The Instigator
Hunter.a
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
king3opobn
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 38501
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Hunter.a

Pro

Salutations, I will be arguing for the pro side of gay marriage. Gay Marriage should be legal. In the Declaration of Independence, it states "all men are created equal." Notice how there is no foot notes or any writing between the lines.
king3opobn

Con

Well, my argument that "gay marriage" should not be allowed legally has to start , of course with the word itself, marriage. Marriage is a biblical idea, at least that is were it started. It is a "sin" to have sexual relationships outside of marriage. If it has biblical origins, from it's origin ( the bible), also states that homosexuality is an abomination to God--"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)-9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,-, to whom the whole ritual of marriage is done before him. Now with modern times, what is the point of marriage between "gays" if it is wrong according to the bible? Marriage was set because of the bible,and if you are not going to obey the laws and commandments of the bible, what is the point of obeying one (marriage) and not the rest? Now you might say for the purpose of buying a house together? or filing taxes together(Because surely you can't say to have a kid together)? Now what i can say should be legally allowed is a "civil union" between 2 men. Even though there will be no "husband" and no "wife", if one be called husband and the other be called wife, are you still considered as "all men are created equal"? Who's last name will be taken up as the union's name? This is not evening considering the fact that nature itself teaches us that man is for woman and woman for man. Does not the penis insert into the vagina for reproduction? Is not the anus for defecation? Civil union yes, who cares. Marriage no, it would be wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
Hunter.a

Pro

Thank you for responding to my debate. First of all, if the states do not allow gay marriage on the bible alone then that would be unconstitutional because we have something called separation of church and state. I will also say that there are many religions and just because that is what you believe it is not what everyone believes Third, does the bible not say that humans were created in Gods image thus God created them as gay.
king3opobn

Con

Humans are created in Gods image does not mean he made them gay. He made the anus for taking a crap, not insert genitals and things into it. Nature, as stayed above, shows us that we are to use our genitals between man and woman to reproduce. If your parents molest you and you end up have issues with your identity does not mean that God made you like that. If you are a castrated male, that does not mean God made men like that when he said,"let us make man in our image."
**Matthew 19:12*For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. **Never does that say that it was done for anal sex. Marriage has much to do with family. How can two male or two female start thier own family? Marriage is the first step into building a healthy family that contributes to society. Whether anyone agrees with me or not we ALL come from one man and one woman. Naturally it is impossible for a human to be conceived through a homosexual relationship. Marriage with or with out a tax benefit is between one man and one woman. The Government has destroyed the fabric of society or is rather well on the way to doing so because it has created two industries: The Divorce Industry and the Family Disintegration industry which merely serve as ways to tax its citizenry. The result is the decline of the number and duration of marriages and also a decline in the number of children being produced such that we have to import families and children from other countries to make our society function even on a basic economic level. America has lasted hundreds of years without having gays being married to each other. What will this country come to if we just start making laws to satisfy every little whining complaint? Gays only want to be married so they can get the benefits that the governm
Debate Round No. 2
Hunter.a

Pro

You are only looking at the biblical side of the issue. This country has a separation of church and state, meaning that the church, including its religious teachings, shan't affect this nations laws. Second you say that, "the decline of the number and duration of marriages and also a decline in the number of children being produced," which is incorrect because the gays will not get married to the other sex, nor will they have children with the other sex. In addition Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage and their divorce rate went gone down by 21% from 2003 to 2008.
king3opobn

Con

Marriages should not be allowed, a neither should government have an affair in it. Being homosexual does not mean they have a right. Black people did not choose to be born that way, they should not have gone through the discrimination. Brown people do not choose to be born like that, and should not be discriminated for it. White people also don't choose it, but they are. Homosexuality is a choice, even though you might say some are born like that, it is still a choice, because one can easily marry a woman even if born castrated and there still be love. A thief chooses to be a thief, it is wrong and they can be punished by law. Should a kleptomaniac be allowed to steal just because the constitution says we are all equal? If gay marriage is allowed legally, then marrying having multiple wives should be allowed because it is also a choice, then next will people want to marry animals!? Gay marriage will promote gay lifestyle which in turn is not something to be encouraged, because as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. Denying these marriages is not a form of minority discrimination since it is something that is chosen, not born into. states have laws regulating marriage, forbidding first cousins from marrying, brothers and sisters from marrying, parents and offspring from marrying, and people from marrying animals, inanimate objects, or multiple other individuals.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Hunter.a 3 years ago
Hunter.a
Twas a good one. Thank you for debating with me.
Posted by king3opobn 3 years ago
king3opobn
So, hunter.a , what did you think of the whole debate?
Posted by king3opobn 3 years ago
king3opobn
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is a question of whether or not there exists a compelling enough interest for the government to subsidize and encourage gay marriage. As same-sex couples cannot procreate and, in fact, have the potential to harm any children they might raise, it is certainly in the interest of the federal government to maintain the stance it presented in the Defense of Marriage Act. Section 2 states "the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Posted by king3opobn 3 years ago
king3opobn
Marriage is defined in the bible and is therefore not open for redefinition. The basic tenet is one man and one woman joined together. This does not mean that individuals in same sex relationships should have different or reduced human rights, just that their relationship is not a marriage. Civil partnerships should afford those rights rather than calling such arrangements a marriage. Plus legalizing gay marriage wouldn't make people accept them or it. Marriage is a covenant entered into by a man and woman under God's authority. Getting a license from the government says the government is allowing us to do something that God has already given us the right to do, and is in control of our marriage, who and how we get married, and what we do as a couple afterwards. Mandatory licenses were instituted for monetary control reasons in the late 1800s and weren't fully adopted by all states until the 1930s. There was a time in America's history when marriages simply had to be publicly announced and recorded in the family Bible with the signature of the presiding minister and some witnesses. They were recorded in a city or county building for purposes of keeping record after the fact, not as a method of granting permission beforehand. We should get back that, and get government out of God's business.
Posted by king3opobn 3 years ago
king3opobn
Sure buddy, you must be gay. Please enlighten me, where you get that information that marriage is not biblical?
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
Also the Bible does NOT dictate legislation so no matter what the Bible says, it's still not relevant to American society and laws.
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
Marriage is NOT a Biblical idea. The concept of marriage existed BEFORE Christianity and the Bible and was practiced in almost every known civilization on the planet. The most common form of marriage was between one man and MULTIPLE women. So I am already on the PRO side.
Posted by Sitara 3 years ago
Sitara
I am on your side already.
No votes have been placed for this debate.