The Instigator
TheGoldMustache
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Juris
Con (against)
Winning
11 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 2 votes the winner is...
Juris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 410 times Debate No: 72865
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

TheGoldMustache

Pro

The only argument against gay marriage is that it goes against some religions. Just because something goes against a religion, doesn't mean it is right to abolish it. Shrimp is considered wrong in Christianity, but there are no laws restricting it. People are not allowed to kill their child for disrespecting them, nor is is illegal to marry a woman who is not a virgin.
Juris

Con


There is nothing to abolish when in the first place it is not present. I will be presenting arguments to oppose same-sex marriage primarily not based on religion but on other aspects such as in economy, tax, and the like, which I will expound after you present your own arguments (you should present your case first because you are in affirmative).


Same-Sex Marriage is not allowed not because it is restricted per se but because marriage is a privilege given only to those who are qualified for the reason that in marriage, it is more than love, it involves the government and people’s taxes to support marriage which is the foundation of family.


Debate Round No. 1
TheGoldMustache

Pro

"marriage is a privilege given only to those who are qualified for the reason that in marriage, it is more than love, it involves the government and people"s taxes to support marriage which is the foundation of family." But, why do gay people not qualify for that? I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Please elaborate.
Juris

Con

What are you doing? You should present at least 2-3 arguments to support your stand, not just ask simple question. (I will elaborate my arguments after you do that because you are in affirmative)

It is incorrect to say that gays are not allowed to marry someone. Gays are allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Arguments:

  1. a. Allowing same sex-marriage would create extension of rights. Members of LGBT Community are not prohibited to marry a person. They are allowed to marry someone from the opposite sex. In this case, there is equal treatment in terms of who are qualified for marriage. But by allowing same-sex marriage, the government would extend the rights of other people. Consequently; this extension of right is unfair because there would be additional benefits such as tax exemption, social security, employment benefits, medical benefits, and the like, extended to them where in fact they are already eligible for that when they marry members of the opposite sex.1 Clearly, same-sex marriage would create this unwarranted extension of rights.

b. The government values marriage because it is the foundation of family. The Family is an integral part of the society, and the government has every reason to protect it. The government encourages people to marry by providing benefits such as tax exemption so that they create family. In a family, a child is born. This child will be part of the society, he can either become an asset or a liability, depending on how his parents discipline him.

In a same-sex marriage, a child is not possible naturally. As a result, contribution to the society is hampered. This is one of the reasons why government avoids that kind of scenario from happening.

(I will expound all my arguments later)

As you can see, I did not use any religious arguments.

1 Marriage Rights and Benefits. URL: http://www.nolo.com...

Debate Round No. 2
TheGoldMustache

Pro

A straight couple adoptin is considered fine, so why isn't a gay couple adopting doing the same? You need to apply your arguments to straight couples. They are not allowed to marry the same gender; if straights had to marry the same sex there would be outrage
Juris

Con

You are misleading and avoiding the issue. You even deliberately avoided my arguments. So as far as those arguments that you did not rebut are concerned, they are remain in good standing.


This issue is about same-sex marriage not gay adoption.


In this moment, you have yet to present any sensible arguments.

Debate Round No. 3
TheGoldMustache

Pro

Just because they gain rights does not mean straights lose rights. They are simply getting the right to marry, which does not affect others negatively. The difference between gays and straights is their reproducing. That's ir.
Juris

Con

It is extension of rights. Marriage involves taxpayers' money. Why would the people and the government spend on something that majority of the people don't support because it is clearly not beneficial as discussed above.

I must win in this debate because you failed to present sensible arguments and you failed to rebut my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
TheGoldMustache

Pro

TheGoldMustache forfeited this round.
Juris

Con

Please vote! thanks!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Lewis_P 1 year ago
Lewis_P
Frustrating that Pro did not address Cons arguments or present any of their own.

RE: Gays already have the same rights as straight couples.
The issue is that straight people are capable of marrying the person they love, while gay people are not. That is where the inequality in rights exists. Obviously both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but only one has the ability to marry someone they love. Parallels are frequently drawn between this issue and interracial marriage as the same arguments apply on both sides of the debate. People should be able to marry the person they love. Equal rights for all :)
Posted by cheertheworld 1 year ago
cheertheworld
Although as an emotional being i could have voted in favour of gay marriage. But, if you analyze the topic as a reasonable being and not a reckless person, you'll certainly be against it. Any specific species where male and female exist, they are supposed to be married or indulged to opposite sex. They are supposed to be continuing the species' existence. But mutation in a being to indulge with same sex also can't be avoided. I might feel like a biology teacher, but these realities can't be ignored. Discussing on this topic is like dropping off a wall having Grave on both sides. We might not ever come to conclude the decision.... Whether to support it or not.
Posted by Juris 1 year ago
Juris
ok. Just post your arguments.
Posted by TheGoldMustache 1 year ago
TheGoldMustache
I'm sorry, I'm a member as if today. I'm not familiar with the format of the debates
Posted by Juris 1 year ago
Juris
What do you think you are doing? Don't extend your round in the comment section.
Posted by TheGoldMustache 1 year ago
TheGoldMustache
How is giving gays rights giving hem benefits? Your argument about "extra benefits" is invalid. If one person has one dollar, and the other ine has zero, and you give that one a dollar, you're not taking money. You're giving it
Posted by TheGoldMustache 1 year ago
TheGoldMustache
I posted it..... Check.
Posted by Juris 1 year ago
Juris
what are you doing? where are your arguments?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by PointlessQuestions 1 year ago
PointlessQuestions
TheGoldMustacheJurisTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I Agree With Pro, He Didn't Make Any Real Arguments And Forfeited And Thus I Must Award The Debate To Con.
Vote Placed by kman100 1 year ago
kman100
TheGoldMustacheJurisTied
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: Pro just ignored Cons arguments and rebuttals, leaving his case mostly demolished. Conduct goes to Pro because of the forfeit, and sources go to pro given that con used no sources.