an intertwined unit for a long time, and the government sees this. Their interests in marriage are in procreative reasons to further society as we know it. In many of the court cases listed above they said banning SSM was unconstitutional IF the state had no reason to ban it. The state said procreative reasons sir, the debated it, and the court said banning SSM was ok on procreative grounds, and the quoted passage I said above. Marriage has almost always been a state interest. People not forming procreative type unions are not repaying the governments expenses. The government gives out 1000s of benefits, and they are not doing that for no reason. Helping people is not a reason. It would help people if they cut taxes to 1%, but that's not in their interests, allowing SSM is not in their interests, therefore allowing SSM is unjust. The supreme court has ruled on this saying: "marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." [7] Homosexual couples can not ever procreate and form procreative TYPE unions, therefore are not creating a climate for responsible procreation. As homosexuals can never do this, there is no legitament reason to allow SSM.

[1] "One man, one woman, defending traditional marriage" Tim Hsiao Florida state university.
[2] Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971)
[3] Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973)
[4] Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974)
[5] Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)
[6] http://www.frcblog.com...
[7] RITES, RIGHTS, AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS: WHY AND HOW SHOULD THE LAW SUPPORT MARRIAGE? Maggie Gallagher
Debate Round No. 1
Bruin2006

Pro

Reproduction has nothing to do with the state granting marriage licenses. Many couples are incapable of having children or simply choose not to, and yet they are still granted marriage rights. Whatever the state's "interest" in granting marriage licenses may be, procreation is not an acceptable term of condition for allowing marriage in today's modern society. To do so would be state-sanctioned discrimination, which would be a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as well as a violation of common sense.

The state DOES, however, have an interest in promoting loving, committed relationships that provide a strong family support system in which to raise children. Married gay couples provide an excellent community service by adopting, caring for, and raising the unwanted children created by irresponsible heterosexuals. And research shows that children raised by gay parents are every bit as successful in education as children raised by heterosexuals. [1] In fact, studies show that the only major difference is that children raised by gay parents tend to be more tolerant and open-minded. [2] Therefore, a logical person has to conclude that while granting marriage licenses to gays may not result in procreation among the involved partners, it will result in an equally loving, supportive and beneficial environment for children comparable to families headed by heterosexual parents.

At one time marriage did not include blacks, however that has since changed as society evolved. Similarly, the definition of marriage has changed to include gays as well. To say that marriage is defined as one man and one woman is inaccurate as the definition has changed in many states and countries around the world. Denying gay marriage is based on identity, not conduct, and is an act of targeted discrimination based on who they are and how others assume they live. [3] Granting marriage rights to heterosexuals, while denying them to gays, simply based on the fact that they are different, is unconstitutional and a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause since both race and sexual orientation are a basis for minority group status in the United States and each constitute a master status. [4] Refusing marriage rights to gays is the equivalent of denying blacks the right to marry.

Opposing gay marriage on the assertion that gays somehow don't fulfill the state's interest in child rearing is simply illogical. As homosexuals are just as capable of raising children as are heterosexuals, there is no legitimate reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

[1] http://news.stanford.edu...
[2] Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience
[3] Suzanne Goldberg, JD, Clinical Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, on PublicEye.org
[4] "Race and Sexual Orientation" University of California
16kadams

Con


Rc1: Procreation is nothing to do with marriage

His argument here is it is impossible that this is true because infertile couples still get married. My opponent misinterprets this argument to the extreme. I have stated multiple times procreative type unions. The government wants a climate for procretive type acts to further the human race. [1] Infertile couples can still form procreative type unions forming a climate for procreation to fufill states interests. They want married couples to procreate to further the human race and society. [2] That's a logical purpose in marriage.

He then claims a unsupportd claim of procreation is not a valid interest in today's world. May I ask why? Propagating society in a responsible manner is always a benefit to us and the state. I do not see why procreative reasons need not apply in the modern day world.

He then brings up the equal protection. As I have already refuted this, and he just keeps pushing unsupported arguments, I will refute this in new ways. As stated this assumes marriage is a right. I will play along as either way this is refutable. Before one can determine if marriage is discrimination one must first determine what marriage is. [3] As marriage is efined as a man and a woman it cannot apply to them, even if it was a right.

"So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place." [3]

Marriage only applies to heterosexuals. If marriage is a right still no discrimination is occurng as same sex "marriage" does not exist.

My opponent then claims it violates common sense. Common sense is defined as sound judgement based off of facts. [4] am stating well known facts as the goverment has come out multiple times saying Banning SSM is ok, and that procreation was the reason it is banned. [1] My arguments could be no closer then fact.

Rc2: Family


My opponent makes an absird comment saying the reason the state is in marriage is to promote love. This argument is infact false. If the government actually cared about lovem they would be regulating any relationship involving love. If love was truely a reason they where in marriage they would regulate every relationship. If you said "mom I love you" the goevrment would then say "hey, u need a liscense for that!". They would regulate people with their girlfreinds and boyfreinds, as they do not regulete these things it scratches out the possibility they are interested in love.

My opponent then states amily units. Ok, but how does a family relate to marriage? Adoption doesn't apply to state interests as the state want's new children to be made, adoption is just relocating the kids. Homosexual parenting and heterosexual parenting is actually quit different unlike my opponent claims as homosexuals have higher STD rates, abuse rates (to one another), and are seldom monogomous, and are less commited. [2, 5] Allowing homosexual marriage increases out of wedlock births and is aactually harmful to the overall youth populaiton. [2, 6] (so it hurts kids that are raised in heterosexual houses).

My opponent still has not had a case proving a reaso for the state to legalize SSM.

Rc3: Blacks vs Gays

My opponent still has not aswered the fundamental refutations I have brought forth. These to things are not comparable. Race does not dictate whether or not one an procreate and fufill states interests, sexual preference is. I will show a quote:

"Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. "(emphasis added) [7]

Your example does fail on the same grounds I have stated, minorities deserve this as they can procreate and fifill states interests in propagating society, homosexuals cannot. His arguments are false as race =/= sexuality.

He then goes onto the same equal protection clause, man the readers are gonna get pissed on hearing my same rant over and over, he has not responded to my first refutations, I will now add a different refutation. This refutation will be about whether or not they deserve the right. Banning homosexual marriage is jt as they do not deserve this privalege, they do not propagate society nor fufil states interests. [8] If they do not deserve these rights no discrimination occurs.

Which ever refutation floats your boat, I provided both :).

Back to refuting interacial coupes:

"It is also argued by those advocating same-sex marriage, that excluding same-sex couples
from marriage is the same act of discrimination as prohibiting interracial marriage, which
has rightly been recognized as a serious breach of human rights. That argument is not
correct. Because an interracial marriage between a man and a woman does symbolize the
procreative relationship, its prohibition is based on racial discrimination which is wrong. In
contrast, not extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, is not based
on the sexual orientation of the partners, but the absence of a feature of their relationship
which is an essential feature of marriage." [8]

Rc4: Opposing gay marriage on states interests is illogical


If anything it is the best argument in the marriage debate. Of there is no reason confer these benefits, why do it? If I had 1000000$, and gave it away for no reason sure it will help the person who got it but it did not fufill my needs. My question to you is why? It is illorical to give things away for no reason, so why? My opponent has first made an unsupported claim here, second not justified why giving away benefits for no reason is logical. The only reason people give stuff away is if there is a reason too. There is no reason to allow SSM. My opponents case is highly illogical as why should we allow SSM? This is her BOP, wich she has not fufilled. Therefore she is on the bottom floor here. I now proceed to urging a CON vote.







[1] William C. Duncan, The State Interests in Marriage Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
[2] Frank Turek, PROTECTING AMERICA’S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
[3] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] David Dunlap, In Age of AIDS, Love and Hope Can Lead to Risk, New York Times, July 27, 1996.
[6] http://www.weeklystandard.com...
[7] http://tech.mit.edu...
[8] The Case Against Same Sex Marriage, Margret A. Somerville
Debate Round No. 2
Bruin2006

Pro

Procreation & Family
Procreation is not, nor has it ever been, a term of condition for granting marriage licenses. For my opponent’s argument to be acceptable, the state would have to require that all marriages result in procreation. In that case it would be perfectly acceptable to prohibit gays from getting married. However, as this is not the case and married couples are in no way obligated to produce children, banning gay marriage solely on the basis that they cannot procreate is illogical.

Marriage has traditionally been a contract between a man and woman, the basis of the family unit, and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. The underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains, but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same. [1] While marriage still provides a foundation to preserve morals, as well as civilization, it is no longer simply a union between a man and woman, as homosexual couples are equally capable of fulfilling society’s interests in marriage, such as the union of 2 committed adults and child rearing.

Never did I claim that procreation is not a valid interest in today’s modern world, I simply pointed out that procreation is not, nor has it ever been, a term of condition for granting marriage licenses. I can tell you, as someone who is alive and well and loves his life very much, I am extremely grateful to my parents for procreating or else I would not be here to engage in such important debate. However, I’m sure my parents would have taken much offense to someone telling them they must have children in order to have their loving, committed relationship be recognized by the state and the rest of society.

No Discrimination?
My opponent next insists that since gays have traditionally not been permitted to marry, there is no reason to expand marriage rights to them, and that any prohibiting of marriage is not discrimination, since the definition of marriage has traditionally meant the union of a man and woman. Now, my opponent appears to be an intelligent person, however they may wish to brush up on their American history. Women were not granted the right to vote in the U.S. until 1920. Was their insistence on sexual equality for voting rights invalid, simply because they did not meet the voting requirement of that time? Of course not. Were blacks unreasonable for demanding equal treatment under the law, even though they technically did not meet the legal requirements of the time? Again, a logical person would say no. Similarly, to say that legal rights should not be expanded to otherwise upstanding, moral, committed, productive members of society, simply because they do not meet the current legal definition of marriage is unacceptable.

My opponent appears to be stuck in the past by not acknowledging that the definition of marriage has already been changed in many states and countries around the world to include homosexuals. Yet many political groups insist on challenging current legislation that allows gays to marry. Essentially, these opponents aim to deprive gays of legal rights already granted to them, without giving any valid reason to do so. One example that comes to mind was California’s Proposition 8, which was finally ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2012. [2] Are these attempts to deprive gays of legal rights already granted to them not clear violations of the Equal Protection Clause? A logical person would concede so.

Government is Evolving
Common sense would tell us that while the government has banned SSM in the past, it has also more recently allowed SSM as times have changed and society has become more accepting of people who are born gay. Examples include New York state last summer and Washington state just this year. [3] Using past injustices as reason to support further injustice is illogical.

My opponent then claims that I said the government is involved in marriage to promote love. This is taken out of context as my full statement reads:

“The state DOES, however, have an interest in promoting loving, committed relationships that provide a strong family support system in which to raise children.”

I was simply pointing out that if child rearing is in fact a state interest in granting marriage licenses, homosexuals are every bit as capable of fulfilling this interest as are heterosexuals.

Irrelevent & Offensive
My opponent then proceeds to spout out irrelevant and incredibly absurd claims, including that gays are seldom monogamous and are less committed. These are simply unfounded, irresponsible accusations that have no place in a respectable debate. My opponent then makes one of the most ridiculous and incoherent statements I’ve ever come across, saying:

“Allowing homosexual marriage increases out of wedlock births and is aactually harmful to the overall youth populaiton. So it hurts kids that are raised in heterosexual houses.”

As this statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, I cannot respond to it, but simply wished to point out the type of unsupported nonsense being spewed by opponents of legal equality.

Race & Sexual Orientation
My opponent then claims that race and sexual orientation are not comparable in terms of discrimination. However, as neither race nor sexual orientation are chosen, it is my assertion that they are EXACTLY the same thing in terms of requirements for what can be considered legal discrimination, as the person has no control over the condition that is causing them to be discriminated against. Remember, my opponent has already conceded that sexual orientation is not chosen, and is determined by biology, just as every respectable scientific organization in the world has confirmed. This includes the American Psychological Association. [4]

Conclusion
As my opponent has repeatedly admitted, his only legitimate reason for denying marriage to gays is that he feels they somehow cannot fulfill the state interest of child rearing. As I have pointed out several times, this is simply not true. Even if they could not perform the functions of parents, they would still be entitled to marriage rights as being a parent is not a term of condition for being married. As there is clearly no legal reason to deny gay marriage, I must urge a PRO vote.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[2] http://www.sfgate.com...

[3] http://www.reuters.com...

[4] http://www.apa.org...



16kadams

Con

Rc1: Procreation

My opponent has still provided an unsourced argument claiming procreation does not effect marriage licenses. My opponents argument is FALSE. Procreation is what decides many SSM and marriage laws, as it is a legitament state interest, and as it dictates many of these laws it therefore effects marriage licenses. [1] My opponent has not provided evidence to justify this claim, I have proven this claim multiple times, and therefore I win this argument proving it a state interests to promote procreation through marriage. My opponent has not been able to refute this state interest argument throughout this debate.

My opponents source says nothing about just said. And he also forgot one thing marriage in the US has ALWAYS been, a union of a man and woman, propagating society through procreative type unions. [2] Legally speaking this is correct as there have been marriage court cases where the state argues the states interests is in procreation since the 1900s. [1] As I have stated the supreme court has sided with me on the procreative grounds since 1940. [3] As you conceded marriage was a legal contract, and the states interests are in procreation, then you basically concede SSM should not be legal.

My opponent then comes with an unsourced claim with little logic behind it, it is just a blank statement of it never effect marriage licenses. Yes folks, her refutation is an empty statement. She says marriage is not about procreation, well it isn't for some people, but in the states eyes it is about procreation. [1] My opponent has FAILED to refute this valid point.

Rc2: Discrimination

My opponent has dropped my gay "marriage"argument doesn't exist. To break the equal protection clause, it must be unjust discrimination. [4] They are not being unjustly deprived anything as there is no reason to legalize SSM. [4] Also before we assume it is discrimination one must assume what marriage is. [4] Marriage currently is between a man and a woman, as it is defined as such no right is being deprived therefore it is not discrimination under law. [4]

My opponent has failed to refute this premise, and drops it this round. I extend Rc1 and 2.

My opponent brings up women in a debate about gay marriage. Well may I ask, how is voting similar to marriage? It was discriminatory as the state had no legitament reason to ban it. As I have stated the courts say if there is no state interest to legalize SSM, then it is unconstitutional. If there is, then banning it is ok. The courts have on many occasions stated the legitament reason to banning it is procreation, the supreme court even has accepted this, and claimed it a pass on the equal protection clause, and not discriminatory. [3]

My opponents last argument here is laws change. This is irrelevant, the laws now support my side. The laws actually prove SSM not discriminatory as Same Sex "Marriage" Does not exist. Changing laws does not apply in this debate, as the majority of the laws are against SSM, and well who cares? It is not discriminatory under current law. Future law doesn't apply as we are arguing in the NOW. Is it discriminatory now? I have proven it is not.

Rc3: Government evolving

It is a conduct violation to provide arguments last round. Therefore I ask for the conduct point.

My opponents case here is once again irrelevant. We are arguing the NOW. The state should not legalize as their current interests are in procreation, regardless of popular support. But remember as this is a new argument last round it is customary on DDO that it be thrown out and that I get the conduct points.

My opponent doesn't understand my wed lock births argument. As he has not refuted that facts show that SSM changes social norms and increases wed lock births. (sources last round) As he has not refuted this I extend this point.

Rc3: Irrelevant and offensive

It is not irrelevant as he stated the family unit in gay households are exactly the same. I have proven it is not as they have higher AIDS (and other STD's) and promiscuity rates. My opponent has not refuted these facts. Gays have 8 partners per year this is a fact. [5] My opponent in fact is more insulting claiming this is "incoherent" and "unfounded" and "irresponsible". These arguments are highly sourced and valid, I extend the arguments on the family unit in homosexual couples is NOT the same due to their social practice. I am just reporting the facts, and my opponent basally disregards them and yells bigotry. As there is no sufficient refutation here I extend this argument.

Rc4: Race vs. Gays

Once again I ave refuted this, and my opponent is very falsified. His only clam is homosexuals can't choose sexuality, race isn't chosen either, therefore it is comparable. It can also be written as this:

P1: Can't choose race
P2: Can't choose sexuality
C: Therefore this compares

This logic is highly flawed. Being able to choose or not isn't a reason to compare the banishment of their marriage. This analogy fails on the reasons why these people have been banned from their marriage. People banned form marriage for race was a bigoted government. The states reasons to banning homosexual couples is more reasonable as their interests are in procreative relationships. Comparing these two things is totally false! The minorities where UNJUSTLY denied these rights, homosexuals not so much. [4] One can first not compare them for procreative reasons, no matter the race one can still procreate and fit into the states interests. Homosexuals CAN NEVER do this, therefore the comparison is futile.

My opponent then says he conceded they can't choose. That was not a concession. My opponent was refuting an argument that never existed. In the comments he also states he is just clarifying, as it was a clarification it wasn't an argument therefore not a concession.

~Dropped arguments~

Same Sex "marriage" Does not exist
Procreation (he drops his main rebuttals)
The illogical banning due to states interests
Family (saying that's mean is not a refutation, calling it drivel as you did is mean also)

My opponent then with the arguments that he dropped as stated above has dropped one half of my case. With this information I should already win this debate. But that's for the voters to decide.

Conclusion:

My opponents case was highly fallacious and has been refuted. My opponent has not fulfilled her BoP and has dropped many key points to this debate. Her attempted refutation to the procreation argument was uncited, logic void, and was refuted. As I have refuted her case to rubble, her refutation to my case was shallow and sourceless, and her arguments where mainly based off of calling me a bigot or having a "mean" argument, I win these points in the debate. As her refutation to the procreation argument was shallow, she dropped many key points, and had little evidence for the discrimination arguments, I urge a CON vote. I have fulfilled my BoP, my opponent has not.

Voters guide:

Arguments - me I have cited them in my conclusion and in the dropped arguments section
Sources - Not only did I have more but the majority of them come from medical or law institutions
Conduct - me, m opponent introduced many new arguments last round, which is customary to be thrown out and a conduct violation
S/G - you decide

Sources:

1 - William C. Duncan, The State Interests in Marriage Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
2 - Margret A. Somerville, The Case Against Same Sex Marriage
3 - Maggie Gallagher, Rites, Rights, and Social Institutions: Why and how should the Law Support Marriage?
4 - Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage"
5 - Xiridou, 1031.
Debate Round No. 3
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
It was an average retard
Posted by PervRat 2 years ago
PervRat
Better reasoned and thought out? Seriously, wtf? Con argued monogamous gay couples don't exist (completely false and prejudicial) and implied, by contrast, heterosexual people never have multiple sex partners. I have a lot of gay friends who have been monogamous for /decades./ Anyone supporting Con's position gives unearned credence to these false and terribly bigoted claims. Shame on every one of you.
Posted by johnnyboy54 2 years ago
johnnyboy54
"Uh... failing to prove why homosexual couples should be legally discriminated against and only "winning" the debate because 5 conservative regressives voted for you = losing. Night man."

You did not meet your burden of proof. Con's arguments were better presented and better thought out. You failed to show why homosexual marriage should be recognized in the same manner as heterosexual marriage. That is why you lost.

Also, you have only been on the site for three days. Assuming bias without knowing the people behind the votes is asinine.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
your votes where all from socialists so...
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
kk whatever you say
Posted by Bruin2006 2 years ago
Bruin2006
Uh... failing to prove why homosexual couples should be legally discriminated against and only "winning" the debate because 5 conservative regressives voted for you = losing. Night man.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
ew. Btw me getting tired of this when the debate is over =/= I am losing.
Posted by Bruin2006 2 years ago
Bruin2006
Yeah because THAT comment doesn't scream discrimination! lol you crack me up man. I think you've already realized you have a losing argument but you just aren't ready to come to terms with that, and I can respect that. I'm gonna go make out with my boyfriend now. Remember, he's the hot Latino?
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I am on a crusade to keep you on the other side of the fence
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 2 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Bruin200616kadamsTied
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: Countering the rat.
Vote Placed by PervRat 2 years ago
PervRat
Bruin200616kadamsTied
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: Con has appalling spelling and grammar and uses a lof of prejudicial and unfounded claims (gays have 8 partners per year, heteros only 1).
Vote Placed by johnnyboy54 2 years ago
johnnyboy54
Bruin200616kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not adequately respond to cons arguments. Con showed that gay unions are not covered as a part of the Equal Protection Clause, which was vital for his argument. Con better defend his claims about state sponsored marriage. Pro claim that state sponsored marriage is about love was not prove. Con does not get conduct points because the debate structure was not laid out before hand. Pro gets spelling and grammar. Con had many typos.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
Bruin200616kadamsTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con succesfully refuted Pro's arguments. Con proved that the state's intrest in marriage is procreation.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
Bruin200616kadamsTied
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: Con did a better job in my opinion getting his points across. Conduct because Con was more respectful.
Vote Placed by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
Bruin200616kadamsTied
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: countering alkid
Vote Placed by alkid96 2 years ago
alkid96
Bruin200616kadamsTied
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: Love knows no gender.
Vote Placed by TheDiabolicDebater 2 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
Bruin200616kadamsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con because pro brought up an argument in the 3rd round. Con was also more civil and respectful throughout the debate. S/G goes to pro for obvious reasons. Overall con wins arguments because pro dropped some key points. Sources is a tie.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 2 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
Bruin200616kadamsTied
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: The PRO definately pointed out some of the logical fallacies that the CON had in the case, and I was able to spot them as well. In addition to that, the CON came off as a bit sarcastic and arrogant in some parts of the debate, so I gave PRO the conduct point. The PRO, I believe addressed the case well.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 2 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Bruin200616kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a good job and gave good arguments, but Con refuted them well. I'm doing a 5-2 because I'd say that while Pro did a better job in presentation overall Con refuted Pro's claims.