The Instigator
Finalfan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 798 times Debate No: 34500
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Finalfan

Pro

First I want to point out that I am heterosexual! Like most people I went to school with, I was brainwashed into homophobia! Being called a homo sexual was the ultimate insult, but that was 14 years ago! A lot has changed, but the word "Gay" has held its ground as an insult! My argument is that preventing Gay marriage is holding on to that phobia! It is inviting ignorance and hate as a "Moral Backbone"! I would like to think that we have moved past our junior high state of mind and have become more tolerant of differences throughout the years!
xXCryptoXx

Con

My Argument

There is a reason the goverment regulates marriage. If marriage were strictly about the love between two consenting adults there would be no reason for the state to not only recognize the marriage, but to also give the couple marital rights.

The reason the state recognizes marriage is because marriage, when used correctly, can benefit the society.

Heterosexual marriages inhetertently benefit society because the relationship they pursue, when fulfilled at it's best naturally benefits society through procreation and the proper raising of children. It is obvious that only a society that has people in it will continue to thrive and if those people were raised properly we will have a well-run society.

Homosexual relationships cannot procreate nor can they raise children properly for society; because this relationship does not benefit society in any way the state should not recognize it.

Response to My Opponent's Argument

My opponent's main argument for gay marriage is that we should just stop being homophobic and allow them into the institution. While I do completely agree that any hatred against homosexuals is unjust and should be stopped, that really has nothing to do with the reasons homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry. I have shown why they shouldn't marry in my argument.

Debate Round No. 1
Finalfan

Pro

So your going with the survival argument! I think that is rubbish! That has nothing to do with why the gays are not allowed to get married! You speculate that it will have some detrimental effect on our population grow! Am I the only one that think that the "mutation" that causes homo-sexuality might have something to do with population control? Unless your insinuating that if gay people got married some how that would make everyone gay! Our population is out of control including the homeless, poor, orphaned children. I'm sticking with the old statement that the anti gay marriage campaign is led by homophobia (Usually a fear that you could be gay)
xXCryptoXx

Con

It is irrelevant whether our society actually needs to be populated or not. Fact is, the old will die out and we'll need people to replace them. Society needs human beings in order to thrive and continue.

Besides my opponent's argument on population, he rants on about extremely irrelevant and actually rather laughable assertions such as homosexuality existing because of population control and that allowing gay marriage would make people gay.

Both of these silly assertions are completely irrelevant to the debate.

He then continues ranting about homophobia blah blah blah which I already explained that there is no homophobia; we just want to define marriage in a way that best benefits society. I also already expained that hatred towards homosexuals is unjust and should be stopped.

Conclusion

My opponent does not even try to refute my opening argument and goes on with some irrelevant stuff and rants about homophobia. There wasn't much to respond to, so yeah. My arguments still stand.
Debate Round No. 2
Finalfan

Pro

Your argument was some fantasy where allowing gay people to get married would some how lead to the extinction of man! Pretty laughable assertion! I made the joke that it would happen by everyone turning gay! That was me entertaining your childish notion! You have zero evidence for your claim and you laugh at my hypothesis that the "Gay Gene" could be natures way of saying slow down! Do you understand what exponential growth means? I'm sure you shrugged off them mention of poverty and orphaned children because you could care less of the very negative effects over population! Again you can shrug off my argument all you like because yours holds absolutely no weight... You are homophobic deal with it!
xXCryptoXx

Con

I apologize to my opponent for calling his assertions laughable. However, I do honestly think they are very flawed.

My opponent goes on on his argument about how there are plenty of people as is so procreation is irrelevant. Well sir, I already explained that procreation is not irrelevant because a society needs the young to replace the old eventually so they can take over and furthermore continue the society.

Blahblahblah lots of irrelevant stuff; my opponent states that I simply shrug off his argument. I think not good sir! I gave an appropriate response in my opening argument, in my round 2 argument, and now I'm giving an appropriate response in this argument.

My opponent talks about over-population, which goes very off-topic from this debate which if I may remind my opponent, is about gay marriage.

My opponent talks about a "gay gene" which is nature's way of saying slow down. I think not, homosexuality in fact, was far more common and accepted in old societies such as Greece and Rome. Arguably, homosexuality is related more to the surrounding environment and societies acceptance of it then it is related to biological factors.

Conclusion

Nearly all of my opponent's arguments are irrelevant and my opponent failed to so much as respond to my own opening arguments.

Good(ish)(Okay, fine, the debate was pretty bad) debate Pro.

VOTE CON

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
This debate was a flop, 3 rounds ended before con had a chance to back up his argument, pro was struggling with limited freedom in debate forum! In other words I'm figuring out this website! My frustration and rudeness was because I was watching as the debate slipped away without anything being said or debated and was met with rudeness and disregard for my arguments!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
FinalfanxXCryptoXxTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It was rude of Pro for him to call Con a homophobe. Is Pro a heterophobe for not agreeing with Con? Pro's walls of text display poor organizational style, which I consider part of good grammar. And Pro's assertions did not rebut the crux of Con's argument and did not present any case himself. Sources are tied as none were needed by either.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
FinalfanxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro made poor arguments and was one of the most rude debaters I've ever seen on DDO. Con kept his cool and logic and really pulled this through
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
FinalfanxXCryptoXxTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct for all he seemed to do is arrogantly rant on about how Con was homophobic (he is not). Con wins arguments for Pro provided no arguments really that were relevant to the debate while Con's were clear and quite relevant. Also noticed more spelling mistakes with Pro than with Con. Sources are tied (neither side provided them).
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
FinalfanxXCryptoXxTied
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: Pro was right that Con failed to explain how exactly the world would be underpopulated if gay marriage was legalized (a weak argument if you ask me), however, Pro didn't really make any legitimate arguments, and didn't really respond to the majority of what Con was saying. Arguments to Con, everything else was close enough to call it even.