The Instigator
SydneyDANIELLE
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
41 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 8 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 566 times Debate No: 59062
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (8)

 

SydneyDANIELLE

Pro

I think that gay people should be allowed to get married. I mean why not? They are no different than us.. They haven't chosen to be gay. So many people say they choose to be gay. Some people take their lives because they don't want to be gay. Think for a minute about this.. Did you ever just choose to be straight? Or were you born like that? People can't help who they love, and they shouldn't be punished or feel downgraded. They are the same as us. They are just humans. Everyone's different. If this has to do with religion, doesn't god say love everyone?
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Homosexuals should not get married.

First let me give you a Bible verse that is against the Bible.


Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Now I state that homosexuals should not get married, because it is against many different religions and we can all agree that marriage is a religious Sacrament where that the church says it is between a man and a women. ( http://www.americancatholic.org...) Now the US has the Separation of church and state, so my point is that the federal government should stay out of a religious affair as it has no right to intervene.

Contention 2: Civil Unions are a better alternative to Gay marriage

Now I know my opponent will probably bring up that I don't want two people that love each other together, but that is false. I as fact have two homosexual uncles, but am still against Gay Marriage. I instead support Civil Unions. What are Civil Unions you may ask? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Civil Union is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Now reading this you may ask yourself why are you against gay marriage then? Simply for the reason stated in Contention 2. Let me show you it's effectiveness. New Jersey and Vermont both have legalized Civil Unions instead of Gay Marriage and they give you the same exact right as a married couple. Here's who can enter a Civil Union.

  • the same sex
  • over 18 years old (or meet requirements for an exception)
  • not a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriage
  • not closely related to each other (for example, not an ancestor, descendant, sibling, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle)
Also according to Pew research Center, 57% of Americans approve of Civil Unions (with a 37% oppose) while 53% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage (37% favor).

Here are the support numbers between men and women. Men Civil Unions: 54% for 40% against, women Civil Unions: 60% for 35% oppose, Men Gay Marriage: 34% for 59% oppose, Women Gay Marriage 43% for 48% against. (http://www.people-press.org...)








Contention 3: Financial gain from Civil Unions

Civil Union produce tons of money. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence. (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...)
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
SydneyDANIELLElannan13Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments and was able to soundly hold his points up on the Bible and the civil unions alternative. Sources to Con to for sources.
Vote Placed by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
SydneyDANIELLElannan13Tied
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: I agree that the idea of civil unions is better than that of gay marriage; also, con used better sources and had lengthier arguments, while pro simply stated that something "should" be this way.
Vote Placed by Paradigm 2 years ago
Paradigm
SydneyDANIELLElannan13Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con obviously wins the arguments points because it was a one round debate and Pro barely had anything to say. Con also gets the sources vote because he had... sources. Con did well but overall it was a very disappointing debate - due to the lack of actual debating. I don't understand why one round debates are even allowed - they're consistently a waste of time.
Vote Placed by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
SydneyDANIELLElannan13Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Whilst I disagree with everything Con said from his logic to his support stats for gay marriage, Pro didn't really provide an argument, and Con did - a relatively good one at that. I won't give con the point for sourcing because he manipulated his figures to appear relevant to the time of the debate (2014), when they actually came from 2006 and 2009, respectively.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
SydneyDANIELLElannan13Tied
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: Thank you. . . .
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SydneyDANIELLElannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro barely provided any arguments within his mere one round.
Vote Placed by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
SydneyDANIELLElannan13Tied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments are weak biblical and opinionated. To prohibit same sex marriage, the government needs to provide a legitimate, rational reason to do so (rational basis test). The Bible cannot be used to dictate legislation, it violates the First Amendment. The US has always had a separation of church and state, contrary to what con says. Con's argument on civil unions is based on opinion rather than fact. A majority of people support civil unions..so what? If a majority of people supported slavery, why isn't it legalized? And, if they are better, shouldn't everyone form one rather than a marriage? If civil unions are in fact better for the economy, we should abolish marriage and make civil unions the only form of legal recognition of relationships.
Vote Placed by Siladheil 2 years ago
Siladheil
SydneyDANIELLElannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I absolutely agree with Pro on the topic of gay marriage. I'm going to have to give the points to Con because of the argument style and the staticics that he brought to the table. Pro, I feel like you're new to this. Check out a few debates before starting another one.